On the ratio between half marathon pace and easy run pace

Aerobo-Cop wrote:

Jayordon wrote:

I could probably run a 1:28 half right now. My 3 mile is 16:30 (17:05 5k). A 1:28 half marathon, by your logic, would mean my easy pace is 9:35. That pace is unbearably slow. My easy runs are 7:30 on a good day, 8:00 on average, 8:30 at the worst. I can't imagine running 9 minute pace and feeling good about it. Even if I could actually run a 1:20 (highly unlikely), my easy pace is supposedly 8:42. That's still not very close to my average. 8:42 seems realistic only if I'm rapidly increasing mileage and/or intensity

Hate to break it to ya, pal, but you have a horrible aerobic engine. Off of 17:05, you should be at 1:20 or better. By running your easy runs too fast, you are training the wrong systems and undermining your endurance...the classic hoggyjogger mistake.

Nope, I'm just a high school kid who doesn't train for a half marathon. I train for 800m-5k. But regardless of that, like I said, running 1:20 would give me an easy pace of 8:42. That's still super slow

I think that some of you, especially @lollerama, understood most of what I wanted to say. Since I am not an english native speaker, I'll list what is the logic underlying my post:

1) I do my easy and recovery runs following "heart rate principles". In particular, easy runs are run between 70-75% MHR (MHR=maximum heart rate); recovery runs are run below 70% MHR.

2) I like numbers and did some calculations considering Kipchoge's, my folks', and mine training logs and I was surprised that the ratio between recovery run pace (RRP) and half marathon pace (HMP) lined up, at least to some extent. As I said, this ratio across these people is around 0.7.

2i) What surprised me about this? The fact that my RRP depends solely on heart rate, it is not a pre-specified pace, and it still gives me a ratio close to 0.7. I do not know whether my folks' or Kipchoge's RRP are pre-specified or stem from heart rate monitor considerations, but the fact that the ratio of all these people was around 0.7 surprised me. This is why I liked to share this with you, to be able brainstorm a little bit and, if possible, share data.

3) Despite I use the heart rate monitor to run recovery runs, there are some people that run them at some pre-specified paces, they think that heart rate training is bullshit, so I tried to just persuade them to run slower the recovery runs by using the "0.7 formula". I am fully aware that the formula is not the ground TRUTH, it is not derived by analizing data from a large sample of athetles enrolled in a longitudinal study. However, I think that it gives you some sensible guidance if you use it in a smart way. The weak spot of the formula is for those people that run the HM in more than 90 minutes: recovery runs are predicted very slow. The peolpe I tried to persuade made this point and explained that the slower you are the less room there is between the threshold pace (TP) and RRP and easy run pace. In my previous post I was asking about this (and someone replied), because my feeling is that in this way slow runners are going to run recovery runs and easy runs at paces near the marathon pace. Thoughts about this?

To give you some insights about the "0.7 formula" I developed some calculations starting from Renato Canova's guidelines for marathon training. The pace of recovery runs is given below 0.8*MP (MP=marathon pace), while easy runs pace is defined between 0.8*MP and 0.85*MP. I never ran a marathon, but I found out that most of recreational runners can/should run a marathon at about 0.9 of HMP. With this relation we can express Canova's guidelines in terms of HMP:

1) Recovery: 0.72*HMP

2) Easy: (0.72-0.76)*HMP

So, provided that it is sensible to translate marathon guidelines into half marathon ones, you see that RRP derived in this way is not so far from the "0.7 formula". I found this curious. What do you think?

I think that it is clear that I am not trying to compare myself to the guy that run the marathn in early 2 hours to convince the peolpe that I am right. And for those that asked in which way my training is similar to Kipchoge's here is my reply: the polarization principle. Hard workouts followed by recovery and easy runs. Most of you are going to say that this is the obvious way of training, but many runners fail to accomplish this because they do not rest or run recovery or easy runs too fast. Finally:

a) Kipchoge's is a pro, I am a shitty 80 minutes HM runner.

b) Kipchoge's train twice a day, I train once.

c) Kipchoge's train at about 2000 meters from the sea level, I train at sea level.

So yes, there are differences, but them do not prevent me and us to play a little bit with numbers to try to gain some insights, to discuss about "my calculations", about what it is not clear in my post, and possibly in a civil way.

firstly noone can say that your doing your recovery runs at the correct pace as we dont know your overall schedule maybe you should be doing them as an easy run the same goes with your freinds and heartrate percentages are only relevant if you know your true max

I think that no one really knows his/her true max, you can estimate it more or less accurately. If yoi are not comfortable with MHR we can try to circumvent this problem by using the heart rate at threshold.

I train 6/7 tpw, a total of 90-100km, 2 hard sessions, so I think that recovery runs are needed and must be run at RRP (in my casethis means running below 70%MHR).

Tripolar wrote:

I think that no one really knows his/her true max, you can estimate it more or less accurately. If yoi are not comfortable with MHR we can try to circumvent this problem by using the heart rate at threshold.

I train 6/7 tpw, a total of 90-100km, 2 hard sessions, so I think that recovery runs are needed and must be run at RRP (in my casethis means running below 70%MHR).

what is your typical week?

I think we are missing the "big picture" and the aim if the topic.

This summer, prior to get injuried, my tipycal week was (kind of introductory phase):

1 long run (about 15 miles) at near 70%MHR;

1 run at 85%MHR (9 to 11 miles)

1 intervals/progression run

The rest was 1/2 wasy runs (12miles) and 2/3 recovery runs (9 miles).

On the long run I was not pushing hard because it was hot. There were "a lot" of recovery runs just because I was increasing mileage.

Tripolar wrote:

I think we are missing the "big picture" and the aim if the topic.

This summer, prior to get injuried, my tipycal week was (kind of introductory phase):

1 long run (about 15 miles) at near 70%MHR;

1 run at 85%MHR (9 to 11 miles)

1 intervals/progression run

The rest was 1/2 wasy runs (12miles) and 2/3 recovery runs (9 miles).

On the long run I was not pushing hard because it was hot. There were "a lot" of recovery runs just because I was increasing mileage.

'The point is the following: I have been talking about this with some guys slower than me that run easy/recovery runs much faster than me (from 30"/km up to 1'/km) and that keep telling that my easy/recovery runs are ridiculous. ' seems relevant what your training is simply put sometimes the equation does work sometimes it dosnt and im not sure what workout your recovering from for the 2-3 recovery runs id say some of them should of been easy so your friends had a point

Hopefully English is your 11th language.