Join Strava..there are a lot of elites on there that post all of their stuff. Some people's easy runs are quicker than others, but it's hard to draw a correlation as to what kinds of results come from it.
Join Strava..there are a lot of elites on there that post all of their stuff. Some people's easy runs are quicker than others, but it's hard to draw a correlation as to what kinds of results come from it.
I think crushing it every run toughens you up big time, but I know first hand I lacked sharpness and felt dull much of my college running experience. Training at a good level will leave you tired much of the time but you’re not really doing yourself any favors by doing every run at your absolute fastest.
“ All top international athletes wake up in the morning feeling tired and go to bed feeling very tired.”
— Brendan Foster
robert678 wrote:
Nick Willis often runs at 7:00-7:30 pace. Lagat seldom runs over 6:00 pace. Rupp runs 5:30-5:45 pace. Frank Shorter used to do 6:30-7:00 pace. The list goes on. The point is that pace varies from athlete to athlete. Some athletes like a faster easy pace, some don't. Physiologically speaking, you only need to run 60-65% max heart rate on easy runs to improve maximum heart stroke volume (the primary easy pace adaptation).
It's possible that some of those pros do their easy runs too fast, but no way to know for sure, because everyone's different. Easy days easy. Hard days hard. No reason to over do it on easy days. As long as your easy runs are at a conversational pace and you aren't slogging along at a super slow pace, you're probably going to be fine. It's easy to run them too fast, so when in doubt go a little slower to play it safe.
And what's the difference between Willis and Lagat/Rupp? The others are more slow-twitch, meaning they can handle faster easy runs (Magness). Willis would start burning glycogen and recruit more FT fibers earlier than Rupp and Lagat, so if he would run at 5:45 pace he wouldn't be able to recover whereas for Rupp and Lagat it's an easy jog around 1 mmol of lactate.
This would also be demonstrated in performances in longer races, meaning due to having more ST fibers, Lagat and Rupp would be able to do better in longer races, like a 10k or half marathon than Willis.
Artificially running slow is not good (unless you are more FT). Farah improved massively after Salazar was changing his easy pace from 7 min miles down to 5:30-5:45. He was simply getting more bang for his buck. He tried the same with Cain, but she broke down running 6:00-6:20 for her easy days. She was more fast-twitch, and not nearly as developed aerobically, therefore couldn't handle the faster easy pace.
Conclusion?
1) If improving easy pace, it needs to be done gradually.
2) If more FT, run slower, if more ST, run faster. Also take mileage into consideration (5:45 for Lagat is not the same as 5:45 for Rupp/Farah, since we compared 70 mpw to 110 mpw).
This discussion puzzles me. Here is why.
In 1983 Brian Jaeger of Winter Park FL H.S. won the old International Prep 2 mile in Chicago in 8:56.98. The next morning a few of the athletes and coaches (I coached the 4th place finisher) went for an easy 6-7 miler. After a mile or so Jaeger let us go. We asked why. He said his coach told him not to go faster than 7' pace. I didn't understand. We had speeded up, I guess, maybe to 6:30-6:45 pace but my thought was "how can he tell." it was all just jogging. The previous day he had raced back-to-back sub-4:30s. Surely anything over 6:00 probably felt like jogging to him.
That is my point. Surely for elite runners anything over 6:00 feels like jogging. Why plod through it at 7:00 or 8:00 - or slower! - pace. So tedious/boring. I was far from elite but even for me it felt almost painful to jog that slowly.
Caveat: I acknowledge my ignorance about what the physiologists say. (But if they say I am wrong I will ask if they are the same experts who told Salazar to drink only body temp. fluids during the 1984 Olympic marathon. :) )
I was never elite (4:02 mile best outdoors) but worked out with some faster guys from time to time. Big variability like others have said in terms of how fast they run their off day runs. Some ran 6:00 pace while others ran 8+.
Personally, I went by feel. In the base season I probably ran most of my miles at 6:00-6:30 with the exception of double days when the second run would by a 7:30-8:00 jog for 30mins. This was easy because I didn’t have to worry about hard days as they were usually tempos or long cruise intervals.
Closer to track season I dropped the doubles and my easy runs (60 mins) usually were ~7:30. If I had tried to go 6:00 pace my track sessions would suffer
If I was really bagged I might slow it down to 8:30 or even slower.
Friday Coffee wrote:
^... how slow do elite runners do their recovery sessions..? In a general sense milers to marathoners are going to differ in their paces over specific distances; top 1500/5000 guys going as fast as 2:50-3/km for up to an hour ..to marathoners going slower ~4:20 for long runs or as fast as 3:12/km for up to 40km. Anyone with some real specifics about this topic and maybe some results good or bad ?
1/10
nobody, and I mean NOBODY does easy runs at 2:50/km pace. That is 14:10 5km pace. That is a sub 60 minute half marathon. That is literally Kipchoge's Ineos SUB 2 Marathon pace. And since marathon pace is FASTER than easy pace nobody runs 2:50/k easy runs.
If you disagree how about you try running a 14:10 5k while I bike beside you just to be sure you're hitting pace. Oh, Wait! you CAN'T!
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
robert678 wrote:
Nick Willis often runs at 7:00-7:30 pace. Lagat seldom runs over 6:00 pace. Rupp runs 5:30-5:45 pace. Frank Shorter used to do 6:30-7:00 pace. The list goes on. The point is that pace varies from athlete to athlete. Some athletes like a faster easy pace, some don't. Physiologically speaking, you only need to run 60-65% max heart rate on easy runs to improve maximum heart stroke volume (the primary easy pace adaptation).
It's possible that some of those pros do their easy runs too fast, but no way to know for sure, because everyone's different. Easy days easy. Hard days hard. No reason to over do it on easy days. As long as your easy runs are at a conversational pace and you aren't slogging along at a super slow pace, you're probably going to be fine. It's easy to run them too fast, so when in doubt go a little slower to play it safe.
And what's the difference between Willis and Lagat/Rupp? The others are more slow-twitch, meaning they can handle faster easy runs (Magness). Willis would start burning glycogen and recruit more FT fibers earlier than Rupp and Lagat, so if he would run at 5:45 pace he wouldn't be able to recover whereas for Rupp and Lagat it's an easy jog around 1 mmol of lactate.
This would also be demonstrated in performances in longer races, meaning due to having more ST fibers, Lagat and Rupp would be able to do better in longer races, like a 10k or half marathon than Willis.
Artificially running slow is not good (unless you are more FT). Farah improved massively after Salazar was changing his easy pace from 7 min miles down to 5:30-5:45. He was simply getting more bang for his buck. He tried the same with Cain, but she broke down running 6:00-6:20 for her easy days. She was more fast-twitch, and not nearly as developed aerobically, therefore couldn't handle the faster easy pace.
Conclusion?
1) If improving easy pace, it needs to be done gradually.
2) If more FT, run slower, if more ST, run faster. Also take mileage into consideration (5:45 for Lagat is not the same as 5:45 for Rupp/Farah, since we compared 70 mpw to 110 mpw).
Again, this is not how it works. You dont get more bang for the buck going quicker. Elite runners dont distribute their intensity that way either.
Moreover, if you want to get more bang for the buck and it's not enough stimulus, go longer. Do 16hrs instead of 14.
Now there are some exceptions to this as we move away from aerobic athletes, starting at about 1500m and looking at 400/800 as well.
As usual, you're fairly ignorant about the training of most elites, and the physiology behind all of this. Lagat is not an example of a typical elite. He is a very unique outlier. Also notice the training of the vast .majority of Kenyan/Ethiopian elites and what's typical for a European elite. In all cases, 9/10 guys are going to be doing 90% of their training or so in easy Z1. 60-70% of HRmax.
SouthernSun wrote:
This discussion puzzles me. Here is why.
In 1983 Brian Jaeger of Winter Park FL H.S. won the old International Prep 2 mile in Chicago in 8:56.98. The next morning a few of the athletes and coaches (I coached the 4th place finisher) went for an easy 6-7 miler. After a mile or so Jaeger let us go. We asked why. He said his coach told him not to go faster than 7' pace. I didn't understand. We had speeded up, I guess, maybe to 6:30-6:45 pace but my thought was "how can he tell." it was all just jogging. The previous day he had raced back-to-back sub-4:30s. Surely anything over 6:00 probably felt like jogging to him.
That is my point. Surely for elite runners anything over 6:00 feels like jogging. Why plod through it at 7:00 or 8:00 - or slower! - pace. So tedious/boring. I was far from elite but even for me it felt almost painful to jog that slowly.
Caveat: I acknowledge my ignorance about what the physiologists say. (But if they say I am wrong I will ask if they are the same experts who told Salazar to drink only body temp. fluids during the 1984 Olympic marathon. :) )
It doesnt feel the same. At all.
It's almost suprising you can say this. Its all jogging, yes, but the difference between super recovery 55% of HRMax, versus true easy 60-65% vs faster easy around 70%...all feel very different. Both stride and effort wise.
Why plod through it slower? Because the goal of the aerobic run is aerobic benefits, those adaptations don't really improve from increasing pace. So an hour at 6' pace for a 13:00 guy gives the same benefit as an hour at 8' pace
No reason to go harder, lots of reasons to go easier
LM wrote:
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
And what's the difference between Willis and Lagat/Rupp? The others are more slow-twitch, meaning they can handle faster easy runs (Magness). Willis would start burning glycogen and recruit more FT fibers earlier than Rupp and Lagat, so if he would run at 5:45 pace he wouldn't be able to recover whereas for Rupp and Lagat it's an easy jog around 1 mmol of lactate.
This would also be demonstrated in performances in longer races, meaning due to having more ST fibers, Lagat and Rupp would be able to do better in longer races, like a 10k or half marathon than Willis.
Artificially running slow is not good (unless you are more FT). Farah improved massively after Salazar was changing his easy pace from 7 min miles down to 5:30-5:45. He was simply getting more bang for his buck. He tried the same with Cain, but she broke down running 6:00-6:20 for her easy days. She was more fast-twitch, and not nearly as developed aerobically, therefore couldn't handle the faster easy pace.
Conclusion?
1) If improving easy pace, it needs to be done gradually.
2) If more FT, run slower, if more ST, run faster. Also take mileage into consideration (5:45 for Lagat is not the same as 5:45 for Rupp/Farah, since we compared 70 mpw to 110 mpw).
Again, this is not how it works. You dont get more bang for the buck going quicker. Elite runners dont distribute their intensity that way either.
Moreover, if you want to get more bang for the buck and it's not enough stimulus, go longer. Do 16hrs instead of 14.
Now there are some exceptions to this as we move away from aerobic athletes, starting at about 1500m and looking at 400/800 as well.
As usual, you're fairly ignorant about the training of most elites, and the physiology behind all of this. Lagat is not an example of a typical elite. He is a very unique outlier. Also notice the training of the vast .majority of Kenyan/Ethiopian elites and what's typical for a European elite. In all cases, 9/10 guys are going to be doing 90% of their training or so in easy Z1. 60-70% of HRmax.
No, it's the opposite. The cases were elite runners run 8 min miles are the exception rather than the rule. They probably use this pace only when they are really beat up from something, but their regular "easy runs" are much faster.
Solinsky always ran quality mileage, despite running 100-110 mile weeks. Had his dog not tripped him over, he probably would have never got injured doing it. Quality means 6 min miles and faster already in high school.
Salazar FORCED Farah to run faster on his easy days - 7 min/mile down to 5:30. That change turned him from a great international runner into the best one in the world. He beat all those guys who kept running 8 min miles on their easy days all the time. Salazar said that Farah at 7 min/mile pace was just burning calories without getting better. The most important thing to improve for elites is running economy, and a 5:30 pace surely does that better than a 7:00 pace.
You are not lifting your knees high enough, your cadence is not high, and it feels really weird to run 8 min miles as a ~13:00 guy. That's like a 16:00 guy doing 11 min miles, you think that's gonna feel good for him?
Yes, Mottram ran very easy (getting dropped by ladies he was running with). Yes, Willis ran very easy (getting dropped by Michigan on easy days).
So we have runners who run slow on easy days and are successful, and then runners who run fast and are successful. Training is incredibly complex, we can't just say one is better than the other. People here assume that slower easy runs are always better and have the same benefits, both is nonsense. Faster easy runs work for many guys, AND there are no specific paces causing adaptions (like Daniels philosophy - easy is enough, then nothing changes until you hit threshold pace, where suddenly you work on threshold. What about the entire range between easy and threshold?). The faster you run, the more you shift towards more and higher adaptions.
In my experience there is real variation (though all of it with female runners).
I know multiple sub 4:10 1500m women who do their non workout day runs at a steady 7:35-7:45/mile pace. Also know a 4:15 gal who does 5:50-6:00 pace.
Then contrasting sub 4 1500 women - one who does everything around 7:00 or a bit below versus another sub 4 woman who will be more 5:55-6:05.
You should be doing what you feel you need. If you're feeling good after a hard day then there's nothing wrong with running low 7's or under but if you're feeling completely dead then go ahead rip off some 8 minute miles.
I'm 28:30 10k and low 63 half. My pace is 4:10-4:15 on easy days when I'm doing big workouts. If it's in the base phase I'll go a little quicker since my intensity isn't high and I'll average 3:55-4:00 on easy days. So it depends on the overall intensity of the training. When you're doing hard workouts, go easier on the easy days. When you're building base, you can go faster.
I know a guy who ran 2:14 in a thon and a week later I destroyed him on a tempo run. He was shuffling along and he didn't go with me when I passed by. I just chuckled inside and drove on.
For what it's worth, I did a hard interval session at the BYU indoor track complex with Paul Cummings and Doug Padilla and a few others back around 83 or 84. Of course they were way ahead of me doing the intervals. Afterwards went out to do a three mile warm down. It's probably about 25-26 degrees outside. Those two guys ran so slow. It was hard to believe that such fast guys run so slow on their recovery run.
Elite runners do their recovery runs at a pace that allows them to recover and don't give a crap about how fast/slow this is, so they can run fast when it really matters.
Hobby Joggers run at a pace dictated by their ego and ask questions like the OP's si that they can feel faster than elites, at least for one training session.
Mid D guy wrote:
Elite runners do their recovery runs at a pace that allows them to recover and don't give a crap about how fast/slow this is, so they can run fast when it really matters.
Hobby Joggers run at a pace dictated by their ego and ask questions like the OP's si that they can feel faster than elites, at least for one training session.
+1
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
Salazar FORCED Farah to run faster on his easy days - 7 min/mile down to 5:30. That change turned him from a great international runner into the best one in the world. He beat all those guys who kept running 8 min miles on their easy days all the time. Salazar said that Farah at 7 min/mile pace was just burning calories without getting better. The most important thing to improve for elites is running economy, and a 5:30 pace surely does that better than a 7:00 pace.
You are not lifting your knees high enough, your cadence is not high, and it feels really weird to run 8 min miles as a ~13:00 guy. That's like a 16:00 guy doing 11 min miles, you think that's gonna feel good for him?
This thread is about easy pace for recovery. 5.30 miling for Rupp and Farah was not easy recovery.
If you want to post specious numbers for 'easy' pace, don't be surprised if you are met with disagreement. 5.30 miling for them would be better place into a category named intensive endurance, i.e. slightly sub marathon pace.
controlling the control freaks wrote:
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
Salazar FORCED Farah to run faster on his easy days - 7 min/mile down to 5:30. That change turned him from a great international runner into the best one in the world. He beat all those guys who kept running 8 min miles on their easy days all the time. Salazar said that Farah at 7 min/mile pace was just burning calories without getting better. The most important thing to improve for elites is running economy, and a 5:30 pace surely does that better than a 7:00 pace.
You are not lifting your knees high enough, your cadence is not high, and it feels really weird to run 8 min miles as a ~13:00 guy. That's like a 16:00 guy doing 11 min miles, you think that's gonna feel good for him?
This thread is about easy pace for recovery. 5.30 miling for Rupp and Farah was not easy recovery.
If you want to post specious numbers for 'easy' pace, don't be surprised if you are met with disagreement. 5.30 miling for them would be better place into a category named intensive endurance, i.e. slightly sub marathon pace.
I think EXtensive endurance would be the term you were looking for ..not intensive you used.
Happy Thanksgiving wrote:
controlling the control freaks wrote:
This thread is about easy pace for recovery. 5.30 miling for Rupp and Farah was not easy recovery.
If you want to post specious numbers for 'easy' pace, don't be surprised if you are met with disagreement. 5.30 miling for them would be better place into a category named intensive endurance, i.e. slightly sub marathon pace.
I think EXtensive endurance would be the term you were looking for ..not intensive you used.
Well you're the poster who thinks they can re-invent the biochemistry of metabolic acidosis, so what would you know?
See #2. I keep coming back to this article all of the time. It's really timeless.
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2006/09/wejo-speaks-why-i-sucked-in-college/
Faster Doesn’t Equal Better
Now, looking back at my logs, 2 specifics stand out: 1) How much faster I ran in college on most runs than I did when I actually was good and how hard I ran intervals and 2) How much less I ran and less endurance I had in college compared to after.
First, we’ll address how much faster I ran in college. I knew this off the top of my head, but in college I would average all my runs as being 6:30 a mile or faster. And looking at my logs, this is shown as well. I’ll have a 10 miler at 6:20 pace and that is an easy day. I used to try and pretend that I run 7:00 pace on my easy days now, but I think it is often much slower than that. The point is now I don’t really care about the pace. I’m not trying to run “slow” by any means, but I have no concerns that I am going too slow. But when I am running twice a day, 120 miles a week, the pace is the last thing I need to even think about. I need to go too “slow” (in your opinion not mine) if I want to workout consistently and effectively. In college, the day after an easy day, I’d have a track workout often with some sort of ladder, say 4-6-4-2 or say 1600-1200-800-600-400-200. And looking at the workouts I see I could bang out the short intervals. Most college kids and high school kids can. What they lack is endurance. I was always trying to make sure I hit a certain pace instead of learning how to relax when I was running.
My coach, Steve Bartold (Aka Daddy B) in college would try and get us to learn how to run without the watch, to go off of feel, but we didn’t listen too well to him, as we had too much desire to hit a certain pace or split. He’d tell us we were doing intervals as fast as some previous All-Americans, and at the time I thought he was lying to us trying to get our confidence up. Looking back, I tend to believe him. But the difference was, we were straining too hard to hit the same times those previous All-Americans had been running.
Running fast on your easy days is the least important part of training IMO. easy days should be a way to recover from your hard days. The body simply can't go hard every day and needs modulation between stress and recovery.
The most important part of distance running is improving your aerobic ability. Many runners hate the feeling of running slow; it can feel so easy and boring. I think slow running (60% of max heart) rate is the most important part of training.
If you don't like the slow running on easy days just add 5-6 short 10 second strides with 1-2 min recovery to stretch your legs out and remind the body what speed feels like. Building a base of speed is just as important as building a base of endurance IMO.