Not THAT unpopular there have been many coaches/professionals who have suggested that once you plateau the best way to improve is to try and increase the running pace that you’re body is able to recover at.
This thread is laughable, because nobody has pointed out that 1 minute slower than 5K pace means one thing if your 5K pace is 4:30 and something very different if your 5K pace is 6:00.
1 minute slower than 4:30 pace (14 minute 5K) is 22% slower.
1 minute slower than 6:00 pace is 16.6% slower.
1 minute slower than 7:53 pace--my current 5K pace at age 63--is only 12.7% slower. I'd need to slow by almost 2 minutes a mile, relative to my 5K pace, in order to equal the slowdown of somebody with a 14 minute 5K who is running 5:30 pace. His 5:30 pace is more like my 9:40 pace.
We should be talking in terms of percentages, not in terms of minutes.
Lol, I’m a decent freshman runner (5:10 1600 indoors) and I doubt I could sustain a sub 150 heart rate for <25 minutes at basically any pace.
This comment confirms you are a HS freshman runner without you needing to state you’re a freshman.
Keep building that aerobic base dude. Easy days easy, there’s no such thing as flexing easy pace. I guarantee you there’s a pace that you can sustain where you won’t go over 150 bpm. For me that’s about a 7:30-7:40 mile in good weather, as someone running an altitude converted 4:11 mile, so I’d slap a minute onto that pace and give it a try.
yeah, I agree completely with percentages but I just wanted to make a quick general statement. Didn't think too deeply into it. I just happen to run my easy runs and generally make it down to marathon effort for easy runs. The whole idea is based off of how El Guerrouj, Radcliffe, Mo, and Galen run their easy runs. I think people assume this thread is a joke because they're hobby joggers. 5:30 is a slightly pushing effort for most slow twitch runners in a 45 minute session. This definitely doesn't work though if you're actually gonna run above 70 mpw with workouts (if you haven't built up to it). To repeat, a good male hobby jogger with an 19 minute 5k will definitely read pros running X:XX for their easy days and think
"THEY CAN'T RECOVER WITHOUT ROIDS?!?!"
For El Guerrouj and Radcliffe this might be true, but then again they're full of extraordinary talent compared to most. I don't know if I would recommend fast easy days if you're above 40 or not slow twitch. I don't see much point in running longer than around 35-45 (except 60 for long run) since what Marius Bakken has said upon easy day minutes. Workouts definitely must be kept in with these runs though and they might be slower from time to time after hard workouts.
(pressed reply on kudzu runner since he is right about percentage paces rather than flat 1 min below 5k, this makes me think now that tinman's 2.5 min below 5k is only really beneficial for elites)
tl;dr, not a troll. trolls will instantly dismiss training that isn't EASY DAYS EASY HARD DAYS HARD.
As a hobbyist endurance athlete and exercise physiology junkie with no formal education, just lots of reading/studying and arm chair speculating, I have gone full circle in my take on training and in particular the easy day pace debate.
I spent my own high school and college training days embracing the idea that if you want to be good, you just have to train hard and hang on day in, day out. Five stress fractures later, I came across the work of Stephen seiler and the polarized training model and also the incredible essay that EVERYONE ON LETSRUN should read from a letsrun legend, Hadd.
This polarized approach had rapid results and kept me injury free but also basically couldn’t get past an initial plateau in fitness improvements after 6-8 weeks. I think the solution for other endurance athletes is of course to just up the volume and that works for professionals training full time and doing low impact sports. It’s just not applicable to runners. From my experience, even if everyone had all the time in the world to train and still recover (huge problem in and of itself), I think there is only a tiny fraction of people whose bodies can actually handle high volume running— be it due to a combination of biomechanics, genetics, body structure, muscle fiber composition, you name it… I just do not think most people can handle continuously increasing volume as I once believed and thought you could just continue to adapt to more volume if done patiently and properly. Now I see that it is self limiting and that one should look at training for distance runners with this “volume governor” in mind. If nothing else, one should think of it as a maximum volume for an individual before there is major diminishing returns and recovery costs.
Once I came to this conclusion, I decided I’d be open to exploring other training approaches and that polarized training is not gospel. I did a block of base training straight out of Joe Vigil’s book and ran a PR in the half marathon out of nowhere off ~50 miles per week, (after averaging ~70-75 beforehand doing polarized training and running 8 minutes a mile most days). The difference was that I went from two super hard workouts per week to 4-5 quality days each week. Many workouts were challenging but all within reach. I got super fit.
After this, I got into cycling and learned about the concept of TSS (training stress score) and how that is more important than volume. I then learned about “sweet spot training” and that was a game changer for me. It opened my eyes to this whole new idea that really is what Lydiard was saying all along. In training, there is a time and place for everything BUT to perform at your best, you should periodize this approach.
To just keep it super simple, the bulk of your training macro cycle should focus on continuously building up your total training load for aerobic development, (TSS). Training load is a function of volume x intensity x frequency. Don’t over complicate it, just read another let’s run classic, Summer of Malmo.
Run often and pick up the pace when you feel good and be sure to mix up the speeds. From there, just try to increase the total load you do very patiently without relying solely on just always adding mileage. This is how you build aerobic fitness. No one particular, single session is all that important; it’s the total weekly load that you should focus on improving. Don’t just default to increasing your mileage, be realistic and careful with volume.
Then, as you get closer to your race, it is time to realize this fitness for peak performance. You then switch over to a polarized model, and instead of focusing on the weekly load, you focus on the 2-3 race specific sessions each week for the 4-8 week block leading up to the race. Easy days should be extremely easy; AND you are by proxy tapering because even with the actual workouts themselves being harder, the actual weekly training load is decreasing due to easier easy days and lower overall volume.
So to answer my take on the OPs original take, I think that there is a place for these faster easy days in the “building period” for improving fitness. There is no need to over complicate it by having preset paces or anything, just go by feel BUT track your training paces and load over time to monitor things, big picture.
The base training cycle in Vigils book is a great structured approach to this for the people who need to have a detailed plan, but I think the best approach is to go by feel and let the paces come to you. You should have a general goal each week for total volume and have an idea of quality days to touch on “aerobic speed” (faster, short Reps under control), longer intervals around threshold (again under control), and steady state Fartleks/longer runs. Put that together and let the days in between be governed by how you feel and just be patient. And to reiterate, be conservative with volume and don’t get greedy.
As a hobbyist endurance athlete and exercise physiology junkie with no formal education, just lots of reading/studying and arm chair speculating, I have gone full circle in my take on training and in particular the easy day pace debate.
I spent my own high school and college training days embracing the idea that if you want to be good, you just have to train hard and hang on day in, day out. Five stress fractures later, I came across the work of Stephen seiler and the polarized training model and also the incredible essay that EVERYONE ON LETSRUN should read from a letsrun legend, Hadd.
This polarized approach had rapid results and kept me injury free but also basically couldn’t get past an initial plateau in fitness improvements after 6-8 weeks. I think the solution for other endurance athletes is of course to just up the volume and that works for professionals training full time and doing low impact sports. It’s just not applicable to runners. From my experience, even if everyone had all the time in the world to train and still recover (huge problem in and of itself), I think there is only a tiny fraction of people whose bodies can actually handle high volume running— be it due to a combination of biomechanics, genetics, body structure, muscle fiber composition, you name it… I just do not think most people can handle continuously increasing volume as I once believed and thought you could just continue to adapt to more volume if done patiently and properly. Now I see that it is self limiting and that one should look at training for distance runners with this “volume governor” in mind. If nothing else, one should think of it as a maximum volume for an individual before there is major diminishing returns and recovery costs.
Once I came to this conclusion, I decided I’d be open to exploring other training approaches and that polarized training is not gospel. I did a block of base training straight out of Joe Vigil’s book and ran a PR in the half marathon out of nowhere off ~50 miles per week, (after averaging ~70-75 beforehand doing polarized training and running 8 minutes a mile most days). The difference was that I went from two super hard workouts per week to 4-5 quality days each week. Many workouts were challenging but all within reach. I got super fit.
After this, I got into cycling and learned about the concept of TSS (training stress score) and how that is more important than volume. I then learned about “sweet spot training” and that was a game changer for me. It opened my eyes to this whole new idea that really is what Lydiard was saying all along. In training, there is a time and place for everything BUT to perform at your best, you should periodize this approach.
To just keep it super simple, the bulk of your training macro cycle should focus on continuously building up your total training load for aerobic development, (TSS). Training load is a function of volume x intensity x frequency. Don’t over complicate it, just read another let’s run classic, Summer of Malmo.
Run often and pick up the pace when you feel good and be sure to mix up the speeds. From there, just try to increase the total load you do very patiently without relying solely on just always adding mileage. This is how you build aerobic fitness. No one particular, single session is all that important; it’s the total weekly load that you should focus on improving. Don’t just default to increasing your mileage, be realistic and careful with volume.
Then, as you get closer to your race, it is time to realize this fitness for peak performance. You then switch over to a polarized model, and instead of focusing on the weekly load, you focus on the 2-3 race specific sessions each week for the 4-8 week block leading up to the race. Easy days should be extremely easy; AND you are by proxy tapering because even with the actual workouts themselves being harder, the actual weekly training load is decreasing due to easier easy days and lower overall volume.
So to answer my take on the OPs original take, I think that there is a place for these faster easy days in the “building period” for improving fitness. There is no need to over complicate it by having preset paces or anything, just go by feel BUT track your training paces and load over time to monitor things, big picture.
The base training cycle in Vigils book is a great structured approach to this for the people who need to have a detailed plan, but I think the best approach is to go by feel and let the paces come to you. You should have a general goal each week for total volume and have an idea of quality days to touch on “aerobic speed” (faster, short Reps under control), longer intervals around threshold (again under control), and steady state Fartleks/longer runs. Put that together and let the days in between be governed by how you feel and just be patient. And to reiterate, be conservative with volume and don’t get greedy.
This is almost exactly my evolution after 50 years, and still loving the sport and performing well. I have never heard of TSS, but came up with my own system of ranking effort from 1-4/day. A "4" is very hard, such as a hard tempo or track session, or during base phase a solid long run. The highest I have ranked a week was 22 (120 miles with a couple of hard sessions), but my "sweet spot during the buildup is usually around 14-16, such as two hard days, two medium and two easy, e.g. 4+4+3+2+1+1 = 15. This is working very well for me right now, lots of hills and fartleks and around 30 mph but don't worry about mileage at all, just keeping up my speed work will fleshing out some tempo and stamina work.
I sincerely hope that anyone running 80-110 mpw is getting paid handsomely, either through endorsement deals or a scholarship.
Not sure why this is such an unpopular take, couldn't agree more. It's one thing if you're single and have no other obligations outside of work, but married? In a long term relationship? Straighten your priorities
I sincerely hope that anyone running 80-110 mpw is getting paid handsomely, either through endorsement deals or a scholarship.
Not sure why this is such an unpopular take, couldn't agree more. It's one thing if you're single and have no other obligations outside of work, but married? In a long term relationship? Straighten your priorities
so your argument is: "I can't run a lot, I have a girlfriend"
Not sure why this is such an unpopular take, couldn't agree more. It's one thing if you're single and have no other obligations outside of work, but married? In a long term relationship? Straighten your priorities
so your argument is: "I can't run a lot, I have a girlfriend"
If I don't run fast I feel lazy so I run 10:45 on my hard days and 11 on my easy. Seems to work for me, my 5k pr recently was around 36:30. I'm considering upping my mileage from 5 miles a week to 7 as soon as I complete my base phase and move into what I like to call 'sweet spot' training. Any advice?