Somebody shout tell Blanks that he could have gone easier on his easy days like thousands of 15 minute 5k guys do so that he would still run 15 minutes. You guys keep it up and you will continue to be the fastest at your local road race.
Somebody shout tell Blanks that he could have gone easier on his easy days like thousands of 15 minute 5k guys do so that he would still run 15 minutes. You guys keep it up and you will continue to be the fastest at your local road race.
Somebody shout tell Blanks that he could have gone easier on his easy days like thousands of 15 minute 5k guys do so that he would still run 15 minutes. You guys keep it up and you will continue to be the fastest at your local road race.
6 min pace is easy for a 1303 runner. There is one 1303 runner in the ncaa. Guys under 1330 might be in the 6x% mhr range at 6 minute pace.
The training that got those guys there, if they weren't top high schoolers, is brutal. Running at 6 min pace every day would grind up most runners. Sure, the survivors might contend for championships, but that isn't the only way to get there and you might be able to use the less talented guys or just guys who respond better to other training for points at conference.
Gibby has coached great runners, but how many guys did he also coach who did nothing at all.
Lets focus on the topic at hand though - do you need to run like this, albeit at your own level, or can you run really easy high mileage, long tempos, and then really fast in workouts - intervals, reps, time trials, faster than tempo sustained mileage at the end of runs, etc.
My experience says I'm much more likely to hit those faster paces in workouts if I'm running real easy, much more likely to not cut a workout short if I run upwards of 100 mpw, and that all the running at 70-75% mhr doesn't do crap for my ability to sustain pace in 10ks or half marathons. I spent 3 years in hs never running slower than 7 min pace unless I was coming back from injury or the day before and after a race (maybe after). This training led to me going nowhere, sucking. It might work for some people though.
Why 6 for Harvard? Are all their guys just like Blanks? Should some of the guys maybe run at 615? What if Blanks ran at 540? Do they have to avoid any technical trails to train this way?
There is a massive amount of research around this topic, but runners struggle with believing in and following the science.
The most important endurance training takes place at or below LT1. Zone 1 in the three zone model. Zones 1 and 2 in the 5 zone model. At or below FatMax/Aerobic threshold/2 mm lactate/conversational pace/1 mm lactate above baseline/13 and under RPE. All training done in this zone improves all zones above it, namely LT2/Threshold and VO2 Max. it also builds capacity to do more training at higher intensities. it is the 80 in 80/20 training.
Runners testing based on superstition and the scientifically false belief that there’s a minimum effort required for endurance training to be beneficial.
I don't believe there is a massive amount of research into the detail of the area below LT1. There is no real consensus on the demarcation between zone 1 and zone 2 in the 5 zone model. There is no real consensus at the demarcation between exercising for general health benefits, exercising to maintain aerobic fitness, and exercising to develop aerobic fitness.
To say that all training done below LT1 improves everything, implies that walking the dog can be effective.
Inigo San Milan (okay, he is a cyclist) and others recommend training easy at/or just below LT1. JD and others believe that training can be done at the low end. These two positions are very different. Seiler (he is a cyclist and rower) tends to dismiss analysing the area below LT1. Maybe this subject is more important for runners, rather than cyclists, rowers, swimmers etc?
I think some of you guys are being a little cavalier in your use of LT1 (and for that matter LT2, though it's obviously not as pertinent to this thread). How are you defining LT1? Fixed lactate level (e.g. 2.0mmol/L), some fixed rise above baseline, eyeballed inflection point, "fatmax"? If it works, it works, but I question whether any of these can properly be considered thresholds as opposed to essentially arbitrary points on a continuum.
I love this discussion. My statement that there’s a massive amount of research on this topic pertains to training at or below LT1, now how far below LT1 is still effective training.
Looking at historical data with successful athletes, I think we can draw a broad conclusion that this question is duration dependent. Longer lower in this zone. Shorter, higher in the zone. For recovery—lower in the zone. When increasing volume, lower in the zone.
The discussion about where we should train below LT1 should be secondary to having a clear understanding of where LT1 occurs. US distance running training at the high school and college level impairs the long term health and performance of athletes because we are training chronically above LT1 and calling it easy.
I think some of you guys are being a little cavalier in your use of LT1 (and for that matter LT2, though it's obviously not as pertinent to this thread). How are you defining LT1? Fixed lactate level (e.g. 2.0mmol/L), some fixed rise above baseline, eyeballed inflection point, "fatmax"? If it works, it works, but I question whether any of these can properly be considered thresholds as opposed to essentially arbitrary points on a continuum.
Even the researchers can’t fully agree on these thresholds, but they’re getting much closer to doing so than ever before. There’s, of course, no switch that flips when a threshold is crossed, but chronically training a little to high above these “thresholds” has measurably negative effects.
I think the clearest way to view LT1 is metabolically. For even well trained athletes, fat burning heavily is dominant at and below this threshold and drops precipitously, cliff-like, above it. Another interesting way to view LT1 is hormonally. Cortisol response increases dramatically above LT1 and is even lower than baseline below LT1 for some athletes.
I think some of you guys are being a little cavalier in your use of LT1 (and for that matter LT2, though it's obviously not as pertinent to this thread). How are you defining LT1? Fixed lactate level (e.g. 2.0mmol/L), some fixed rise above baseline, eyeballed inflection point, "fatmax"? If it works, it works, but I question whether any of these can properly be considered thresholds as opposed to essentially arbitrary points on a continuum.
LT1 is the first rise in lactate. It’s not a fixed value at all.
If you test correctly, there will be several lactate values at baseline lactate (baseline is at rest, no warmup) and one of those values will dip around fatmax*, but then you will see a rise in lactate as the intensity increases. If you have too steep of a slope of intensity on your ramp, or the steps in your test are too short (less than 10 minutes), you won’t see LT1.
Lactate testing is an art. Most people don’t know what they’re doing.
There is a massive amount of research around this topic, but runners struggle with believing in and following the science.
The most important endurance training takes place at or below LT1. Zone 1 in the three zone model. Zones 1 and 2 in the 5 zone model. At or below FatMax/Aerobic threshold/2 mm lactate/conversational pace/1 mm lactate above baseline/13 and under RPE. All training done in this zone improves all zones above it, namely LT2/Threshold and VO2 Max. it also builds capacity to do more training at higher intensities. it is the 80 in 80/20 training.
Runners testing based on superstition and the scientifically false belief that there’s a minimum effort required for endurance training to be beneficial.
I don't believe there is a massive amount of research into the detail of the area below LT1. There is no real consensus on the demarcation between zone 1 and zone 2 in the 5 zone model. There is no real consensus at the demarcation between exercising for general health benefits, exercising to maintain aerobic fitness, and exercising to develop aerobic fitness.
To say that all training done below LT1 improves everything, implies that walking the dog can be effective.
Inigo San Milan (okay, he is a cyclist) and others recommend training easy at/or just below LT1. JD and others believe that training can be done at the low end. These two positions are very different. Seiler (he is a cyclist and rower) tends to dismiss analysing the area below LT1. Maybe this subject is more important for runners, rather than cyclists, rowers, swimmers etc?
To your last line. It is absolutely more important for runners. Our training does significantly more damage and stress to the body than non impact sports like cycling, swimming, etc. the answer might even be different for running than for other sports. It might even be individualized, with those able to do faster training or recover quicker from faster easy training rather, improving much more. Consistency and repetition are key but where is the line between the right paces and not recovering and thus not improving.
Even the researchers can’t fully agree on these thresholds, but they’re getting much closer to doing so than ever before. There’s, of course, no switch that flips when a threshold is crossed, but chronically training a little to high above these “thresholds” has measurably negative effects.
You make a good point about the researchers. If you read many of the papers on mlss, threshold, etc. many of the researchers don’t fully understand what they’re looking at and they conflate methods of estimating with the thing they are trying to measure.
LT1 is easily observable in lactate testing with the appropriate protocol. Many of the people selling lactate tests dont fully understand the testing methods they use and don’t know how to make quality observations, which leads to poor or incorrect interpretations of the results.
In my experience, lactate is a surface (time, workload, lactate concentration) with most curves you see in papers and textbooks representing a projection of the 3d surface onto a 2d space. There is a valley on that surface where lactate is lowest and in this “pool” is where you want to do the bulk of your endurance work.
But my long winded post aside, using the talk test and being mindful while running can be a simple way to identify the pace at which you start breathing harder in response to workload.
There is a massive amount of research around this topic, but runners struggle with believing in and following the science.
The most important endurance training takes place at or below LT1. Zone 1 in the three zone model. Zones 1 and 2 in the 5 zone model. At or below FatMax/Aerobic threshold/2 mm lactate/conversational pace/1 mm lactate above baseline/13 and under RPE. All training done in this zone improves all zones above it, namely LT2/Threshold and VO2 Max. it also builds capacity to do more training at higher intensities. it is the 80 in 80/20 training.
Most runners, even competitive runners are incorrectly overestimating the effort/pace at which this work should be done—to their detriment. LT1 is not a fixed heart rate effort and formulas can’t account for the fact that, if done right, it should gradually shift upward. If done wrong, runners are literally training themselves to be less metabolically efficient—-too much training above LT1 will make you worse in the long term. When done right, as with the best long distance runners in the world, humans can run at shockingly fast paces and remain “aerobic.”
All other aerobic sports have better application of this form or training than running: cycling, Nordic skiing, triathlon, swimming, speed skating….
Runners testing based on superstition and the scientifically false belief that there’s a minimum effort required for endurance training to be beneficial.
I don’t think that runners are overestimating the effort pace at which this easy work should be done…I think for MANY it is an ego thing. Many runners would have to run either painfully slow and / or walk ( lots) to stay in the correct range. For many runners, simply the act of running raises their heart rates / effort level too high, and many aren’t and don’t want to be honest with themselves in order to admit that.
There is a massive amount of research around this topic, but runners struggle with believing in and following the science.
The most important endurance training takes place at or below LT1. Zone 1 in the three zone model. Zones 1 and 2 in the 5 zone model. At or below FatMax/Aerobic threshold/2 mm lactate/conversational pace/1 mm lactate above baseline/13 and under RPE. All training done in this zone improves all zones above it, namely LT2/Threshold and VO2 Max. it also builds capacity to do more training at higher intensities. it is the 80 in 80/20 training.
Most runners, even competitive runners are incorrectly overestimating the effort/pace at which this work should be done—to their detriment. LT1 is not a fixed heart rate effort and formulas can’t account for the fact that, if done right, it should gradually shift upward. If done wrong, runners are literally training themselves to be less metabolically efficient—-too much training above LT1 will make you worse in the long term. When done right, as with the best long distance runners in the world, humans can run at shockingly fast paces and remain “aerobic.”
All other aerobic sports have better application of this form or training than running: cycling, Nordic skiing, triathlon, swimming, speed skating….
Runners testing based on superstition and the scientifically false belief that there’s a minimum effort required for endurance training to be beneficial.
I don’t think that runners are overestimating the effort pace at which this easy work should be done…I think for MANY it is an ego thing. Many runners would have to run either painfully slow and / or walk ( lots) to stay in the correct range. For many runners, simply the act of running raises their heart rates / effort level too high, and many aren’t and don’t want to be honest with themselves in order to admit that.
Can we bound the discussion to athletes who can do an easy run in this zone, lt1, or whatever. So not total beginners or undertrained runners on low mileage programs or sprinters. Few people with at least a year to two of running need to walk to maintain an easy pace. Those that do would probably benefit from a program that included minimal speedwork or nothing faster than short reps at lt until they could complete easy runs.
Yes, for the runners I believe we should discuss ego can often get in the way of slowing down. Running on the lower end g easy aerobic pace an feel boring. Many lose confidence in the overall plan when running that slow too. But are they right? Do they benefit from faster easy runs an if so how much faster for that benefit? Can a running improve optimally with a program that could for easy runs at 60-65% mhr?
I don’t think that runners are overestimating the effort pace at which this easy work should be done…I think for MANY it is an ego thing. Many runners would have to run either painfully slow and / or walk ( lots) to stay in the correct range. For many runners, simply the act of running raises their heart rates / effort level too high, and many aren’t and don’t want to be honest with themselves in order to admit that.
Can we bound the discussion to athletes who can do an easy run in this zone, lt1, or whatever. So not total beginners or undertrained runners on low mileage programs or sprinters. Few people with at least a year to two of running need to walk to maintain an easy pace. Those that do would probably benefit from a program that included minimal speedwork or nothing faster than short reps at lt until they could complete easy runs.
Yes, for the runners I believe we should discuss ego can often get in the way of slowing down. Running on the lower end g easy aerobic pace an feel boring. Many lose confidence in the overall plan when running that slow too. But are they right? Do they benefit from faster easy runs an if so how much faster for that benefit? Can a running improve optimally with a program that could for easy runs at 60-65% mhr?
I have about 2 years of running in me, albeit some stupid training (jumping up to 40 mpw too quick with workouts way too fast). This got me to a 5k PB of 19:11 (recently ran 19:35), but I literally felt like crap all the time. I ran easy runs at 8:30-9:30 and lied to myself thinking they were easy. Ego/strava got to me and I kept like this for months. This resulted in a strava mileage graph that looked like a TDF or UTMB stage. I could never stay consistent as I felt burnt out.
I recently got lactate testing (and purchased a meter, but more later) and discovered my LT1 (1.4 mmol on a lactate plus meter) occurred around 10:32 pace. This was pretty eye opening because it meant nearly 100% of my training occurred above my LT1. My LT2 (2.5 mmol on lactate plus meter) wound up being around 8:05 pace.
Since these findings, I have basically started from scratch with my training. I am on week 4 of running 6-7 days easy. Building from 3 hours a week to 6.5 across 10 weeks. I think I will begin some controlled threshold workouts with my new meter in week 8 or so. The important thing to note is my easy pace is now 11-12.5 minutes/mile. I run with a chest strap HRM and have kept everything as close to 70% max HR (141 for me) on average as I can. I am hoping this pace improves over time, but feel confident that it is where I should be right now. My old "easy" days left me so tired throughout the day and getting through them without stopping was a chore. Now I feel nice and refreshed and almost joyous through these runs, enjoying the run and the nature views vs looking at my watch and thinking "am I done yet?"
I am planning on staying very disciplined with the easy running. My meter comes in this week and I am planning on testing after some easy runs just to get the hang of it before I use it for workouts when time is of the essence. We shall see how things go!
This post was edited 45 seconds after it was posted.
Can we bound the discussion to athletes who can do an easy run in this zone, lt1, or whatever. So not total beginners or undertrained runners on low mileage programs or sprinters. Few people with at least a year to two of running need to walk to maintain an easy pace. Those that do would probably benefit from a program that included minimal speedwork or nothing faster than short reps at lt until they could complete easy runs.
Yes, for the runners I believe we should discuss ego can often get in the way of slowing down. Running on the lower end g easy aerobic pace an feel boring. Many lose confidence in the overall plan when running that slow too. But are they right? Do they benefit from faster easy runs an if so how much faster for that benefit? Can a running improve optimally with a program that could for easy runs at 60-65% mhr?
I have about 2 years of running in me, albeit some stupid training (jumping up to 40 mpw too quick with workouts way too fast). This got me to a 5k PB of 19:11 (recently ran 19:35), but I literally felt like crap all the time. I ran easy runs at 8:30-9:30 and lied to myself thinking they were easy. Ego/strava got to me and I kept like this for months. This resulted in a strava mileage graph that looked like a TDF or UTMB stage. I could never stay consistent as I felt burnt out.
I recently got lactate testing (and purchased a meter, but more later) and discovered my LT1 (1.4 mmol on a lactate plus meter) occurred around 10:32 pace. This was pretty eye opening because it meant nearly 100% of my training occurred above my LT1. My LT2 (2.5 mmol on lactate plus meter) wound up being around 8:05 pace.
Since these findings, I have basically started from scratch with my training. I am on week 4 of running 6-7 days easy. Building from 3 hours a week to 6.5 across 10 weeks. I think I will begin some controlled threshold workouts with my new meter in week 8 or so. The important thing to note is my easy pace is now 11-12.5 minutes/mile. I run with a chest strap HRM and have kept everything as close to 70% max HR (141 for me) on average as I can. I am hoping this pace improves over time, but feel confident that it is where I should be right now. My old "easy" days left me so tired throughout the day and getting through them without stopping was a chore. Now I feel nice and refreshed and almost joyous through these runs, enjoying the run and the nature views vs looking at my watch and thinking "am I done yet?"
I am planning on staying very disciplined with the easy running. My meter comes in this week and I am planning on testing after some easy runs just to get the hang of it before I use it for workouts when time is of the essence. We shall see how things go!
Good luck. It would be great if you could post up your progress after a few months of this new training..
I can certainly do that. I have posted in the Norweigan Single Threshold method thread before, will likely update there as that is the basis of which I will be modeling my training.
I appreciate the good luck wishes - point those mainly at my ego as posting 12.5 min mile easy runs to my strava as I did today hurts! I believe in the process though and will stick with it. I feel too good after these runs ha.
I can certainly do that. I have posted in the Norweigan Single Threshold method thread before, will likely update there as that is the basis of which I will be modeling my training.
I appreciate the good luck wishes - point those mainly at my ego as posting 12.5 min mile easy runs to my strava as I did today hurts! I believe in the process though and will stick with it. I feel too good after these runs ha.
Did you spend a long time sedentary before coming to running? Are you sure that faster than 12.5 min/mile is not easy?
I can certainly do that. I have posted in the Norweigan Single Threshold method thread before, will likely update there as that is the basis of which I will be modeling my training.
I appreciate the good luck wishes - point those mainly at my ego as posting 12.5 min mile easy runs to my strava as I did today hurts! I believe in the process though and will stick with it. I feel too good after these runs ha.
Did you spend a long time sedentary before coming to running? Are you sure that faster than 12.5 min/mile is not easy?
Nope. I was a somewhat active 23 year old partier when I started, healthy weight and people would say I looked "fit". Now I am 25 and have quit the booze ha. Never had a background in anything endurance/aerobic when it came to the sports I played.
The definition of "easy" is super interesting to me. Being newer to running, I still am not quite sure how "easy" should feel. I can tell you one thing, that I feel like I barely did anything after these slower runs (now up to doing 40 minutes at a time with a 60 minute "long run"), whereas my breathing would be heavy at the end of my 9:00 mileage runs.
I am figuring out where my "easy" range should be. I know that somewhere around 10:30 is my LT1, so I am being pretty conservative in pulling away from there. I have been using HR as a gauge - the HR associated with my LT1 was ~163, so by staying near 140-145 on average like I have been I am well below that, allowing my body to recover between runs no doubt.
I purchased a trainingpeaks subscription and have been paying attention to my TSS scores per run. Looking back, my mileage runs around 9:00 yielded anywhere from 85-105 TSS per run, quite high. Now, I see 30-40 per run. I'll play around with perhaps focusing on pace for a run or two and see how the TSS responds to say locking in on 11 minutes per mile for the run.
I would think you'd be better training at around 830 pace most days based on your recent 5k times.
I disagree. Training 30 seconds per mile slower than you suggest crushed me over time. It is 2 minutes faster than what is proven to be my LT1 as well, a massive margin in this context.
My theory on why I have to train so slow is due to extreme aerobic deficiency. I was able to run 19:35 last month likely because I borrowed a lot from my anaerobic system. I was absolutely redlining the entire time and it was really a death march 3k in.
I have a feeling we get very hung up on race equivalency calculators. They can be a very helpful tool, however they do not consider someone who is aerobically deficient. The calculators assume you are aerobically fit. How do I know this? Well VDOT says my threshold pace should be 6:44. Tinman says 6:46-6:55. My LT2 was tested at 8:02. These are very different paces, especially for someone who has been running for 2 years only.
I am learning there is a lot of nuance with the topic of easy running. You have to consider more factors than just race times.