Running slower to run faster. (Page 2)

I'm bored.

The problem is that far too many people never come close to the point where they can't continue to improve through adding volume. I'm 54 and still adding volume and still getting faster as a result. I currently run about 70 miles per week at a mostly slow and easy pace. In fact many of my runs are over 2 minutes per mile slower than my 5K race pace, but my race paces continue to improve as evidenced by PRs in my last three races.

It seems many people want to jump right into doing speedwork without ever having established a solid base. They may get these ideas from articles in the running mags about a 6 week program for X distance or some other nonsense. The simple fact is far too many people run far too little, for too short a period of time, and then have unrealistic expectations of how they should be able to perform. For many people who start running with no previous running experience, they are misled by hearing about these "quickie" programs. People want instant results and don't want to hear that running well may take a year or more, possibly much more, to accomplish.

So the mantra about running lots, mostly slow and sometimes fast is correct. But what people think when they hear "running lots" may need to be more clearly defined. I know when I started as a runner and had built up to 10-15 miles per week I thought I was running lots and wanted to be fast. I was told by a top level coach that in order to see significant improvement I would need to consistently average 30-35 miles per week. Of course that seemed overwhelming and I resisted for several years trying unsuccessfully to get faster on the mileage I was running. My attempts didn't work. When I finally did embrace the higher mileage my running started improving. And as noted earlier it's still improving. So I would suggest that as a bare minimum "running lots" should be defined as 30-35 miles per week. For most people that would be 90% slow running and 10% fast. Slow would be 60-150 seconds per mile slower than goal race pace, and fast would be 10-15% above or below race pace.

Anyway, I think the mantra should be defined in clear terms so people don't fool themselves into believing they are doing something that they're not.

I am making popcorn......butter and salt ok with everyone??

I agree with you, Don.

However, the mantra is intentionally non-specific. The reasoning is that no one can really say what "lots" actually is. To me, "lots" is based on your current fitness, your current volume, what your goals are, what amount of time you have to train, etc.

For someone like me, who only runs, "lots" has a different meaning than most triathletes, because I can focus on one thing. For a person who only started running, "lots" means a few miles every day, because that's the most they are capable of handling right now.

"Lots" is a constantly moving target; it is up to the individual to decide what "lots" means at any given point in time.

I would love to give specific volume and effort goals, with a singularly objective measure. Unfortunately, that's impossible.

I agree to a certain extent. "Lots" is a moving target. However, what I was getting at is that there should be a minimum as to what "lots" is. I think we may be able to agree that if a person thinks "lots" is 5 miles per week, then they may never really benefit from running "lots" in the manner that we tend to think of "lots".

But yes, "lots" is relative to a certain degree. My "lots" of 320 miles in February was dwarfed by a guy who's blog I follow and who had a "light" month of only running about 510 miles.

I tend to agree with the idea that volume=improvement. I find it interesting that there are so many opinions as to the best way to lower times. Like the guys at Endurance Nation preach the exact opposite that only high intensity will result in improvement.

i saw more improvement from 6 runs of 3 miles than i did on two mid distance and one longer for 20mpw.

running more reqeuntly but shorter also left me feeling MUCH better daily, and from there i was able to up mileage and things kept feeling easy-ish.

there are a few thoughts on this, but if you are racing longer i would work up to a lonigsh run per week of 8-12 miles.

as you start running more, you will be forced to slow down a bit, and you'll be able to build up slowly and the longer runs should not take as much out of you then.

I'm currently running a weekly long run of 12-15 mi and having it do less fatigue wise than 7 milers did last year.

Just to provide some personal anecdotal evidence, i've been a poor runner (9:30 race pace) since I started doing tri's almost 2 years ago and was running too hard. I got shin splints/ITBS/etc all the time and couldn't train consistently. In January I started trying to just run easy and have built up to consistently running over 20 miles/week (a lot for me) and my times have dropped a ton. Last weekend I broke 8:00/mile in a 5 mile run.

Newbz

Explain how you might vary milage and frequency as it pertains to a particular race distance goal. 
For instance running 3 miles easy 6 days a week for a goal 5K race might be great but obviously if your goal race is a Marathon you would have to work a long run in the mix what are your guys thought on how to best combine frequency and the Long run nessisary for longer race distaces. 

I'm not Newbz, but I will share what I have found works for me (this is straight marathon training, no other events):

"long run" = no more than about 1/3 of total weekly volume (however you define that volume).

Doubles - as often as you can. I was doing a total of 12 runs/week at one point, with a longer distance run in the morning, and a shorter recovery run at lunch during weekdays.

3 weekday runs & Sunday run - average length, usually about an hour, give or take (so usually around 7-10 miles, usually speaking).

2 weekday runs - 90+ minutes, so around 10-14 miles.

I did a progression run once a week (start easy, build intensity throughout). I also did what people would call a "tempo run". I just considered it a medium effort.

Essentially, I just ran how I felt on any given day. Once or twice a week, that felt like a somewhat harder run, so I ran at a higher intensity. During the long runs, I would mix things up throughout; most of the time was comfortable, but I'd have sections where I bumped up the intensity a bit, then throttle back to comfortable.

It wasn't scientific, I didn't have a daily schedule. I mostly just went out with the intention of trying to get as many miles under my feet as I could.

personally i dont think for optimal training 3miles x6 is great for even a 5k, but used that rather as an example of how to build up.

from there i went to slowly lengthen two runs, say 4x 3mi, and 2x 5 mi
then up one of the 3mi to 4-5mi.

from there lengthen the two longer ones again, etc and so on.

I think the longer runs are a huge benefit to even shorter races, how long is a bit depenent on each person and their training levels and goals.

right now, my main focus is on shorter races, but my running looks roughly like this:

3 runs of appox 6-7 mi.
1 run of 8-10 mi
1 run of 12-15 mi.
1 track workout of 5-8 mi total running (normally 3-4 miles of pace work, less on short days)

iether a 3-4 mi EASY run, in addition to, or replacing one of the 3 milers.

I think barry P over on slowtwitch has a very good method (maybe not his, not sure), where he talks about once you have built up to it doing a 3,2,1 style for structure

3 short runs, 2 runs of twice the short run, and one 1 run of twice the med runs, so

3x 3 mi, 2x 6 mi, and 1x 12 mi or something around that.

personally i like to keep on long, one med long, and the rest a bit shorter.

you may have to play around with what gives you the best bang for hte time + what fits best with your schedule.

Outside of key workouts, the goal should be to get in the most mileage you can without effecting other workouts, if that means outside of a longer runs keeping everything to 3 miles and running more often, that will still help a lot.

I know some runners that are doing 10-12 runs a week with no single run longer than 5 miles outside of a long run, others doing 70-80 per week on one run a day.

The goal of getting up to 6x 3 mi (or whatever) is simply to gain frequncy before distance on any single run, with the thought that frequncy but a bit shorter allows less damage per run, and lets you run more.

another way to think about that. say you run 3x5 mi a week.
on the other 4 days, you go run an easy mile.
one mile is likely to do very little is any damage to someone in shape, but you now have upped your mileage from 15 to 19 per week. While this is a very small example, the theory is the same to larger distances.

Take that up to someone doing 4x5 miles a week, add 2 miles to each day off and you have another 6, etc.

depends a bit on the goal.  i will say i have had the most success looking at a plan that was a little bit of a reach for current abilities, key on a little bit, and using that structure to train off of.  i used to be adament about just winging it with primarily easier paced stuff with an 8-10 mid range run on top of my long, 2-3 other days for 4-5 days.  when i actually chose a plan that said run 6 day a week i was nervous, then a bit with the next level that said one day of rest ever 14 day (just running), longer longs w/ speedwork two days after, etc.  My point is that there are a lot of plans out there that will give you a framework to go with too instead of just building your own plan.  I have done both but found I wasnt squeezing enough outta myself due to fear of injury to doing too much etc.  Most of the plans I have used the days after speedwork are shorter and easier, days before and after longs the same.  Basically focus on the key workouts like your speed day(s) and long and most other days should be maint miles trying not to screw up the efforts you are doing your key stuff at.  Lots of different philosophies out there but too much too fast (pace or ramp up) usually leads to too many injuries so be patient with your build.

I thought Mike's thread was about the definition of 'endurance'? Anyway, if you want to look at it in some artsy fartsy wholistic way, then yes, everything is aerobic. Your heart muscle pretty much only does aerobic, and the organ muscles such as the stomach and intestines are also working aerobically at all times. We, however are on a long distance/athletic website, and so those endurance related phrases are what I use. If everything is aerobic, then by definition nothing is anaerobic. Go try and sell that. If your body is making more lactate than it can absorb, or more specifically, if your muscles start converting sugar to ATP without using oxygen, then it is anaerobic.  To say that there is some aerobic activity taking place so it is all aerobic, is like saying beer only has a little bit of alcohol so it is non-alcoholic. By all the definitions I have seen that we use in this sport, Zone 5 (90-100% effort in some charts, threshold and above with friel), that is as anaerobic as anerobic gets. Do we use it in an endurance or 'aerobic' races? you bet, but only for a short time, and there is no way you can sustain the effort (aerobic definition) in zone 5.

And Scout, yes, I was bored too. For what it's worth, this isn't directed at bryan or shane or anyone really. Thought I would shake it up a little on a Friday.

a 5k or 10k is mostly aerobic, but we are talking about maximal effort or zone 5 which lasts only a couple of minutes. A 400 Meter is all zone 5 and not aerobic.

There are three energy pathways that are used to fuel exercise:

ATP-PCr (anaerobic alactic) - this fuels short bursts of intense exercise that lasts about 8 seconds (can be increased to about 15 seconds with training) that does not require oxygen or produce lactate.

Glycolosis (anaerobic lactic) - this also fuels short bursts of intense exercise but can fuel efforts of about 90 seconds (can be increased to about 120 seconds with training) that does not require oxygen but does produce lactate.

Oxidative (aerobic) - exercise that lasts longer than two minutes if fueled primarily by the aerobic system which requires oxgyen in order to produce energy.

These three energy systems do not operate in isolation but rather in concert depending on the energy demands of the activity.  An activity is considered to be anaerobic if it is fueled primarily by the ATP-PCr or Glycolotic systems and aerobic if it is fueld primarily by the Oxidative system.

If we consider track running, the 800m is usually considered to be the cross over event where running switches from primarily fueled by the anaerobic systems to primarily fueled by the aerobic system.  The aerobic percentage for the 800m is normally reports to be in the 60% range and it only gets larger from there (1500m ~75%, 3000m ~80%). 

Zone 5a (as defined by Friel) would normally represent a VO2max effort which is going to be a 1500m-3000m effort for most athletes meaning that it is very much an aerobic activity.  The fact that you cannot maintain this pace for longer than 1500m-3000m does not mean it is not an aerobic event.

As to the production of lactate, just because an athlete is producing lactate does not mean that they are operating anaerobically it simply means that the Glycolotic energy pathway is being utilized to produce some of the energy for exercise.  Depending on how much energy this system is required to provide will determine whether there is lactate accumulation in the blood. 

Lactate threshold is described as 1mmol/L of lactate over baseline which is going to be a fairly low intensity and MLSS (maximum lactate steady state) is usually associated with the effort an athlete could sustain for an hour and in Friel's zones would be the transition between Z4 and Z5.

Shane

Yeah, I _wish_ I could run 5:20min/mi at 155bpm.  :-)

Fair enough.

But the question that I have (and based on Mark Allen's article) is if your aerobic system will build up differently if you do the majority of your runs in zone 2 instead of all of your runs in zone 4 or 5?

That's a good question with a lot of answers. Yes, it will be different because the training intensity is different, volume will be very different as it will be much more difficult to run hard all the time and still get in the mileage. My coach is a uses a Maffetone model with his athletes, usually those newer to the sport or to running more so. He used the go slow approach for me even though I had been running for sometime and had already ran a marathon. He slowly built up my mileage by limiting my effort as measured by HR. I walked plenty of hills. Eventually the benefit of those miles began to pay dividends in my pace coming down at the same level of effort. I had been running much harder prior to that but lacked sufficient endurance.

Provided an athlete could recover from the training stress there would be little difference.  You can see the chart I included below for an idea of the training response from each of the zones but bear in mind, that training intensity is a continum not precisely defined set of zones.

Also, it is worth noting that I am not advocating a FIRST approach to run training; I strongly believe that consistency in training (especially run training) with frequent "easy" runs are the way to go.  However, I disagree with Maffetone (and by extension Allen) that one should cap their training at zone 2 at any point in the season.    Further, setting this HR cap based on an arbitrary formula (180-age) is an even worse idea IMO.

The main idea for slowing down is so that you can run more; if an athlete consistently builds mileage at a pace they can repeat day after day, they will get faster.

Table 2 - Expected physiological/performance adaptations resulting from training at levels 1-7:

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Increased plasma volume
Increased muscle mitochondrial enzymes
Increased lactate threshold
Increased muscle glycogen storage
Hypertrophy of slow twitch muscle fibers
Increased muscle capillarization
Interconversion of fast twitch muscle fibers (type IIb -> type IIa)
Increased stroke volume/maximal cardiac output
Increased VO2 Max
Increased muscle high engergy phosphate (ATP/PCr) Stores
Increased anaerobic capacity ("lactate tolerance")
Hypertrophy of fast twitch fibers
Increased neuromuscular power

Shane

I'll say it...Zone 5 is aerobic. But in an all out 5 minute effort there will be a significant contribution from anaerobic sources as well...so it is both aerobic and anaerobic. Just because lactate is being produced does not mean that there is no aerobic metabolism. In fact we are all producing lactate even at rest...hence the term "baseline or resting lactate level" as Shane mentioned above.

The chart Shane posted says it all. The aerobic adaptations occuring from Zone 2 training vs. Zone 5 training, or even anaerobic interval prodocols like the series of studies at Master's university are basically the samein terms of the cellular adaptations...the training effect differs depending on the training stress and duration spent there. The biggest benefit of Zone 2 from a purely physiological point of view is simply sustainability. If you are training for long events, you have to do some long training at some point. However, there are other benefits of training in Zone 2 that are not related to the cellular adaptations enhancing aerobic metabolism. Namely, durability.

This thread is about running. Run training is unique from cycling training (above chart is from Andy Coggan, a noted physiology researcher and cycling time trialist). One of the biggest issues with run trianing is that the joints, tendons, ligaments and joint surfaces cannot respond to a training load with the same speed as the muscles do. Muscles can build fitness relatively quickly, whereas it takes much longer for the other soft tissue and supporting structures to adapt to running load.

This is why running volume (adn intensity) increases need to be very gradual, and on the conservative side as compared to increasing swim or bike load. I call this running durability and is a basic requirement for doing any faster work on the run. That being said, once an athlete has reached a certain level of "durability", dipping into the more intense training zones will add a significant boost to your performance (when also approached in a conservative way allowing for both adequate stress and recovery).