Running slower to run faster. (Page 4)

Ah-freakin'-men

The questions are irrelevant unless people only train in a certain way ALL THE TIME. Any decent running program would have various phases/periods, like general, base, strength, speed, specific, and taper. The types of runs and intensities will be different in each. I think the point of this thread is that far too many people do not place importance on the general or base periods, and instead want to jump into the other periods. Whereas if they utilized the base period properly, they would likely have far greater results in the subsequent periods and races. People who short circuit the process will very likely also short circuit their racing potential.

New people, i.e those on this site who are looking for advice, do not have to run anywhere near 5-7*/week to see gains with zone 2 work only.  not even close.

your talking about people getting off the couch.  3-4 is all it takes.

at the end of the day, people, (coaches and athletes) simply do not have the patience required to seek improvement with Zone 2 work. 

Dude, I don't even run 5+ times per week. Never have.

Yeah, but you're a freak of nature.

Sorry I wasn't clear with my earlier statement.  For people who are new to running, I would agree that frequency does not need, nor should it be, in that range.  Novices will see gains with 3 consistent runs per week and after some time at that level, adding in a fourth run will also yield gains.  However, it is at this point that many athletes will then look to add speedwork because they aren't seeing the same gains they did originally.

It is at this point that I would suggest athletes that are running 3-4x/week and are wondering why they are not getting faster that I would suggest that adding additional runs as opposed to speedwork, even if the extra runs are only one or two at twenty minutes.  Further, with the extra runs included in the schedule, it is unlikely that the athlete will be running 40% or more of their weekly volume in their long run which is a pitfall for many athletes.

While there are athletes who can do well on 3-4 runs per week, in general, adding frequency can often improve an athlete's durability and also increase their overall weekly volume which will lead to the results they desire without having to hammer out the hard intervals.  Then, when the time comes to add intensity to the program, the athlete will have a better level of fitness to leverage with the hard efforts and is more likely to get faster and less likely to get injured.

Shane

^^^That makes sense, good advice.

"Run lots, mostly easy, sometimes hard."

In other words, no. Mix it up. For someone newer to running, I'd say once a week go out and do a moderate effort. Heck, you could even throw it into some of the other runs. In the middle, pick it up for a bit, then cruise to the end.

I couldn't tell you what zone that would be.

I'm sure Bryan would say it was his hard work that got him where he is.

I thought it was pretty clear that I was joking.  Guess not.

It's a bit of both. Great genetics and consistant work.

I know you were.. but some people make it sound like you won't get faster unless you're blessed genetically or do umpteen hours of work.. consistency and patience are key

Agreed.

Ok, I'm going to give in and start running slower.  I just got back into running consistently after about 9 years of on and off (lots more off than on).  I was always going out for my runs with the idea to come back with nothing left, it's just how I was coached in HS cross country.  I've been doing my shorter runs anywhere between 7:15 - 8:00/mi and 8:20 - 8:30/mi for my long runs.  I was ok until recently my calves have been really sore so I haven't been running, except for a 5k race on the 14th (first race since 2000 Chicago Marathon) which I couldn't go any faster than a 7:15/mi due to the soreness.  I was wondering how to determine the pace I should be running at.  I don't have a HR monitor yet, but I was looking at the McMillan pace calculator, is that good to go by using the 5k I have just run?  It has my long run pace at 8:53 - 9:53, which sounds like a very manageable pace to me.  What do you think?

Edited by tbcoffee 2010-03-23 9:57 AM

Hi. I have some follow up questions:

1. Do you agree that the optimum heart rate zones are 2-3 on "normal" workout days?

2. Is there no HR floor on easy days?

3. Do you believe in the notion of "junk miles"?

4. What is the optimal mpw range for an experienced runner for oly distance as well as sprint distance?

5. How does your training philosophy relate to cycling given that there is less wear on soft tissue and muscles?

Thanks for your ideas.

1: personally i think that zn2/that sort of effort level is where most of hte running should be kept, and even more so if you are newer to it/still building mileage. i tend to keep my self to one day of zn3 type running a week, if that when building or in my lower mileage early weeks.

2: I think there is a diff between comfortable and easy (to me easy means doing everything you can do not work hard, comfortable allows you to run a bit more as you feel that day). regardless, for easy runs no i dont put a cap on the lower end assuming you're not slowing down so much as to start changing form (this will happen at a point with everyone).

3: No, i dont think there are junk miles, with one exception. the runs need to have a purpose, and need to be not cutting into the quality of other workouts. if you are adding in 3x10 or 15 min runs a week in addition to your normal weekly runs, simply to get mileage up, thats fine, it will all add up and help. but it needs to not be wrecking everything else.

4: First, this one is going to depend on a LOT of things, but for a blanket answer, i'd say DURING the season, probably 35 mpw would be a range i would shoot for. its enough to see some decent gains, but not so much you'd be killing yourself. again that would be what i would recommend to someone looking to see waht their bodies can do.
you can race well on much less, and get more out of it with much more, but i think somewhere in the 30s gives a solid balance of speed and longer runs, while still maintaining a life (this is not to say you cant be fairly fast on 20mpw, and really it also depends on what your goals are, do you want to run and finish, place in your AG, OA?, etc etc etc).

5: cycling I like to keep myself/my athletes pushing much harder, how hard/long depends on where they are in the season/training cycle, but you are able to push much more often on the bike and not hurt yourself. A fairly simple rule of thumb for people when looking at what they want to do on the bike would be to figure out how much volume you can realisticly do in a week/whatever time period, and then work in harder riding until you hit a level where you cant do anymore without needing to back the volume down. if you go past it, you'll have to cut out volume, if you go under, you're leaving some on the table.

this is a sliding scale that will change as you do more/less based on time. train less, do more of it hard, train more, do a bit less intensity.

I don't have a heart rate monitor or a garmin and I don't time myself when I run. One way to determine if you are going easy enough is if you are able to hold a conversation while you are running. Since I usually run alone and don't want to freak anyone out by talking to myself (although I have been known to sing out loud along with my iPod) , I gauge my pace by how I feel. If I feel that I could hold this pace indefinitely - forever, really - then I am at a good pace. One thing I have been working on is shortening my stride and increasing my cadence. My legs are moving faster, but my cardio is working easier, similar to spinning vs mashing on the bike. This has really increased my ability to go longer with less effort.

Your points make complete sense. I do have some follow up questions:

1. I would be remiss without bringing up swim: swim slower to swim faster (aka Terry M.) or interval sets?

2. You recommend 35mpw running( 5+ hrs), 5? hrs bike(higher intensity if it does not compromise next day's workout) which fills around running schedule and X hours swimming. The total is 12-15 hours. Seems heavy for oly distance but you did say this was optimal program. Agreed?

Thanks for paying it forward.

swimming, once you have the basics down, is all about intervals, most people will enver swim enough to gain much out of just swimming slow once they know how to swim.

as for an ideal program, i think thats a rough time range where people can really see what they can do.

yes you can on less, and you can go further to really push it, but i personally feel for an age grouper to at least start to really see what their bodies can do you need to see volumes like that at some point.


that said, you can, and many do (i did for a while), train for that distance race on less. you just need to be smart with it, and those ratios can change a lot (ie swim/bike more, run less, or any combination).

within reason, its all about finding how much time you have available to train, and then making the most out of that with the limiters you have as far as skill/speed in the three sports.

i have to agree, run long and easy. I could barely make it 1 mile about 2 weeks ago. I was so slow. I was around 9:30 or 10+ miles.  I would think oh, only 3 miles and i would just try to go fast and get it done and over with and i was so slow. I'd stop nearly every half mile and sometimes every quarter mile.  Today i went for a long run of 6 miles and i said let me just do it real slow cuz i never ran more than 3 miles before and i was following this new marathon plan i just started and today was the long run for the week. I ended up finishing all 6 miles in a 9:23 pace each mile and i ran the last 3 miles straight without stopping. I was quite happy. I think i found a good groove and probably could of kept running if i had too.