Increasing mileage

[tundra]

Just want to throw a question out there and get some input.

I'm training for a spring marathon making the transition from 3000m/5k stuff up to the full. I normally tend to fatigue and injure at about 70 miles per week, but have been over that for a few weeks now and want to step up a bit.

I work full-time and time is always an issue as I'm sure it is with all distance runners, so I've been trying to get creative in finding more hours in my day.....not working, so what I am doing is throwing in 3 runs per week on my lunch hour. These runs are 3 miles and change in length, so I'm adding about 10 extra miles per week this way. Are these useless miles?

What are you folks doing to add an extra 10-20 miles per week to your average?

[wetcoast]

There are more qualified mileage people than me who could answer, this however; I would like to see this question morph into a useful thread. So I will answer with what I have been researching.

There are no uselss miles.

When you run over 70 miles and become injured how is your pace? What amount of quality are you doing? What are you doing - are you jumping from 50 to over 70 from one week to the next or are you going, 50, 55, 60-ish...70...like that ?

In the parlance of Lydiard, he would say it is better to get your mileage in single runs, but triples are better then not doing those miles at all. He would also say that any additional mileage has some benefits, in fact it is better to choose to go out when tired then once you are out for awhile, then decide if you can run, rather not go at all.

For some though 70 is optimum, other 90 others 140...you have to discover what works for you.

[tundra]

70 has been the magic number for SI joint issues and the shins really flaring up. I've only been back in the game for about 3 years after a 12 year lay-off, so I'm back to rookie status.

When training for 3k-5k stuff, my easy runs are about 7 min/mile pace and tempo stuff is mid 5 range. Intervals are 3 min or so for 1k's and 5 min for mile repeats. Long runs are generally 7 min pace. My easy runs were easy....8 min pace.

Adjustments that I have made so far are:
-long runs are a bit quicker, starting out at 6:45 pace and I try to get the last 6 miles in about 6:10-15 pace
-mile repeats have been about 5:10 on the treadmill, but I'm still in base phase so they haven't been all that stressful
-I'm trying to keep everything under 7:00 pace except for warm-ups, or if I'm in hilly trails, I don't worry so much about pace, but more on effort
-pace runs haven't been on the radar yet, but I can usually pop off 5:45's without much of issue for 6-10 miles
-my lunch 3 milers are at 7:00-10 pace

[pq]

I'm a fan of mileage, so I'll throw in a few cents.

Personally, my schedule is my own, so I can fit runs in whenever I want. Still, big mileage weeks take a bite out of your daily schedule, so you have to be creative, and make training a daily priority, even scheduling "running meetings" into your calendar if necessary.

I believe that the bulk of your mileage needs to be truly easy. Workouts need to be hard (very hard even), but separated by real "rest," meaning very easy mileage.

The primary purpose of MOST of your mileage is to stimulate basic aerobic adaptations, such as increasing capillarization and mitochondrial density. I believe that these adaptations are actually frustrated by going too fast on your easy days (like the intermediate paces that Daniels warns against).

Other key adaptations are stimulated by other forms of training (e.g. workouts and racing), but you can only do so much of that faster running in a week without burning out or hurting yourself. There is, however, no practical limit (other than time-wise) to how much truly easy running your body will accept. And the more you do, the more benefit you will get. Within reason, of course, and in the appropriate phases of training.

I think a 3 mile run at lunch is fine, if that's all you can squeeze in. In my personal experience, 70 mpw with some doubles (say 9-11 runs per week) is easier on the body than 70 on 6-7 runs, and I've seen no difference in the training effect (I've done lengthy stints of both).

I should probably stop now, but I want to emphasize the importance of running slowly on your off days, and stifle the myth that running slowly on easy days will make you slower. I run many of my easy miles with my wife at an average pace of ~ 9:30/mile, and my normal easy running is 7:30-8:00 by myself. While I realize my times are fairly mediocre, I have improved my times every year for the last four years by increasing my mileage (average ~ 70, with wide swings), slowing most of it down, and getting smarter about my workouts. This would be unremarkable in a 16 year old runner, but I'm 42, and have been running (but not training very smartly until the last few years) since my teens. Running 7:30-10:00 pace (on my easy days) has not hurt me, and I believe it has been of considerable benefit. This year, for example, I've PR'd at 1500, 5000, 8k road and 10k road.

Of course, you can't ONLY run long and slow. My workouts are quite hard. However I will only do two a week (or rarely three), with maybe a couple of short bits (2-3 miles) of "easy tempo" (5k + 75-90s/mile) a week.

This is what seems to work for me, anyway.

[wetcoast]

>>70 has been the magic number for SI joint issues and the shins really flaring up.<<

Maybe the faster stuff is too fast during your base phase? I would look there first.

Why not run a growing quantity of miles at as a solid pace as possible, but skip the intervals until February?

>>When training for 3k-5k stuff, my easy runs are about 7 min/mile pace and tempo stuff is mid 5 range. Intervals are 3 min or so for 1k's and 5 min for mile repeats. Long runs are generally 7 min pace. My easy runs were easy....8 min pace.<<

>>Adjustments that I have made so far are:
-long runs are a bit quicker, starting out at 6:45 pace and I try to get the last 6 miles in about 6:10-15 pace<<

What's your goal marathon race pace?

[tundra]

What's your goal marathon race pace?

5:41-5:45

[SI]

wetcoast said:

There are no useless miles.

I agree with that statement.

[cerruty]

I really don't know what a comfortable pace is for you, but it maybe sounds like you're forcing it when you don't need to be. When you go to increase your mileage just slow down and chill. Don't run rediculously slow, but don't time any miles, just run relaxed. I think when runner's get the "I'm not going to go any slower than X min/mile than they start running into problems. Maybe, say 7min/mile pace is easy during lower mileage, but when you go to up it that might not be a good recovery pace any more. Also, hit some trails as much as you can.

[SI]

cerruty said:

Also, hit some trails as much as you can.

Also very good advice that I wish I would have followed when I was younger. Use them now but it is too late.

[journeyman]

I would agree with the above comments that your pace is a little quick, but that you are better off doing it than not doing it.

My thinking about mileage as aerobic building is a little different, however. I think that you build your aerobic base while doing mileage, yes, but it is the time spent on your feet that does it. You are building the endurance muscles of your legs. That will increase their ability to use the red blood cells that your lungs and heart are bringing in. It's not so much the old opening up capillaries argument for someone at your level. You are not making your lungs and heart any stronger by doing mileage. You are making your legs stronger.

For someone at your level (i.e. with tons of previous running experience, even if it was a long time ago), you aren't training your lungs anymore. A beginner is, because he or she can't run for very long without bringing their HR up anyway. So they get the benefit of that type of training from "jogging."

That's why they say mileage should be below a certain heart rate. Your heart takes longer to recover than your legs. You can run every day at the same pace and same low HR if you want, but if you try to run at a higher HR, you are going to tire out, and need a break. When you do intervals, that is taxing the heart and producing physiological change on that end--which is of course necessary, but it's not the same kind of training.

So, if you believe that theory, you can run as slow as you want on your long runs. You could even look at it as being more beneficial, as if you run 10miles at 6min/miles you are out for an hour, but if you run at 7min/miles you are out for 70min.

I realise this is not he conventional way of looking at it. I'd like to hear what people make of this, especially the scientists (I am not a scientist--I derived this from reading books on my own, so I have experimental data with which to back it up).

[eeen]

Interesting, journeyman.

I've been wondering about what optimal pace is for daily runs and long runs. Various top runners seem to do different paces and have equal success.
For example, Paul Tergat often really gets rolling on his long runs progressively faster as they go on. He never runs amazingly slow.
However, Ramaala runs very slowly(for a 2:06:55 marathoner) on his long runs, like 20 miles in 2:40. And so are all his easy runs. He only really gets moving in his speed runs. Of course, he runs at 7,000 feet in Johannesburg.
But Tergat runs at high altitude too.

[krs1]

I really have to disagree with a couple of comments I have read throughout this thread.

The first is that " the bulk of your mileage needs to be truly easy. Workouts need to be hard (very hard even), but separated by real "rest," meaning very easy mileage"

And the second is "you can run as slow as you want on your long runs. You could even look at it as being more beneficial, as if you run 10miles at 6min/miles you are out for an hour, but if you run at 7min/miles you are out for 70min."

Now I don't have real hard and fast rule on how quick my easy days should be, but they certainly would not be catagorized as "truly easy." This is not always the case and there are points in the year (particularily leading into a very, very, intense race effort) where we do have days that I am specifically told to force myself to run "easy."

I think there is enough current literature out there that gives a good indication of how fast your easy days should be. The one I like to use the most in Jack Daniels training pace tables.

Taking myself as an example, with my current sb's of 3:34 and 13:19, Daniels prescribes easy days at anywhere from 5:42-6:16/mi, a 34 sec range. The corresponds to pretty much exactly the pace range I was typically running before I even saw one of Daneils tables. By one account above it was suggested that you could have as much as a 2 min/mile range in easy day paces and not have that hurt performance. Now I know for myself, if I went out and started running easy days at 7:45 pace, I would see some pretty serious declines in performance (maybe not down to the 5:14 1500m that that training pace corresponds too, but I can guarantee there would not been any sub 3:40's or 13:20's)

I think it is important to remember that when you are running easy mileage it is still important to be running within a certain range of your VO2max. While Daniels does state that the benefits of easy running are more a function of time spent exercising rather than the pace he still states that easy pace "typically in the range of 59-74 percent of VO2max (65-79 percent HRmax), elicits desirable physiological benefits that build a solid base from which higher-intensity training can be performed." If running withing these ranges were not that important, then I am sure the values and corresponding pace tables would never have been included within his books.

A couple of other points that I think are important that Daniels points out include how running slower means more time on the road to cover a set distance which "means more footfalls, more landing impact, and a greater chance for fluid loss and elevated body temperature." The other one refers to stride rate where elite runners stride rates (180/min) were compared with beginning runners (160/min). And he talks about the DISADVANTAGES of slower turnover: "the slower you take steps, the longer you spend in the air, andthe longer you're in the air, the higher you displace your body mass and the harder you hit the ground on landing" So if you are going to insisit on the slower training paces, make sure you are keeping you stride rate up to minimize "landing shock" injuries.

I want to stress that I really do advocate "truly easy" days, and I have them in my training. The are my complete days off...no running at all. But I am not a believer in very easy mileage.

[herodotus]

Very enlightening, Kevin. Thanks.

Daniel's 59-74% VO2max pace is very similar to Coe-Martin 55-75% for "aerobic conditioning" running. Anything slower = impact stress and no real physiological benefit, they say.

Still, we hear all kinds of stories about how slow "the Kenyans" go on easy days, or Morcelli's 10min miles. Or Ramaala above. Comments?

[MattMc]

KRS, good points re: Daniels. I have done a few marathon preps using his methodology and tables and have found it to be sound. I find that his T, I and MP are bang on. I did find his easy run pace to be a little fast, especially on days following big workouts. I usually use his easy run pace as a guide to run up-to and no faster than that pace. If I need to *read can't" run at the top I will start more slowly and usually be in the range by the last 1/2.

For younger runners building up your mileage, it is important to quantify both your overall volume and intensity. If you want to build your volume, then lower you intensity for a few months. Once the volume is where you want it, then slowly bring the intensity back. If you want a great guide use marathon prep guide C from Daniels' book.

Matt

[pq]

Interesting, Kevin, thanks.

I wonder if this:

krs1 said:

... I am not a believer in very easy mileage.

might be the difference between making finals at WCs or OGs and making the podium? That's probably not true about your specialty distances, but I'd bet good money you'd run faster at 5k and beyond if you ran lots of easy mileage on top of whatever else it is you do. If that were of interest to you - not that it needs to be, since you're a world class miler, and don't "need" to be a world class long distance runner.

The thing I enjoy about talking about training for distance running is that it's a very abstract subject, with more art than science (much like my profession, which involves trying to understand the mechanical behaviour of soil and rock, which are usually heterogeneous and defy simple characterization), and very few "universally true" answers.

For every elite athlete who has run a lot of easy mileage (in addition to some very intense work), you can probably find a guy like Kevin who avoids really easy running (I think oldster also falls into this category, but maybe he'll correct me if I'm wrong). Ditto for the high mileage versus "low" mileage debate, although certainly for longer distances, you'll find the proportion of lower mileage elites gets lower.

[tundra]

Yeah, I'd be interested to hear what Oldster has to say.

If you are reading Oldster....how about a comparison how you train for 5k/10k/xc vs. how you ramped up for your marathon.

Have really enjoyed this post...thanks for all the input even though OFSAA was not mentioned;)

[tundra]

I find that his T, I and MP are bang on. I did find his easy run pace to be a little fast, especially on days following big workouts. I usually use his easy run pace as a guide to run up-to and no faster than that pace. If I need to *read can't" run at the top I will start more slowly and usually be in the range by the last 1/2.
Matt[/quote]

Matt, I've got my VDOT around 66 which puts my easy pace in around 6:44/mile. 66 might be a hair ambitous on the VDOT right now, but 6:44 seems very quick for "easy" runs. Like you, I might build to that pace for the last half or third of that run. I also find his other paces(T, I) to be within a second or two.

[pq]

Kevin, first, I just want to make sure my previous post was taken in the spirit intended, and not as a criticism or personal shot.

In your contribution, this line especially caught my eye:

krs1 said:

Now I know for myself, if I went out and started running easy days at 7:45 pace, I would see some pretty serious declines in performance (maybe not down to the 5:14 1500m that that training pace corresponds too, but I can guarantee there would not been any sub 3:40's or 13:20's)

Can you maybe explain WHY you believe this to be true? Have you experimented with some slower easy running and seen your performances deteriorate? I'd be very interested to hear more from you on this subject.

To maybe clarify my first post a little bit, I don't advocate running 9:30 pace for anybody. However, I do firmly believe that running at that pace, for ME, on some of my easy days, is no worse than running my regular easy pace (7:30-8:00), and is much better than taking the day off. For ME.

I personally find Daniels' easy pace to be, in general, too fast. It's very rare I'll hit that pace on an easy day, and much more common (for ME) to be closer to a minute slower than that pace. However, on some of my easy days I will also include some short up-tempo work that's faster than his easy pace. So, an easy run (usually the evening of a hard workout morning, or the day following) might be six-eight miles at 8:00 pace with the middle three at ~ 6:15 pace.

I know my personal experiences are not of general interest to the board, but they may be of interest to tundra, since he is only a little faster than me and a little younger. The model I've followed might not be right for him (he'll need to find that out through trial and error), but it might, too.

In my early 30s I was a low-35 10k runner (and had plateaued there for a few years). At the time I ran low mileage (25-40 mpw typically), and all of my "easy" running was fast. 5:50 for a short run, 6:40 for a "long" run (8 miles maybe). Never slower, except when sick and injured. Now that's not what Sully was talking about when he mentioned Daniels' easy pace, so I'm mixing metaphors a little.

But anyway, 5-6 years ago I started training smarter. First thing I did was ramp up the mileage, and tried to slow down the bulk of my running. I succeeded on the first, but had trouble slowing down. In any event, times started to improve somewhat. BUT, the following year I got serious about slowing down the easy running, and times started to improve more. That was 4-5 years ago, and I've improved every year since.

Granted, I'm still, at best, a regional class master (33:00-30ish 10k runner), but, for me, the keys to triggering a new, long term improvement path were increasing mileage and slowing down the easy running.

----

On a related, but separate note. Everyone intuitively believes you have to run fast all the time to get faster, and so some people will never believe that some slow running, appropriately proportioned in your training, can help. Maybe they're right. But I don't believe it.

Beyond the basic psychological barrier, though, it always feels awkward slowing down, at first. Faster running (like Daniels' easy pace) feels more natural, and "easier" than going slower for most people, at least at first.

It has been explained to me (and I believe it, but offer it without proof) that this is a sign of underdeveloped aerobic fitness, relative to potential. Your body is telling you, when you slow down, that you're using muscle fibres that don't get recruited when running faster, and aren't accustomed to being involved in this whole running thing. The beauty of doing some slower running is that you start to recruit these slower fibres, and train them to contribute when you run faster, giving you more endurance at faster paces.

Or so I believe.

----

Sorry for the unforgiveably long post. I'll admit outight - I prefer my own company, and I enjoy hearing myself talk.

[journeyman]

Interesting ideas here. I think maybe I should qualify my comments as being relative. I don't think that 7min/mile is necessarily the ideal easy pace for anyone, any more than I think 6min/mile is not. The fitter you are, the faster you are able to go and still stay in an "easy" mode (Daniels' tables show that, obviously).

I wonder about his ideas of stride length, etc. I think that when you run his "R" intervals, you are working on that neuro-muscular stuff, and making sure your legs can turn over at a given rate. I think this is less of an issue when you are running your mileage. I don't think it is a problem to have more footfalls: that's what you want. The more you have, the more you train your leg muscles. Like anything else in running, though, there is a limit. So I think that the rule might be expressed as: run as long as you can without getting hurt, and don't run too fast (but it's ok to run too slow).

The problem of course in expressing a rule is that everyone is different. One person, like Kevin, may find that he gets the most out of his body by running at the faster range of "slow" for the easy runs. Certainly some people's mechanics find them having problems running slow. Clearly what Kevin has done has worked for him, and what Tergat has done has worked for him, and what Ramaala has done has worked for him. So the key is knowing what is good for you.

I also think it is important to distinguish between easy runs and long runs. A long run is a workout, especially if you are training for a marathon, and running it all easy is maybe ok when you are first building up, but it's clear that if you want to run your best, you have to include some kind of faster running as part of it. Some would say run the entire thing at that inbetween pace (between tempo and MP) that Daniels doesn't like. Others say start easy and finish at MP, or faster even.

The easy runs are for recovery, generally, or if you are in a building phase, to build. So if you are doing lots of workouts, getting ready to race, you might be better off, as Kevin said, taking a day off. If you are in a building mode, then getting out and doing the miles, in such a way that you are able to keep up your volume (whatever that means for you), is the way to go.

To bring it back to Tundra's question, I think it is a good experiment to try the easy 3milers at lunch, and see if that helps any. You'll know if it does. Another thought might be that if you tend to get injured at 70mpw, but you've gotten there this time without injury, then maybe you should wait a while before you increase the volume again. Keep it steady for a few more weeks, and then add in. Some might see that as overly cautious, but why risk injury this early in the training year?

[pq]

It keeps bugging me that this paragraph I wrote:

pq said:

might be the difference between making finals at WCs or OGs and making the podium? That's probably not true about your specialty distances, but I'd bet good money you'd run faster at 5k and beyond if you ran lots of easy mileage on top of whatever else it is you do. If that were of interest to you - not that it needs to be, since you're a world class miler, and don't "need" to be a world class long distance runner.

might have come across as a personal shot, which was definitely not what I intended. I was just hoping to continue the discussion. If the response to that particular comment was simply Sully coming back on and saying "pq you're an idiot, and here's why," then that would have served the purpose of extending the discussion, and would be interesting to me.

The easy pace that Kevin says he runs (say 5:45 to 6:15 in round numbers) is basically the (proportional) equivalent of a 16-flat guy (or gal) doing their easy mileage at ~ 7:00-7:40, give or take. Which actually sounds pretty "good" to me.

[krs1]

I didn't take it as a personal shot...I just try not to spend too much time writing on the boards as it tends to eat up too much of the day ;-)

I have not experimented with running "a lot of easy mileage" for a couple of reasons. The first being that I hate running that slow. It is more uncomfortable and I generally feel worse running over about 6:30 pace than I do running sub 6 min pace. The second is that I have never found any real proof that there is any physiological benefit for running much slower than the easy paces prescribed by the likes of Daniels or Martin. If someone shows me some real hard evidence that there is real solid physiological benefits then I would be willing to try. I also tend to dismiss the Ramala type stories as either severely over exaggerating how slow he runs or under estimating how far he runs. I can't say I believe there are many 2:06 marathoners doing high proportions of their mileage at 8 min mile pace. And if the Ramala training is true, he is certainly the exception rather than the rule. El G has some very well documented training where it is very normal to be doing 10 mile runs in the low 50 min range. And I can't say I know many, if any, world class athletes who do high percentages of their mileage at significantly slower paces. I strongly believe that each running day should be a day that you are physiologically achieving something in your training (other than when you are peaking where sharpness and resting are more important than really "training"). And there is no real hard evidence that I have seen that shows that running much slower than those prescribed easy day VO2/HR zones is beneficial.

PQ, here is my question back to you. You said in an earlier thread that you find Daniel's easy paces to be too fast for you. How do his T, I, and R paces correspond to what your current SB's are? Do you run T, I, and R paces that are faster than what your VDOT indicates you should be trainig at. If so, maybe this is why you are finding yourself forced to run slower on your E days?

To take this concept to an extreme, if the benefits of easy running were simply just getting in the time or distance, and the pace you do it at was irrelevant, then maybe I should just go out and walk my 9 miler this afternoon. Surely I will get the same benefit as if I run it in 54 min, no? ;D

pq said:

It keeps bugging me that this paragraph I wrote:

pq said:

might be the difference between making finals at WCs or OGs and making the podium? That's probably not true about your specialty distances, but I'd bet good money you'd run faster at 5k and beyond if you ran lots of easy mileage on top of whatever else it is you do. If that were of interest to you - not that it needs to be, since you're a world class miler, and don't "need" to be a world class long distance runner.

might have come across as a personal shot, which was definitely not what I intended. I was just hoping to continue the discussion. If the response to that particular comment was simply Sully coming back on and saying "pq you're an idiot, and here's why," then that would have served the purpose of extending the discussion, and would be interesting to me.

The easy pace that Kevin says he runs (say 5:45 to 6:15 in round numbers) is basically the (proportional) equivalent of a 16-flat guy (or gal) doing their easy mileage at ~ 7:00-7:40, give or take. Which actually sounds pretty "good" to me.

[schester]

journeyman said:

Your heart takes longer to recover than your legs.

Hey Journeyman,

Could you explain this a little more? It seems rather contradictory to what I would expect. Isn't it true that one's heart never endures the microtears, etc. to which one's legs are subjected...(This isn't meant to be a metaphor...)

[oasis]

krs1,

nice to hear an elite's comment's on training, any chance you could post some of your training weeks, do you use Daniels training paces in your training, have you ever been tested in a lab for velocity of VO@ max and Lactate/Ventilatory threshold, do you believe in lab testing or more incline to judge training off of race results, hopefully you can respond.

thanks

[oldster]

My thinking on this is very close to Kevin's (not surprising, since I've been a Daniels acolyte for many years now).

Starting with main question, I'd be inclined to say that increasing the frequency of your runs (i.e. adding short lunch hour runs) is probably not a good use of your time. You'll find that when you're training for the marathon, 3 miles is about how long it takes you to shake the stiffness out of your legs. If you're going to go to the trouble of getting dressed and starting a run, I'd suggest doing at least 45mins. In fact, I'm from the school of thought that says you don't really need to, and shouldn't, do doubles until you're running over 100mpw (that's for distance runners-- doubles have a different function for mid-distance guys).

As for your injury problems, as we all know, there could be many causes. If you're sticking within Daniels type ranges across the board, however, I think you can rule out the speed of your training, whether in workouts or easy runs, as a cause. As both coach and athlete, I've found these ranges to be very safe, and that athletes who stay off of hard surfaces, replace their shoes regularly, look after their core strength and do at least a minimum of flexibility work will stay very consistent for long stretches training at these paces.

When I moved to marathon training I made the following changes:

-increased my daily runs from 60-65mins (10.5-11.5 miles) to 70-75mins (12.5-13.5 miles) (yes, that's basically 5:40-50 per mile)

-added a marathon pace session (up to 25k at MP, with 3-4 miles warm-up/down) every 10-14 days.

-Ran for 20-23 miles once every 7-10 days.


As for the question about daily training pace, I'm with Kevin in just about every respect here. I've always run the Daniels paces, and find that 30 sec per mile range is all the difference I need if I'm feeling tired (I find a huge difference between my normal 3:40km pace and 4min pace, which I sometimes do if running with, say, Emily T.) I think there are possibly a few elites out there running up to 7mins/mile, but I think you'll find the ones who are are doing 150miles a week, or something, and that they've probably got 100-120 in there at at least 6min. pace. The stories about the Kenyans running slow in their training are based on a misconception. It's typical for Kenyans to START their runs very slowly and build from there, often hitting sub 5min miles mid run before slowing back down. I've personally never met, or run with, an elite guy who ran slower than about 6:30, and that's a marathoner doing, like I said, 150mpw. Every 1500 to 10k guy I've ever gone for a run with ran 5:30-6:10, which is squarely in the Daniels range. I've personally never been able to figure out how someone who could run Daniels paces consistently for their hard sessions could find the easy paces too hard. I suspect they've just developed some bad habits where their easy runs are concerned and could probably easily manage the proper pace, and probably benefit too. (I haven't looked at that section of the book in a while, but, as Kevin says, if Daniels is prescribing it, it's probably at, or close to, physiologically optimal. He is a very careful, precise man where these things are concerned).

[spencer3]

Hi, i've been following the thread and i've been very interested in this talk of daniels tabes or Vdot... and i went to the online V dot calculator and found that me and most guys i train with all have 1500m pb's from 4:07-4:13 , i know for myself my easy days are right at the calculated pace which is around 4:10 /km , however myself and the other few guys mentioned all run our repeats much faster than the perscribed pace yet i can always finish the workouts given at this faster pace and it feels relatively comfortable and i feel good all week (a.k.a im not laboring from it later) , is this just a case of not performing on race day given how well ive been training ? or perhaps overtraining for my interval training? or could it also be that these numbers are calculated assuming im doing much more repeats then i am... for instance if im doing 10x400m at about 65 instead of 68

[oldster]

Spencer, it's likely that your breaks are too long and your workout volume too low. I've also discovered that younger runners are able to do their Daniels R-pace quite easily for repeats of between 400m and 600m, but can't manage it for 600-800m. Instead of 10x400 @65, try 4x800 at 2:10 with 4-8 mins recovery. I'll bet you can't do it, and will be forced back up to your proper R-pace. If you can do it, then you need to look at how you're executing your 1500 races (i.e. whether you're pacing them properly). You should be able to go significantly faster than your 4:07-13.

[oasis]

thanks for the insight oldster,

when you are doing easy run are you paying attention to pace or just running by feel then maybe occasionaly check your pace, my 10k pr is 35:30 (done recently) and in DRF 1st edition my easy pace is around 7:07, on my easy runs I sometimes check my pace and it is usually around 7:30-7:40, I also fall into the category of running workouts faster than the prescribed pace trying to set workout pr's and then running slower race times, so obviously I have to slow down my workout paces to the appropiate level but would running my easy runs somewhat faster be benefictial

[spencer3]

o ok.. yea i guess that increasing workout volume and/or drecreasing rest would make those workouts a little harder(and by alittle i mean alot.) however i think doing 4x800m at that pace with 8 minutes recovery is a ton of recovery and probably attainable at the time of my pr . however if running with a club with a set workout if it is not possible to increase the milage that much in workouts themselves is it still benefial to run repeats at this slower pace? or would it then be better to run at a slightly faster pace?

[pq]

Kevin, thanks for the comments. Very, very interesting stuff developing on this thread.

In response to your question, I don’t run slower than Daniels’ easy pace because I need to – I do it more because it’s become a habit. Daniels’ easy pace is at the upper range of what my coach would be happy with me running, but he doesn’t ask me to run that fast, and doesn’t get bothered if I run easier. Usually the day after a hard session, 8 minute pace will feel more natural than 7 minute pace, so that’s what I’m more likely to run, but I wouldn’t say I couldn’t run 7 min pace.

I can’t really comment on how Daniels’ various work paces work for me because my coach doesn’t follow Daniels’ system. As I wrote in an earlier thread, we use many more different paces than those three. I’ll maybe offer some examples later, in the hope of stimulating further discussion.

[oldster]

Oasis, until I was probably 30, I was pretty high-strung in my training, and would time every run and calculate the pace after. At that point I simply decided that, since my pace rarely varied by more than a few seconds a mile, I might as well not bother timing my easy runs at all, and I stopped completely. After that, I would take "pace samples" every so often, occasionally correlating these with heart rates, to make sure I wasn't overdoing it on my easy days, as I still had a tendency to train fast (I can be a bit like a sled dog-- once I'm in the harness, I like to go).

As for your tendency to push your workouts, my advice would be to really work on controlling your effort according to your race-proven condition. If you can be more disciplined in this respect, I GUARANTEE you will race faster over the long term. If you're doing enough volume, this is the single most significant change you can make in your training at the moment.

And, spencer, if you do the 4x800 session (which you should only ever do near the end of a cycle of R-pace training) start with 4mins recovery, then go to 6 and only go to 8mins if your third repeat is slower than your second. If you can do this session at the pace you're currently doing your 10x400 session, then you really need to look at how you're pacing your 1500 races, as you should be running 4:03-05, not 07-13. And I guarantee, this session is a lot harder than it looks on paper, particularly for a younger athlete.