Increasing mileage

[krs1]

The last time I had my VO2max tested in the lab was when i was about 15 or 16 and I cannot recall what it was, but the docs sure were impressed!!

In 2005 I was basically coaching myself for much of the year, and I did tend to gravitate a lot to Daniels' charts (based on my race results) just to validate the volume/paces I was using in my workouts. Since fall of 2005 I have been working with Juli Henner, and I don't try to analyze the training too much. One of my other beliefs is that if you are going to have someone coach you, then have the faith in them to know what the right paces are. However, since I have done much reading on training and with my own background, it is only natural to compare.

What I have found with my current training is that my E pace is pretty much always withing the range that Daniel's prescribes just by running off feel...running easy, conversational.

The T pace Juli has me run at is a little bit slower than what Daniels would suggest, and slower than what I did when I was training at Michigan (I would have been right inthe Daniels range at Michigan).

I and R paces are pretty close to right on.

With that all being said, we don't do a lot of sessions where we just do X times a certain distance at a certain pace (I or R). Many of our sessions involve pace changes from start to finish. But I probably come close to averaging I pace or R pace over the course of a workout.

I don't have a problem posting some sample weeks through this thread. I'll try to get one up for each month of the year over the next few days. I promissed Linc a while ago that I would give him some sample weeks and have not gotten around to it yet, so if you are reading Linc, stay tuned.

oasis said:

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

[krs1]

Ok, here is my first sample week...nothing exciting here as the first 2 weeks in Oct are normally completely off, and the next 2 are just spent getting some running in. You'll see we also do a fair bit of x-training through this period as well just to get some added work in without the pounding stress of running after having taken time off (this is my second week back).

M: PM 5 mile run + 40 min eliptical machine (back to back); Abs

T: PM: 45 min run + drills; Core

W: PM: 6 mile run + 40 min eliptical machine (back to back); Abs; Weights

TH: AM: 7 mile run + drills + 4x100 strides + 1.5 miles wd

F: AM: 9 mile run; Core; Weights

S: AM: 5 mile run + 30 min eliptical machine (back to back)

S: REST

[pq]

krs1 said:

(1) 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?

(2) 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

(1) OK, so I had to do some google work to refresh my memory as to the meaning of the various Daniels' paces. In any event, if we take my most recent race result as accurate, then my VDOT is about 65, and my associated paces are:

T - 82s/lap
I - 76s/lap
R - 70s/lap

I've put them all in terms of 400m just for ease of comparison.

Now I've had a look back through my log for the last two months to see exactly what it is I did. This two month period is different than the preceeding two months, and wouldn't necessarily be "typical," but it wouldn't I guess be atypical either.

Caveat - my fitness improved a little over this period, so the proper paces would have been a little different (slower) in the beginning, but probably not by more than - say - 1 or 2 seconds.

What I found is that my workouts (and races during this period) involved the following paces:

53s/lap
54s
58s
60s
62s
64s
72s
74s
75s
76s
79s
80s
81s
82s
86s
87s
and lots of work at 92-95s

The faster work was shorter reps, done more sparingly, and the slower work was generally longer, and more frequent. The work broke down like this, in reverse order (work backward from this week to early October at the bottom of the list). Workouts would generally be at least three days apart (except the 92-95s/lap stuff might be right after a workout or race), and races might be followed by a week with no workouts (or only one) and preceded by a week with only a light to moderate workout:

8 x 600 @ 72s/lap w/2:00j (250m)
8k XC race
5000 race @ ~ 76s/lap
2 miles @ 86s/lap (within longer run - typical for similar entries to follow)
3 miles @ 92s/lap
3 miles @ 93s/lap
8k road race (flat) @ 80s/lap
3 miles @ 92s/lap
2 x 1000 @ 75s/lap w/90s j (200) + 2 miles @ 85s/lap
2.5 miles @ 94s/lap
3k of 50m very hard (~ 60s/lap)/50m very easy fartlek
2.5 miles @ 94s/lap
8 x 1200 @ 81s/lap w/75s j (200)
3 miles @ 94s/lap
10 x 300 @ 64s/lap w/3:00j (400)
2.5 miles @ 94s/lap
3 miles @ 95s/lap
6 x 800 @ 74s/lap w/90s j (200)
3 miles @ 95s/lap
5k road (windy) @ 79s/lap
6 x 100 hard (54s/lap) w/300j
3 miles + 2 miles @ 86s/lap w/800j
2 x 3 miles @ 87s/lap w/800j
8 x 600 @ 74s/lap w/75s j (200)
10k road (hilly) @ 82s/lap
5k road (forget my excuse, ha) @ 81s/lap
3 x 200 @ 58s/lap w/400j + 3 x 100 @ 53s/lap w/700j
2 x (4 x 200) @ 61-62s/lap w/30s/10 min j
2 x 3 miles @ 93s/lap

While there's a fair bit of variety in there, I think the previous two months were quite a bit different.

For information, I'm instructed to finish most sessions (all except a rare few) KNOWING with an absolute certaintly that I could do a couple more reps if I had to. Not WANT to do a couple more, but know I'm capable. So all workouts are completed feeling fresh and invigorated. If the session is not coming "right" then I bail and leave it for another day. I bailed from at least two sessions in the prior two months (that I can recall).

So anyway, that's a fairly long winded answer to Kevin's question about how Daniels' T, I and R paces feel to me. I didn't really know, and this was the only way I could answer.... I guess paces around those ranges feel proper when they're incorporated as part of the right work session (and I've provided some examples), but some faster paces also feel right, as do some slower ones.

These two months have been, more or less, general preparation to get me ready to prepare more specifically for indoors. The next two months will likely look a fair bit different.

I'd be curious to hear - do others out there tend to use a wide range of paces like this for a distance runner looking to prepare for a relatively broad range of distances? Or is it more common to use a simpler model, like Daniels' tables, or some other multi-pace approach with, say, five different paces?

(2) Um, actually I think you do get just about the same general aerobic benefit from a 9 mile walk as you do from a 9 mile easy run. I accept I might be wrong, but this is what I believe. Again, though, you can't only walk or run easy. In a similar vein, a triathlete gets aerobic benefits from their other training that benefits their running. oldster has talked about using swimming or other cross training as a way of supplementing the running specific training (I forget in what context that came up), and at least one of his young athletes performed quite well this year with very little running and a whole lot of swimming. I would contend that easy running, or dare I say even walking, is no worse than swimming, if one is looking for a cross training alternative that's not fast running. Better even. Probably. :-)

[tundra]

PQ,

I think I might fall into the trap Oldster spoke of.......doing all of my stuff within a few seconds on average. As I look back on the last year, my easy days were.....very easy....like 8 min/mile easy. At first, it was not comfortable and then it became habit, and once it was a habit, I just floated on those days.

I look back to two years ago and I see I was a little more upbeat on my easy days. Now, throw in a little Father Time in combination with running easier and methinks I have some answers. Two years ago, I was 8:43(3000m i) and 14:59(5k-road) and in the last year I struggled mid-15's on the road. I did not race very much as I was doing a steeple in the summer, but methinks getting back to a little more quality on the days when I used to float might just be the thing to get back into the sub 15 range and perhaps mid-2:20's for the full.

Having said that, methinks I need to listen to the body when aches and pains crop up and take the day off or learn to go back to a float day, but for now, I'm going to try a little more upbeat. It worked well before, so...........

[madm]

i dont know about you guys or maybe it's just me but my easy days rarely stayed easy, maybe the first mile or so was done at a crawl pace, but for half of an hr to 2hr run i was able to run within a few seconds per mile of my tempo pace, and i found i could do this pretty much 4-6 times a week believe it or not, even all the while increasing my mileage...it's all about knowing your body and realizing when you're about to cross that line where you're gonna be too sore or tired to repeat the same kind of run the next day. during the base season i just ran and let the tempo pace come to me...if you feel good, let it rip but if you feel shitty, run slow...you'd be surprised how fast you can run on your "easy" days without feeling like shit the next day...

[oasis]

thanks again oldster,

in regards to my easy runs, mostly run them by feel and occassional check pace, like I said somewhere between 7:30-7:45, the majority of times after my easy runs I feel like I could run forever and like I haven't really ran at all, kind of ran at this pace for the last few years and really haven't improved race times, I was always under the impression that easy run pace didn't matter that they were just maintance runs, do you think running my easy runs at a slightly faster pace would benefit me

[oldster]

Oasis, I think you could improve in one of two ways: by increasing the pace on your easy days down into the Daniels zone; or, by dramatically increasing you mileage at your current pace. If your E days are that easy, you could probably do a lot more volume. I think John Kellogg, the letsrun guy, has been pretty good at explicating the physiology of easy running, and the trade off between volume and speed where the relevant adaptations are concerned (his offerings are freely available at letsrun). But, I happen to think that the Daniels E-paces optimize the trade off between pace and total volume that Kellogg discusses. Like I said, if you stick with these paces you will go a long time without getting hurt or going stale, all other things being equal.

And pq, I think we have to be clear that aerobic work must be done at a certain percentage of MV02 and HR to be effective in producing the adaptations we're after. Cross training is effective, but only if it reproduces the aerobic demands of run training. When my athletes swim, they're actually going quite hard all the time. Your theory that walking can be as effective as swimming, or even easy running may make some sense intuitively, but I wouldn't want to test it! (With my calf problem, I've been walking the dog for 4-5miles a day all week, often over snow covered ground, and I can tell you that it sure ain't the training equivalent of 4-5 miles of even easy running. My hard earned shape is draining away by the hour!).

[pq]

oldster said:

And pq, I think we have to be clear that aerobic work must be done at a certain percentage of MV02 and HR to be effective in producing the adaptations we're after.

Well, we can be clear that you believe this to be the case. And I don't. I believe that SOME very easy aerobic work contributes to aerobic fitness. Again, not ALL work (hence you will lose fitness no matter what unless you do some brisk aerobic work of some kind), but SOME.

I realize this is a fundamental point of disagreement, and I don't think either opinion can be proven correct, even with the benefit of input from the ex phys types who know (some of) the science.

[pq]

oldster said:

...Your theory that ... even easy running may make some sense intuitively, but I wouldn't want to test it!

Ah, there's the problem! :-) You've never tested it, so how can you say it doesn't work? I have tested it, and it has worked for me.

[oldster]

Pq, I was referring more to your statement that "you get about the same benefit from a nine mile walk as from a nine mile easy run", which seem implausible, than to anything like the claim that "some very easy aerobic work contributes to aerobic fitness". The latter is a far different kind of claim, and one I could agree with, provided we're clear what we mean by "aerobic". Unless you're race walking, or hiking up hills, I don't think walking is "aerobic" in any meaningful sense (i.e. in relation to actually training for sports, which is what we're discussing). And, surely, these are matters of scientific fact and not opinion (accepting that "proof" is a very high standard, even in matters of "hard" science).

And, which theory have you tested, the one that says walking 9 miles is more or less the equivalent of running 9 miles a day, or the theory that "some very easy aerobic activity" is helpful? (I'm guess the latter). I dare you to try walking 9 miles a day on your easy days instead of running them, but keeping your hard sessions the same.

[pq]

I hate walking! Easy running of course.

[journeyman]

schester said:

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...)

Hey Sean,
Well, the way I see it, we run on our legs every day, whether it's at easy pace or interval pace. We only rev our HR up high at the most every other day. I don't really have any scientific evidence to back it up. I think of training very metaphorically, actually...

But, now that I think of it, and coupled with the comments here, I'd probably have to retract that. Basically I was trying to answer the question of why, if it is so great to run fast all the time, we don't just do intervals all the time. Aside from needing to work the cardio-vascular system at various work rates, I figured it was because the hard needed to recover. It could also be the legs needing to recover though.

So I hadn't really thought that one through very much. I just remember a thread where someone said that it was a bad idea to run more than one tempo a week, and I couldn't figure out why they would have said that. That was one of my possible answers.

[Linc]

A few comments here...

1) krs1, I will stay tuned. Thanks, I appreciate it.

2) What are we really trying to get out of our "easy" days? First and foremost, it is going to depend on where you are in the season...To me, "easy" days are for recovery, maintenance, and a little aerobic development. The main thing being recovery for the real work being done on the other days. I think running 60-70 minutes on an "easy" day has some physiological benefits, regardless of the pace(within reason). Which leads to...

3) Listen to your body. I look at "easy" days as whatever feels easy. If you go out the door and 6:00-6:10 minutes feels easy, don't intentionally slow down to be in some "specific range". Conversely, if you go out the door and feel like 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag, don't intentionally try to pick up the pace 20 secs per mile. Your body is telling you that it's hurting and you probably need to run slower that day.

4) I would consider myself much more of a scientific person, who puts a lot of value in fatcs etc., than an art or faith type of person. I think it's very important to base your training around sound scientific and physiological evidence in order to see solid improvements and stay injury free. However, I do not agree with applying general charts and tables to individual athletes. I think there are too many factors having an influence on training to do this. How much mileage have they done in the past? at what pace? how often were they injured? cause of injuries? how much mileage are they doing now? what sort of performance increases/decreases have they seen with difference types of training?
I haven't read all of Daniels yet though, so maybe some of these things are covered.

5) Tundra, an answer to your initial question... I would say that the majority of increase to your weekly mileage should be added to your primary runs. So, instead of three 3 mile lunch runs, spread a mile or two into each run of the week and I think it would be more beneficial. That being said, I think you should still do the lunches as well. Honestly, if they are "easy" there is no reason not to. If they are "easy" they will be of no hinderance to your primary run of the day and may even be benefial to it by loosening you up a bit. If nothing else, they will at least increase your metabolism. If you're willing to go out during your lunch, by all means go ahead.

When increasing mileage, I think the biggest mistake people make is that they aren't patient. You can't bump up your mileage that much in a year, let alone over night. People get to a certain mileage for a couple of months and think they're ready to bump up again, and then again. When in reality, they should wait until the next year to do so.(when you're in uncharted territory at least, if you've been that high before then it's a little different...) Building up your mileage is a long process, but, if you're willing to have to the patience(over several years) you will reap the benifits of doing so.

[krs1]

linc said:

2) What are we really trying to get out of our "easy" days? First and foremost, it is going to depend on where you are in the season...To me, "easy" days are for recovery, maintenance, and a little aerobic development. The main thing being recovery for the real work being done on the other days. I think running 60-70 minutes on an "easy" day has some physiological benefits, regardless of the pace(within reason). Which leads to...

3) Listen to your body. I look at "easy" days as whatever feels easy. If you go out the door and 6:00-6:10 minutes feels easy, don't intentionally slow down to be in some "specific range". Conversely, if you go out the door and feel like 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag, don't intentionally try to pick up the pace 20 secs per mile. Your body is telling you that it's hurting and you probably need to run slower that day.

4) I would consider myself much more of a scientific person, who puts a lot of value in fatcs etc., than an art or faith type of person. I think it's very important to base your training around sound scientific and physiological evidence in order to see solid improvements and stay injury free. However, I do not agree with applying general charts and tables to individual athletes. I think there are too many factors having an influence on training to do this. How much mileage have they done in the past? at what pace? how often were they injured? cause of injuries? how much mileage are they doing now? what sort of performance increases/decreases have they seen with difference types of training?
I haven't read all of Daniels yet though, so maybe some of these things are covered.

.

I think your points are pretty sound, especially your one about running by feel. This pretty much how I approach each day. When I run by feel, I almost always naturally fall into the E day ranges that Daniels suggests. The 10 lbs of shit in 5 lbs bag days I am always at the slow end of his range, but I am almost always in that range just natrually.

Part of the problem with figuring out how to run on an easy day is that fact that is call "easy." Just taking the word "easy" leaves the pace to way to much intrepetation if you haven't done the research to learn why an easy day should, for the majority of runs, fall withing a specifice VO2max/HR zone. And this is why I like Daniels particularily because he gives you a scientific reason why we run at certain paces. Does that mean I am locked into one pace for each type of session...no, certainly not, and I think my training will show that. But Daniels tables are very good guideline to reference when designing training programs.

[krs1]

pq said:

(2) Um, actually I think you do get just about the same general aerobic benefit from a 9 mile walk as you do from a 9 mile easy run. I accept I might be wrong, but this is what I believe. Again, though, you can't only walk or run easy. In a similar vein, a triathlete gets aerobic benefits from their other training that benefits their running. oldster has talked about using swimming or other cross training as a way of supplementing the running specific training (I forget in what context that came up), and at least one of his young athletes performed quite well this year with very little running and a whole lot of swimming. I would contend that easy running, or dare I say even walking, is no worse than swimming, if one is looking for a cross training alternative that's not fast running. Better even. Probably. :-)

This is the problem. Just saying you believe that you can acheive the same aerobic benefit from a 9 mile walk as a 9 mile run is the problem. There is absolutely no evidence to back this theory up. The reason a triathlete or x-training athlete can achieve aeorobic benefits from their non-running training is because they x-train in the HR/VO2max zones needed build that aerobic base.

[krs1]

M: AM: 30 min eliptical machine; PM: 6 mile run + drills + hurdle mobility + speed hurdles + 5x3 hurdle hops + 2x(50, 100, 150; set #1 @ 14, set #2 @ 14 w/standing start) + 1 mile wd + barefoot walks; Abs

T: PM: Out and back run, 35 min out easy, 30 min back at "hard" effort + 7 min easy + 4x100m strides; Core; Weights

W: AM: 30 min eliptical machine; PM: 50 min run; Abs

Th: AM: 5 miles; PM: 5 miles; Core

F: PM:15 min wu, 3x5x45sec on/90 sec off (set#1 3:00 rec, set#2 4:00 rec), start at xc race pace w/each set quicker, 20 min wd; Abs; Weights

S: PM: 8 miles + drills

S: AM: 13 miles

[oasis]

krs1,

thanks for posting your training, always good to learn from someone of your ability, a question for you (oldster please respond also); I kind of reached a plateau for the last 3 years and can't seem to break out of it, basically I am a 36 min 10k runner (ran 35:30 recently) like I said have been for 3+ years, have tried 70-80 miles/week for 2 years didn't see any improvement, running about 50-60 / week now, mentioned to oldster about easy run pace which I was running around 7:30-7:45 pace by feel, according to daniels alittle on the slow side, without getting into to much detail any ideas on how to break out to new level, I kind of struggle with tempo runs and my race times kind of slow down when the races get longer, i.e. 3000m - 9:37(2007), 1/2 - 1:20:20(2007), realize it's difficult to analyze someone you basically know nothing about but maybe you add a few pointers or some ideas, thanks

[Linc]

.[/quote]

I think your points are pretty sound, especially your one about running by feel. This pretty much how I approach each day. When I run by feel, I almost always naturally fall into the E day ranges that Daniels suggests. The 10 lbs of shit in 5 lbs bag days I am always at the slow end of his range, but I am almost always in that range just natrually.

Part of the problem with figuring out how to run on an easy day is that fact that is call "easy." Just taking the word "easy" leaves the pace to way to much intrepetation if you haven't done the research to learn why an easy day should, for the majority of runs, fall withing a specifice VO2max/HR zone. And this is why I like Daniels particularily because he gives you a scientific reason why we run at certain paces. Does that mean I am locked into one pace for each type of session...no, certainly not, and I think my training will show that. But Daniels tables are very good guideline to reference when designing training programs.
[/quote]

I should have mentioned this before, but I don't want it to seem as though I completely disregard his tables, because I do agree that they can be good general guidelines as well.

I know you mentioned that the first week you posted was the last week of October(I think)...When was this next one from? Was it the following week, or several weeks after? Thanks.

[Bomba]

.....KISS folks.......egs Bill Squires (Billy Rodger's coach) said 'easy' days are current 5km pace plus 2mins...'brisk' is current 5km pace plus 90 secs..... considering that 'easy' is almost every day in his schedules (except for typically one weekly workout and long run) and 'brisk' might be used once every weeks or 2 u get the idea.....can't run that slow thne run with someone who is that slow..

[Bomba]

.....and i'll add...if u want a real good view of 'slower' steady training than get hold of Squire's book and any of the Ron Daws' books.....u'd be shocked at how slow some of his long runs were (along with some of the people he coached egs. Steve Hoag who ran 2:11)

[tundra]

.......egs Bill Squires (Billy Rodger's coach) said 'easy' days are current 5km pace plus 2mins<Bomba>

So, a 15 minute 5 km guy is a little under 5 minute pace. Add 2 minutes and that is in accordance with the Daniel's thinking.

Sounds good to me Bomba. Thanks.

[Bomba]

....having said that i have clunked out some well over 7 min mile runs (close to8??) and also threw down some 6min ones.....but the 6mins ones would be when i am feeling chipper and don't have a bigger session the next day...i actually hate the word easy....i think a better term is recovery......

[Frenchie]

www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=152890&thread=152890

"By way of support for the slow running for recovery theorists, I've been told that John Treacy (brother of Providence Coach Ray) used to every day run AM 7mls @7.00 pace, PM 10mls @7.00 pace, then rip his workouts. Seeing as in the late 70s JT was World XC Champ and a good track guy too, slow running clearly worked for him too. I think he won a Olympic marathon medal in LA too.

Similarly, back in 99 I ran a few times with Hendrik Ramala, the sub-60 half marathon guy and 27min 10k man. Hendrik was another for properly jogging his recovery runs, at slower than 7.00 pace. Indeed, he used to tell us we were stupid if we tried to run any faster than 7.00pace.

Yet plenty of fast guys do the opposite and rip along at 5.45 pace on all steady miles. Damn hard to know which is right."

[krs1]

Like I said before, my expereince with elite distance runners is that the Ramala types are the exception, not the rule.

I also think with the emergence of the Africans, most elites today cannot take the chance of running JT type easy days. Also, since the 1970's there has obviously been significantly more SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH into optimal training methods to give us a very accurate picture of how to train to maximize performance.

It is surely true that you CAN see improvements if you run your easy days extremely easy, and, there is a place for SOME easy running in your training. However, if you are doing the majority of your off days at this extremely easy pace, you are probably not going to see maximum performance gains.

An interesting side note, I've done some running with Ray Treacy's female athletes (Kim Smith, Amy Mortimer) and they run faster than 7 min pace on their off days.

luc15 said:

www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=152890&thread=152890

"By way of support for the slow running for recovery theorists, I've been told that John Treacy (brother of Providence Coach Ray) used to every day run AM 7mls @7.00 pace, PM 10mls @7.00 pace, then rip his workouts. Seeing as in the late 70s JT was World XC Champ and a good track guy too, slow running clearly worked for him too. I think he won a Olympic marathon medal in LA too.

Similarly, back in 99 I ran a few times with Hendrik Ramala, the sub-60 half marathon guy and 27min 10k man. Hendrik was another for properly jogging his recovery runs, at slower than 7.00 pace. Indeed, he used to tell us we were stupid if we tried to run any faster than 7.00pace.

Yet plenty of fast guys do the opposite and rip along at 5.45 pace on all steady miles. Damn hard to know which is right."

[novanation]

In highschool I ran my mileage runs really easy and my workouts were very intense.

After going away to school, mileage days are run much faster than I used to run and workouts are relatively easier.

I really think it depends on the person.

[Steller]

This is a great thread, that I have finally had time to catch-up with. Especially a great thread for young athletes and coaches that are constantly faced with different opinions regarding the optimal target paces for the different sessions of training. (as an aside, the internet is great--- when I was in highschool there was no place where I could get candid information as being provided by the likes of Sully and SB).

For most of the people i have done physiological testing on, I usually cross-reference the target pace zones that I have calculated against Jack Daniels's VDOT values. (for Hilary's you can see: www.runhilaryrun.ca/VO2Max2007.html).. note there is a typo in here...Hilary's recovery pace should be 7min/mile...not 8!. Sully, you'll remember when we did this with Carmen Douma-Hussar's VO2max data a few years ago back in Guelph. And, in most instances, the measured/calculated data fits 'decently' well with the charts in Daniel's book. This should not be suprising, as Jack basically made those charts from hundreds and hundreds of VO2max tests that he has done over the decades on different athletes.

The reason I put quotes around 'decently' above, is that I have found that the VDOT Value a person chooses can somewhat change and dictate the training zones. It really depends on what race distance they choose from the chart "VDOT Values associated with times raced over some popular distance". Of course you are supposed to choose a time that you have recently run from this chart...but there are possible times from 1500m all the way up to the marathon (huge range) and I find that choosing a single VDOT value from race distance on the extreme (ie. from just 1500m, or marathon) tends to artificially shift the target paces a bit.

So for example, when Hilary is in good 1500m shape her VDOT is about 68 or 69. But, a VDOT of 69 also suggests she can run a 69 min half-marathon or 2:24 marathon. Heck is also suggests she can run a 8:41 3000m...but she has come at the 1500m from 400m and 800m, and thus even an 8:41 3k would be a huge PB. When I then take a VDOT of 69, it says her recovery should be 6:21 mile and threshold at 5:16 per mile...which I know from direct testing is too fast for her. The intervals and race pace stuff is nearly bang on though. But, I am sure if she could run a 69min 1/2 marathon, these recovery and threshold paces would be good for her, and the suggested intervals pace would then probably be too fast.

So I have found that for most pure-middle distance athletes, the VDOTs for recovery and threshold tend to be too fast. And for pure marathon runners, the estimated interval paces might be too fast (not as sure about this, as I haven't tested as many pure marathon runners). Thus, for most athletes choosing your VDOT value from a recent race effort (or what you think you could run) it might be much better to choose a race distance somewhere in the middle (ie. 5k) to help prevent the above from occuring.

Run pace on easy days
I used to be directly in line with what Sully has suggested regarding off day runs...until I saw what some of the African middle-distance athletes do on their recovery runs-- sometimes 8min pace...the whole run! (note, haven't seen this as much in African runners who race 5000m+ race distances). In general though, having a range of times that you hit in your different training zones is best, and well desribed by Linc. I personally believe in running as fast on recovery days as you can, while still being able to hit your hard training the rest of the week, and not breaking down--- this takes expereince and it is better to error on the side of caution. If it is a big week, and you are super tired...then these recovery runs might be pretty slow.

Interestingly, this 'range' of times for training zones can be supported by the Daniels table. Just pick VDOT values at the extrememes of race distance. So again, for Hilary her 1500m time when peaked might dictate a VDOT of 69, but her 10k to 1/2 marathon times might bring in a VDOT of 60. So from this, we can see a recovery run pace of ~6:21 to ~7:07 per mile. And I know that Hilary does a lot of recovery runs at ~7min pace....but rarely would she ever hit 6:20's (part of this might have to do with the fact that we live and run slightly above 1000m and it is very rolly/hilly around here).

anyways lots of ramblings...hope it all makes sense...

[oldster]

This is rapidly becoming the most useful thread on this board. Someone alert the kids that Sully is posting samples from his actual training log! Where else are you going to get this?

A few things:

1. Sully, what's the "barefoot walk" thing your refer to in your sched.? And, what made you choose the elipitical as your X-training modality? I now use one instead of water running after some advice from Ed Eyestone suggesting it was superior for runners. (My only complaint about mine is that the range of motion (i.e. size of the wheel) could be a little wider, and my machine is a fairly high-end one.)

2. Oasis, what do your tempo sessions look like? I think these could be another key to breaking your impasse at 5k and up.

3. Most of the reports you hear about people running very slowly on their easy days (including Squires' people, such as Bill Rodgers) are doing very high volumes (120-150mpw). I'm convinced that anyone doing less than 100-120mpw will not optimize their performance if they attempt to run outside the Daniels ranges on a regular basis (with Steller's very useful comments on VDOT selection duly noted).

4. If you feel the genuine need to run much slower than the Daniels E-pace on your recovery days, you're probably better off doing some form of cross training instead of running; you're either trying to do too much volume for your own personal tolerance level and/or lifestyle, or else you're pushing your workouts too hard. (And here it's important to note that the Daniels paces are complementary: if you do your workouts within your race-proven ranges in terms of speed and volume, you will not feel the need to go slower on your E days, all other things being equal. Using the Daniels paces, I've put together literally YEARS without significant staleness or injury, and with few or no really poor race performances.

5. I think we can push the notion that all this "depends upon the person" too far. Navigating a training program on a day-to-day basis certainly requires sensitivity to a range of detailed personal factors, but the basic elements of the programs of the most successful athletes tend to be highly similar. Daniels data are culled from a fairly large sample of successful athletes and his guidelines represent a pretty fair approximation of how, on average, an athlete should distribute his or her efforts (Lydiard's suggestions, which, in spite of the all the debate, don't fundamentally contradict Daniels, also fit this bill, although, being a scientist, Daniels is far less idiosyncratic, and generally more circumspect, in terms of his detailed training suggestions-- e.g. he presents his approach as a "formula", and presents his more detailed suggestions as mere samples, not recipes to be followed). Any athlete wanting to replicate the success and consistency (and these two things are fused) of the best runners would do well not to deviate too far from the basic principles offered by a Daniels or Lydiard, in spite of what they think might work personally for them in the short term. (And here I find that younger athletes in particular will generalize far too much from a short run of success, believing that whatever they were doing during that particular 2 or 3 months, even if quite extreme in some basic respect, must be the optimal thing for them, personally to do. These young athletes often end up enduring a lot of grief and frustration in repeatedly trying to replicate that short period of success. The bottom line is that anyone can get away with almost anything in the short term and still experience some success. The test to determine what keeps you running and improving year in and year out, and here you're best to look to the best available general principles and not what you imagine "works best for you" if that thing deviates from these principles in any extreme way.

[spaff]

Very informative stuff. It has been hit on vaguely a number of times, but HOW/WHERE you do your easy runs must come into play too. Steller mentioned that Hillary doesn't run her's quite as fast as she lives in a hilly area at slightly higher elevation. This would of course be a huge factor. Possibly HR would be more appropriate to monitor than paces for many who would live at even great extremes? Also, just to throw this out there that many people will venture to softer surfaces and running on trails will slow you down considerably and you wouldn't want to try and hit the same pace as on the flat road. Seems obvious, but could be overlooked.

As for easy mileage or cross training, can't think of a better activity than snowshoe running. This mimics the elliptical machine movement very closely, but once again, you'd want to go by HR.

Finding what works best for each individual is always very challenging, however, I still believe that many need easier recovery mileage, especially if racing longer distances AND masters athletes.

[oasis]

oldster,

tempo workouts are basically Daniels type, 20 min at tempo pace, 6 x 1 mile at tempo pace w/ 1 min rest, sometimes I do longer tempo runs like 6 miles which I try to run by feel and just run alittle slower than tempo pace, unfortunately where I live there is no real hills so my hill work is extremely limited, I hardly do any 1500m or max speed workouts, very few R pace workouts, I try to run my tempo workouts at the right pace but generally run them too fast and my interval workouts always seem to be run at faster than the Daniels chart, but my easy runs are slower and always feel real easy, the last two days tried to run alittle faster than normal on my easy runs (around 7:10-7:15) and kind of felt like I was working harder than I should have been but then again I am used these runs feeling quite easy

[oldster]

Oasis, in addition to controlling your efforts carefully in your interval sessions (which is probably the key to stabilizing your program as a whole), you need to run longer but very evenly paced and strictly controlled tempo sessions. You need to run 30-40mins sessions (in 10 or 20mins sections if going up to 40mins) at your Daniels T-pace and NO FASTER. And a runner like you with a tendency to push should probably never do the 6xmile session; the temptation to push too much because you know you're getting frequent breaks, however short, is often too great. If you do more in these sessions, and in bigger chunks, you'll be much more inclined to stick with the proper pace, which will mean getting the proper benefit from the session and not compromising your other workouts and runs. Tempo runs done too quickly are useless and can be detrimental to your overall program. No one can do what amounts to a 20min+ time trial every week without upsetting their program. This also applies to pushing the latter stages of your tempo session. This kind of running should feel aerobically manageable but, over time, wearing on the legs. I always tell my athletes that they should be ABLE to talk during these sessions, but not feel comfortable saying more than a few words a time. I also instruct that they should feel that, at any point, they could drop their pace 10-15 seconds per km and hold it for 1-2kms. I've even had them do this to see who's running proper tempo pace and who's kidding him/herself!