Increasing mileage

[journeyman]

With respect to the various takes on the science...my feeling is that the science is out there, and it is pretty clear and available to everyone. It all really amounts to the same thing. I think Daniels, Lydiard, Noakes and Coe/Martin all say essentially the same thing, which is what Kevin mentioned: there are several energy systems required to be successful at this sport, and you need to train them all. They differ in how to apply the science, but I don't think any of them push aside any of the required elements, and none of them are so far from each other (except maybe Owen Anderson, who I think is a bit of a crank).

What is really key is what Jay Dolmage mentioned: mental ability. It's not just the mental ability to finish a tough session, but the mental ability to do what Oldster says, and see the long term. I am pretty sure that you could take any of the big theorists, take their plan, and apply it and you would be able to come close to your potential if...IF... you apply it consistently over a long period of time without getting injured. You'll do even better if you can take advice from more successful people, and be adaptable in your own training.

If an athlete believes in the training, that's not going to make it work, but it is going to help the athlete be consistent in getting out there every day, which is an essential ingredient, no matter who you go to for your science. I really think the most important thing is to trust the training you are doing, and to be consistent at it. The details are important, too, but can be worked out individually, as training progresses.

I really don't worry too much about the science behind training because it's not really all that complicated. The training paces I would give to my athletes tend to correspond to Daniels, or MacMillan, or Horwill. They are never that far off, and there is a range because they are related to a physiological event. I can't test for that event, but I use race paces (of my own athletes, and the tables from other coaches mentioned above) to determine where those might be. It's amazing how close it is. I wouldn't worry about whether you should run 3:01 or 3:03 or 3:05 for 1k repeats for a 15:15 5k runner. 2:55 is too fast, and 3:10 is too slow, but there's no need to split hairs.

The question of this thread, how fast to run mileage, is only one of many variables. It is an important one because a very high percentage of time spent running is mileage. But let's not forget to look at things relatively (i.e. while easy pace for a 3:32 1500 runner is sub 6min/miles, a 33min 10k runner should be at about 7min/mile. So that might seem slow, it's actually just fine). Is it going to do a 33min 10k runner any good to run 6min/mile on his easy runs? Training at target paces is not generally a good idea...

[pq]

OK, straight from the horse's mouth again, but this time without me misinterpreting/misunderstanding his terminology:

"I could argue that going at any pace, no matter how slow it may be, can be of some benefit (certainly beats sitting in front of the computer or TV), unless moving your body over ground is done with such poor mechanics that it leads to injury. I have often said that you should be able to say what the purpose is of every run that you go on, and if the purpose is to recover and relax, then pace is not so important (as long as the poor mechanics thing is kept at bay). Maybe the purpose of a particular run is to spend some time with a friend who is passing through town, and running together is cool -- that's a good purpose. There are days when running a little faster just feels better and if you feel better going a little faster than some pre-determined pace, then so be it. I originally set about 60% of VO2max as the easy pace, because you reach about maximum stroke volume with your heart at that intensity, so that muscle is benefitting greatly while not really working your body too hard. As a few have commented, you should take the training paces more as "guidelines," than laws(I gotta quit watching Pirates of the Caribbean)."

This comes from today's thread:

www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2265488

I won't try to make any more of that than what he's said. We can all read that however we like.

[oldster]

Apolgies, pq, I meant that Daniels adjusted his E-pace recommendations from the first to the 2nd edition of the book (which quite a few people noted and commented on at the time, if I recall). So, what he's saying in this thread is nothing new to those familiar with the updated book, and is the "range" that I (and I think Kevin) were referring to in the first place. For me, a very easy day is the slower end of the Daniels range, and I never go faster (not as an average for a whole run, anyway) than the fast end of the range from book two.)

I also want to agree with jaydolmage and journeyman re: what they're calling the "mental" side of things. The more I work with younger athletes, the more I'm convinced that personality and basic temperament are important keys to success. Over the years I've seen tons of basic talent among kids but have only met a handful of kids with the kind of personality I recognize in elite athletes (patience, concentration, foresightedness, the ability to be alone for long periods of time). I think these things can be developed, but only from a given base of inherent proclivities.

[pq]

Going back to the original point of the thread, and maybe away from the "easy pace" debate, I found this from Pete Magill, US 45+ record holder for 5000, in describing his approach to training as a master. This might be of interest to the original poster, who might like to try to emulate Magill's improvement curve after a long layoff in his 30s:

"Since I see that my name was invoked by "nifty at fifty" as someone to mull over, I'll add my two cents worth. Please note that I'm about to offer nothing new, just the same philosophy that I've offered on numerous letsrun threads.

First of all, at age 46 I currently train around 90 miles per week on non-race weeks, maybe 70 when it is a race week (hard to say exactly on either count, since I don't keep track). I mix EZ distance with appropriate faster-paced work (intervals, hill reps, tempo, technique drills, etc.). And I absolutely concur with several posters to this thread that the reason I'm able to do this without having my knees turn to sand is that I took off about about 5 years in my 20's and all but 5 months of my 30's. Of course, as I've documented before, I spent that "off" time smoking, drinking, and generally beating the crap out of my body. Now, on to my advice for masters training:

1) Take off your watch.
2) Stop counting miles.
3) Start listening to your body.

Don't time your distance runs. Run them at a pace that is comfortable.

Don't keep track of your miles. First of all, it's the time spent running that determines the benefit, not the distance. Secondly, you'll only start competing with yourself (and adding on junk and potentially-injury-inducing miles to meet your quota) if you assign an arbitrary number of miles as your weekly volume.

As for the pace to run on both distance and intervals/hill reps/etc., let your body determine it (tempered by rational input from your brain). For instance, you might run mile repeats at a effort that you feel that ON THAT DAY you could carry for a 10K (who cares what the time is?); don't run them at some arbitrary timed pace that you think maybe you can run ... or even at a pace you ran 3 months ago ... or for god's sake not at an unachievable pace that you'd like to run 6 months in the future! Doing hill reps? Pick a hill. Run up it 6-10 times. Jog or walk down for rest. Trust me, after a couple of them you'll KNOW what pace you should be running. Most importantly: recognize that a race is a 100% effort, and recognize that you should never "race" during a workout! If you go 100% in a workout, that's a race. Don't kid yourself that it's just a good workout.

All of which leads to the #1 guideline that should rule all masters' training: Make no mistakes.

We aren't kids. If we make a mistake, we always pay for it. Never overtrain. Never over-race. And good grief, stop telling yourself that you're just bigger boned and stronger now that you're middle-aged ... that really, you can handle that extra 20 pounds over the racing weight of your youth! ;-)

Good luck!"

It comes from the following thread, which I think was referenced on here earlier (somewhere on this board, anyway):

www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2249380&page=1

[pq]

And from later in the same thread, he offered this very interesting addendum:

"While I don't train with a watch (some exceptions) or count miles, in no way is my training program "unstructured."

In fact, those who know me make fun of me for exactly the opposite. Every single one of my workouts is meticulously planned to address some aspect of training and must be seen in conjuncion with the workouts that came before and will come after it (for up to weeks - even months - at a time). I explain to runners I coach (or simply give advice to) that they should see their training as a continuous tapestry, with each workout leading into the next, yet simultaneously part of what came before. Hill repeats from a month ago might be part of the build up to that huge hill run this week, just as strides and easy 200s on the track a few weeks in the past make mile reps that much easier in the present, which themselves make that 10K a few weeks from now doable.

And it's the merging of all those hills, distance runs, intervals, drills, and races into a training plan without any accompanying injury, physical or psychological burnout, or workout missteps that makes for a good training plan.

Also, I would argue that not using a watch is a far more precise way to run a correct interval, tempo, or hill rep workout. Without a watch, you learn to run with the correct effort for the training effect you're going after. For instance, we know that you can get 100% benefit from a distance run by going at no more than 65% VO2 max. But all us runners (especially older runners) also know that our bodies' capabilities change from day to day. Without a watch, you naturally adjust to these changes. With a watch, however, you're tempted to run at an effort that matches some preconceived notion of correct pace - and which quite possibly has absolutely no bearing on what your correct pace for that day should be!

This is even more important when it comes to interval training. Most runners do intervals based off of race pace - either a recent race they ran or a goal pace for an upcoming race. But basing your pace off a race (either completed or hoped for) has nothing to do with where your body is at on the day of the interval session! What are the odds of that timed pace actually being the correct pace for you on that day? Not very good! On the other hand, if you run those intervals based upon effort (say, at 5K race effort), then then the pace is ALWAYS correct.

My point: running without a watch is a more precise way to train that running with one.

Same goes for counting miles.

It's all about learning to listen to your body (I call it "off-the-clock" training).

And with that, I'm out."

[oldster]

Thanks for this, pq. This is another example of what I really like about Daniels-- his this-worldliness. Here he recognizes that we train in the context of real life (i.e in other realities, such as relationships and other commitments, are often of equal importance to running at different moments). But, he also provides us with a general rule; in other words, he doesn't just say, in spite of his acknowledgment of this broader reality, what you feel works for you is correct. We all have hearts and they all have maximum stroke volumes, no matter what we individually think or feel, and those hearts are worked optimally at around the E-training paces he suggests. We from this the totality of this response what we can take what we want, except that we probably can't get away with arguing on scientific grounds that it's fine to do our easy runs the majority of the time, or even a big part of the time, outside of the ranges he recommends. I take from this the following: In reality, most of us probably can't, or won't want to, for various reasons, do all of our easy running in his prescribed ranges, but that we would be best to do so, all other things being equal. (And, I would add, that those of us who CAN manage to do all of our easy running in these ranges will probably do better, all other things being equal, than those who can't or won't).

[pq]

oldster said:

...I would add, that those of us who CAN manage to do all of our easy running in these ranges will probably do better, all other things being equal, than those who can't or won't.

I think I would have to agree with that (with of course the caveat that going outside the range on the slow side isn't as bad as going outside the range on the fast side - for ME anyway :-)).

We run easy pace by HR instead of pace, aiming for 70-75% of HRmax or less. I usually opt for "less" on the days when I actually wear the HRM. But I would say that, once fit, an athlete's pace at 70-75% HRmax corresponds very well with Daniels' E pace range. When not fit (or younger or less experienced), though, 70-75% is slower than his range.

btw - on the stuff I copied from Pete Magill - he also won the National masters club XC championships on the weekend - both individually and his team. For reference.

[oldster]

I would strongly agree that going faster than Daniels prescribed E-paces is a far bigger no-no than going slightly slower. From bitter early life experience, I can attest that this is a dead-end. People should never think that if they can go even 2-3months doing this that they're getting away with anything; problems will almost inevitably arise, and they will be big and intractable.

[tundra]

Guys....slow down.....I can't run at lunch and read all the good stuff flowing lately .......what are you guys, on sabatical?

[pq]

tundra said:

Guys....slow down.....I can't run at lunch and read all the good stuff flowing lately .......what are you guys, on sabatical?

Sorry man, you snooze, you lose.

What I SHOULD be doing is working on my research. In fact I have it all opened up on my computer, but this damn thread keeps taking me away....

Here's one more from Pete Magill. I asked him who his primary influences were that have led him to structure his training the way he does (I mentioned Daniels and Lydiard as possibilities) and this is his reply:

"As far as influences, I can't honestly say at this point. Back in my 20's, I read books by all the top coaches and athletes. And I integrated a lot of what they said into my workouts. Things that worked have undoubtedly remained. Things that didn't haven't. But I can't really trace what I do back to its genesis now (except the distance and effort for hill reps, which came from Peter Coe - who suggested it was not only a good anaerobic workout but the only way known to improve Type IIa fast twitch muscles)."

[tundra]

Let me ask this to either simplify or probably mud things up. It's mainly for coaches or perhaps some of you athletes or lab rats that might use it. Trent, do you guys still use the BORG in the lab?

Do you ever use the BORG Perceived Rate of Exertion Scale when having athletes perform a task where you want them to perform at a certain level? I looked through Daniel's stuff and he makes no mention of it. I use the BORG a lot, but it's with stroke rehab and certainly, I don't want my strokes up in the 18 area, but this might be useful especially with athletes that are in need of some direction. Oldster, I noticed that you used the old "talk-test" with your kids, and the BORG is another method of seeing how in tune these kids are in respect to their fitness level. Might be fun to BORG them and then take their HR at the end of a few different sessions(easy run, interval workout) and see just where they are.

Roughly the BORG x10 gives you your HR at the time.....supposed to. It would be interesting to use on a few easy runs, and I think I will just to match some numbers up(HR, PRE and pace).

[oasis]

Oldster,

you mentioned before not sure if it was this thread or another that you were trying to work on the threshold level of one of your athletes (I believe it was Dylan Wykes), what type of workouts and how would a week of training look when increasing the threshold level is the key

thanks

[Bomba]

nnnaaahhh.....i think i finished up with you (at a normal pace the last 20mins or so).....funny thing was Fell, who had a reputation for really hammering off days saying to me that 'those guys run their off days too hard' as we dropped back (and u went) after we caught up.....

krs1 said:

If I am remebering right, you did a full extra loop that day

denton said:

I do not recall such a time, but I do recall when sully showed up one yr and everyone got a little chipper on a sunday long run....i think that was the day sully set the all comers bby lake sunday morning single run loop after getting left behind for a pee break (those guys didn't slow down to wait for us...they put the ^%$%^*$$ hammer down)....i recall 37 mins high and that was when it was all bark mulch and none of this stinking gravel stuff.......

"Talking to some guys from Vancouver, they recalled that people would get all excited that there would be Africans in town"

[oasis]

Oldster,

just to add to the last post, this week I was planning on the following sessions:

1) 8 x 800m w/45 secs rest at slightly slower than 10k pace
2) 4 mile tempo at my Daniels T pace

my idea was to length these two workouts each week, i.e. from 800's to 1000's to 1200's and 4 miles to 5 to 6, keeping the same pace when lengthen the workouts then after 3 weeks go back to the above workouts and increase the pace, I am trying to increase my threshold level, what do you think, will these workouts do that or should I be attempting other workouts

[Bomba]

mongo says.......fell good run reasonable.....feel bad run slow.....slow better than fast most of the time......not know what slow means...not know what fats means......over time you find out...best lessaons are learned, not taught.....make mongo happy

[pq]

This is for no specific purpose other than to round out part of the discussion about easy running. I asked "HRE" at LetsRun what Lydiard thought about easy running. Here's what he said (for reference, HRE trained under Lydiard and was a personal friend. He hosted him in the Boston area during his lecture tour shortly before he passed away):

"Easy running was always what you were supposed to do with the "supplemental" runs. So in my earlier post that AM 45-60 run would always be easy. So would the warm ups and cool downs from the repeat sessions.
When you're talling about the "aerobic" runs you're into more of a gray area, but true aerobic running isn't generally very hard. His main concern with aerobic runs was that you didn't get out of breath. You could run as hard as you wanted to as long as you didn't "get too anaerobic."
He really wasn't all that particular about pace and effort. I think that's the part of his system that runner's now have the most trouble with as so many of them are used to various "formulas" that are pretty specific about pace or effort.
Arthur sort of figured that if you can do your runs every day as planned you're not going too hard. If you were going too slow you'd eventually get fitter and go faster. All he ever said to me about pace was "take your time and enjoy yourself." There was sort of an assumption that the shorter runs would be at a quicker pace than the longer ones."

Not very clear or specific, I know. Maybe that's the beauty of the answer, I don't know. Similar to Pete Magill's input in some respects, and maybe lines up a little with Tundra's question about the BORG scale.

[oldster]

Oasis, Dylan's running economy (using lots of threshold pace running) over the past year or so has improved very nicely, as his results at the longer distances have begun to show (out of high school and in college, he was really a 1500/3k guy). He is basically "growing up", athletically speaking, via this work (having his first full year+ since about 1st year uni has certainly helped, but that hasn't been accidental either). Like I was suggesting for you, he has kept threshold running in his program throughout all cycles, and has rarely run less than 30 mins in a session (usually 35-40) once a week. Nothing is difficult with Dylan, however, as he's about the most coachable human being in the world-- very determined, smart and focused. He's really just trusted me, stuck with it, and allowed his average pace to come down naturally. It's taken a year or more, but his threshold pace is now consistently 3-4 secs a mile faster. (BTW, and I know he won't mind me mentioning this, he's decided to go for the marathon "rising star" standard in London this spring. As Lou Reed once sang, looks like the beginning of a great adventure!)

As for the workouts you mention, I don't know what sort of cycle you're in at the moment, or what your current volume is, but, based on what you've said in this thread, you should really be pushing the volume up on your T-pace runs. If you're building them from 4miles (22:30ish?), you should add 2.5 to 3 mins every second week till you hit 30, then break things into 10, 15 and 20 mins chunks and build to 40 mins by 2-3 mins per week. And keep this kind of running in your program weekly (30-40mins) for the next 4-6 months, allowing your average pace to come down naturally, and never forcing it. As for your 800 session, your breaks are too short for a proper I-pace session. You'll never get down to your correct pace with 45sec recoveries. Starting at 70-80 secs and adding time if need be would probably work better.

Pq, I also recall Lydiard quoted as saying that that athletes like Snell ran their requisite 100mpw at 6min pace or better (the quote went something like "we're not talking about a jogging program here"). Maybe a Lydiard-ite can supply me with the specific reference. He does, however, seem a bit unhelpfully vague on the whole question. One can still get into trouble short of "going anaerobic" on an easy day.

[krs1]

Just to add my support to Oldsters comment a number of posts back regarding young athletes. I was thinking along the same lines last night after I had posted regarding the tendencies of young athletes. If you take the reins off all they want to do is rip every session. I was certainly that way when I was younger and tempos were virtually non-existent in the training program that Doug had me doing though elementry/high school. More on that in another post perhaps.

So Oldsters ideas on making sure younger athletes are doing tempos with experienced athletes who know the proper pacing is exteremly important. If you have kids coming out of tempo feeling like they have just raced for 15/20/30 min then the session was not done properly. If you don't have anyone experienced in your group to lead those younger atheltes, I would highly recomend you have a course/loop that you can easily monitor your athletes throughout the entire session to make sure they are acheiving what the objective of the workout is.

With that, here is a sample January week:

M: AM: 4 miles; PM: 7 miles + drills + box plyos + hurdle mobility + 2 accelerations + 8x100m @ 13.0 (standing start) + 10 min wd; Abs; Weights

T: AM: 3 miles; PM: 15 min wu, 6x800m w/tempo 400m (74-75) in between (#1 @ 2:20, 1 min rec, #2 @ 2:16, 90 sec rec, #3 @ 2:12, 90 sec rec, #4 @ 2:08, 2 min rec, #5 @ 2:04, 2 min after 800m, 2:30 after 400m, #6 @ 63-64 for 400m then hard over last 400m), 15 min wd; Core

W: PM: 11 miles; Abs; Weights

TH: AM: 8 miles; PM: 4 miles + drills + 4x80m acclerations + 1/2 mile wd; Core

F: AM: 3 miles; PM: 20 min wu, 2x200m (28-30) w/400m jog, 5 min rec, 1x600m (1:28), 1 min rec, 1x200m (sub 28), 6 min rec, 1x500m (1:10), 1 min rec, 1x300m (sub 43), 8 min rec, 1x400 (60), 1 min rec, 1x400m (sub 56), 4 min rec, 1xmile (5:20), 15 min wd

S: 15 miles; Abs

S: AM: 8 miles; PM: 4 miles; Core

[oasis]

thanks oldster,

I'm sure Dylan will be very successfull in the marathon.

I am in a buildup cycle and want to focus on my threshold level, the 800's I listed were not to be an "I" pace workout, sort of a tempo pace fartlek type, planning to run them at T pace

You mention break up the tempo run into chunks, i.e. 10, 15, 20, after reaching 30 min straight use the chunks and build to 40 minutes, what kind of rest should I use after these

Really appreciate the help

[pq]

oldster said:

...he's decided to go for the marathon "rising star" standard in London this spring. As Lou Reed once sang, looks like the beginning of a great adventure!

Very cool! He's certainly moving into marathon preparation with the requisite fitness. This'll be fun to watch.

Oh, and no pressure.... :-)

[oldster]

Kevin , thanks for posting another sample. A couple of comments:

1. It's becoming clear why you've managed to maintain your 1500 speed for so long with relatively few injuries. I would say one of the keys to your success is your focus on plyometric and core strength. How do you cycle your drills? Do you maintain them to some degree all year? And, maybe, if you have the time, let us know what you're doing for weights.

2. The strides from a standing start is also interesting. Do other 1500 guys do this? The benefits seem obvious, but I rarely see people doing this.


Oasis, if you don't want to run I pace for those 800s, I'd suggest doing the session as a fartlek (6x3mins with a steady 60 sec recovery). This will push your pace back toward threshold and create the kind of hybrid threshold/interval session you seem to be looking for. And for the T-pace sessions, take 2-3 mins recovery (and be sure to drink during).

[oasis]

oldster,

that's my plan to run them as a fartlek, any chance you could post some of your training weeks,

thanks again

[jaydolmage]

I'm sorry to add more questions for KRS1, but I have a quick one to add to oldster's.

The Friday workout you describe in your most recent post seems incredibly specific. Is there a science to this? It seems like this workout would pose a real combination of stresses--mixed recoveries, some tempo pacing, some stuff very fast, a variety of distances. It seems like you would need to carry a laptop to log all your times and remember all the specifics. This would make it hard to run a sub-56 400.

I think most of us are more used to seeing 10x800, 15x400. Simple stuff. You're workout looks downright algebraic.

Can you really quickly tell us what the thinking is behind this?

[journeyman]

K, I was going to ask the same question as Jay, and also ask what the difference is between standing start fast 100s and rolling starts (for example jog the curve, stride the straight kind of thing)?

If I could contribute a suggestion to Oasis (that oldster can comment on too): for the kind of thing you are looking for, I like to do a kind of fartek that looks like this: 3x6min with 2min tempo-2min 10k pace-2min tempo. That is the baseline, and then I move it up to 3x9min (3-3-3), 3x12min (4-4-4), 2x15min (5-5-5). I got it from my coach, who had us do that at the beginning of xc season (though with less volume), and also from something Trent showed me about Hilary's training that I think they called "FoxyFrog." Not sure if it is exactly that, but I think the idea is the same: that in a longer race, like a 10k, you might run even splits, but your body will go through some physiologcial changes, from tempo state (as opposed to tempo pace) to 10k race pace state, etc. Especially in xc, when you are going up and down hills, this kind of workout can simulate a race a little more, and so get your body used to what is going to happen to it. Trent can please correct me if I'm wrong. That's what I got out of conversations with him and DST.

[journeyman]

p.s. tundra I am studying for exams. That is why I am here so much...

[Steller]

"Foxy frog" is something DST has been using for a few years now (I think Michaela McClure actually named this type of workout if memory serves me correct). It is basically a tempo (threshold) based workout, that might include a section of varying speeds in the middle.

In racing, you are rarely perfect 'at threshold'-- as you have to react to surges, hills, wind, attacks...on the track, road or XC. So trying to incoporate this into workouts (be creative!) is a great way to prepare the bodies physiology for these type of normal things that happen in racing. Some of my personal ideas on this came from several converstations with Peter Tegan when Hilary was running for him in Wisconsin-- he called these types of sessions 'dynamic speed'.

In XC, a classic workout such as this might feature something like:
8' tempo / 90" jog / 8' of 30" hard 30" easy / 90" jog / 8' tempo

I like combining 30-45" hard hills with threshold running in the fall (especially for mid-D athletes)....so something like:
6' tempo / 90" rest
6 x 45" hills / 90" recovery jog down // 90" rest
straight into another 6' tempo (this second tempo is quite tough at the start to keep it undercontrol and get your running rythym back).

On the track, is can be something as simple as 4 x1000m, but switching gears every 200m-- so switching back and forth between 3000m and 1500m race pace...or something like that.

A few weeks ago we did a session that featured 2km threshold on wood-chip trail (steady pace)....straight onto the track for 4 x 1000m with 'foxy frog' every 200m (in and out)...and then straight back out onto the woodchips to finish a hard 2k.

When it comes to peaking workouts...there is a lot of gear shifing going on in nearly every workout....and nearly all the workouts need to be written down (i am used to seeing alegabra).

Journeyman...I like your threshold progressions...especially with the phasing of different paces within them.

[oasis]

journeyman, what are the rest periods used in these workouts

steller, are these workouts you listed peaking workouts or can they be used all year

thanks to both of you, great info

[Steller]

First few I posted are mid-XC season/ base building season workouts. The one I posted from a few weeks ago, that featured 8km of work, is the same--- middle of general prepartory phase, but heading more towards specific prep phase and getting ready for some racing. In very early XC season, just getting runs in with some steady and building thresholds (no gear changes) are a great way to start.

On the track, getting ready for race season, mixing up 600m repeats with fast and slow 200m sections works great as well:

[tundra]

Journeyman,

I am studying nursing
That's why I'm not here so much!!!!!

Good luck with exams. You into the Hammer for our rematch on Boxing Day?

I'll email you later in the week......have some nursing to catch up on.

[MattMc]

I am going to have to add my $.02 with respect to Daniels E/L pace. I have reviewed the first edition and I think that KRS and Oldster are slightly misrepresenting Daniels.

As I said earlier, I have trained for the marathon with Daniels' tables and plan C in the past and ran 2:18/ 1:04. The T/I/MP I was running was bang on. The E/L pace of 3:39/km (correlating to the 1/2 pb) was only ever achieved on my long runs. On most easy/ recovery runs I wouldn't get within a sniff of this. I was more likely in the 4-4:30 range. I recently did a mini-audit of my recovery pace and I tend to be in the 4-4:20 range.

If you read what Daniels says about E/L pace it is revealing.

'When you do easy runs to recover from strenous periods of training or to carry out a second workout on a particular day and when you do long runs you should run at a pace close to your E velocity which is about 70% of vO2 max. Long runs improve cell adaptation... but should not be strenuous or demanding in terms of the intensity (pace).
Be advised that the benefits of the R-run pace are more a function of time spent exercising than intensity, and 70% vO2/ 75% max HR is as hard as you need to go....

...an E runs means running easily and on many days that is all a runner needs to do. I suggest a minimum of 30 minbutes for most E runs; the stress is not great and the benefit substantial... and E day of training could mean anything from no running to two different runs lasting up to an hour each. The important point is that the intensity should be easy."

These are all verbatim from edition one. To me, the overriding theme seems to be that the effort should be easy to allow recovery, and one should go NO FASTER THAN E pace. This is how I approached his training, an I raced up to my I/T/MP/L paces so I don't think that I lacked the physiologic benefit from my easier E pace. On most days it would be strenuous and NOT recovery for me to run 3:39/km. I now do so for my long runs and I do require recovery after 30-40km at that pace.

I think that Steve and Kevin are being rather selective with their reading of Daniels. Steve editorializing his one-a-day philosophy when Daniels clearly doesn't support this. Kevin implying that your gains are severly limited when running outside of the E/L range. His assertion that elites who train easy out of that range are anecdotal is likely not entirely accurate.

I also tend to think that most people overestimate their easy run pace. I have traditionally for ease counted all of my easy running at 7 min/ mile pace. I am often stunned when I run with groups who count 60 minutes as 10 miles (both elite and not).

Sure, I could be accused of under-reporting my pace on occaision, but I know that we don't average 6 min/ mile on those runs.

Overall, I am adding this to temper some of the 'run your easy days fast b/c Sully says so' that is going around. If you read Daniels' his emphasis is on the recovery part of recovery pace.