Increasing mileage

[oasis]

Steller, can you go into more detail about the 8km workout you mention and the change of pace 600's, i.e. rest periods for the 4 x 1000m, did you start the 1000's right after the 2k steady or rest before, amount of volume for the 600's workout and rest between, thanks

[oldster]

MattMc, unless you're doing 100+ miles per week, you can easily handle 4min kms on your easy days, and even then you probably could. Anyone who can run 1:04/2:18 could easily, and I would argue should, be running faster than you're going on your easy days. Again, unless your totals are really up there. You also need to consider that the stresses of your working life may be holding you back in this respect too. What % of your max HR does a 4:20km produce for you?

As for the 2 a day thing, I'm not a slave to Daniels. This is entirely my view, and one supported by conversations with other marathoners over the years. However, I'm not aware that Daniels has produced any research that bears on this question one way or another.

[oasis]

oldster, do you see any benefit for AT(aerobic threshold or marathon pace) workouts for 5k-1/2 marathon runners, i.e. longer slower tempo like 8-10 miles

[pq]

oldster said:

What % of your max HR does a 4:20km produce for you?

Just a general question for the crowd and the OP - is anyone interested in discussing HR training in this thread? I think I can offer some good ("good" being a relative term - good to me, maybe not so good in others' eyes) insight in this area, at least framed from the perspective of the form of HR training that we use, and based on about 5 years of (fairly detailed) observations from within our group. For info, we use HR to control all efforts up to a little faster than marathon pace (as a general rule), and we use known 5k fitness to control the pace of all faster efforts (again, as a general rule). HR-based efforts therefore comprise *most* of our base training work sessions, and a fair proportion of our marathon-specific sessions (again, as a general rule).

I realize not everyone is interested in HR-based training, and there are definitely different methodologies out there, so I won't be offended if there's no interest (on this thread or elsewhere).

[Steller]

sure if i remeber the workout correctly now... again this is very early in her general prep, just starting to get workouts going again (so nothing too crazy, but hard enough for me to keep up )

20 w/u
2km on woodchips in 6:41 // 4' jog recovery straight to track

4 x 1000m / 3' rest
with gear shifts (in and out) every 200m
(so for each 200m over the 1000m it would go 200m fast, 200m slow, 200m fast, 200m slow and 200m fast)...if I remember right Hilary did the 'slow' 200m in 40 to 42sec and the 'fast' 200m in 36 to 38. So I think she ran ~3:12, but then ran a 3:07 on the last one.
//4' jog recovery
2km on woodchips in 6:32 to finish
20' run to finish

600m workout on the track with gear shifts.
a decent 1500m workout in the spring leading into summer (well into specific prep phase) in something like 6 x 600m on 3 to 4' recoveries with each 600m run as follows...
F,M,S
F,S,M
M,F,S
M,S,F
S,F,M
S,M,F
where S= 'slow' 200m in ~34-35 sec
where M= 'medium' 200m in ~31-33 sec
where F='fast' 200m in ~29-30
so each 600m is run ~1:33 to 1:35

[pq]

This isn't directly related to the subject at hand, but I thought most of you would probably enjoy reading this. It was written by HRE about driving Lydiard from Boston to (I think) Washington a month before he died.

www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/Articles/LydiardTribute.htm

[journeyman]

tundra said:

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.

Awesome.

Not sure, I as I am only in TO for three days, and I've only been running 3 or 4 days a week (i.e. not consistent, nor incorporating all of the energy systems...do as I say, not as I do...)

Oasis: the recovery I suggest is 2min for the 2-2-2, 3min for the 3-3-3, 4min for the 4-4-4. 5min for the 5-5-5. You could probably go with less on the longer ones (like 3min), but it looks nice that way.

[Bomba]

....to add some thoughts tolydiard...in snell's autobio he talks about prepping for tokyo by alternating 1 hr daily runs at mins pace one day and 7 the next.....

...as well the sunday waitakere run of lydiard legend is the nastiest piece of running u can find.....after 40mins u hit a very solid 20min climb and then the next 10-15 km is brutally rolling hills..... followed by about 3-5km downhill and that'sthe 20mile loop... nevermind the 22 mile loop ...this wasnot your typical long run.....u had no choice but to run hard (HR wise) due to the nature of the terrain......same with Jack Foster's loops (brutal trails in Rotorua) and Dick Quax (really nice trails outside auckland)

[Bomba]

...and to add to Dr Matt....in my experiences sully does run his easy days hard....... ;-)

[journeyman]

Today is the third anniversary of Arthur Lydiard's passing. Just thought I'd put that out there.

[Bomba]

.....i was fortunate/unfortunate enough to be living in NZ when Lydiard passed away and had a chance to attend his public funeral in Auckland......it was a who's who of NZ (and in some repescts Australian) running. From Pat Clohessy taling, to halberg, dick tayler, barry magee, etc....nevermind the 1000 or people in attendace (walker, quax, etc...)...there were current guys and also amny triathletes, etc.....

.....the stories that came out were mostly of lydiard's enthusiasm being the most relevant aspect of his coaching (something i think many coaches forget getting beyond techincal aspects of the sport is ininspiring athetes to push the boundaries)......the funniest was tayler commenting how he thought he was hot $%%^$% running 100 mile weeks and lydiard trying to get him to run more.......apparently tayler would say arthur i am up to 130...lydiard would say great, now think how good you'll be when you hit 140...and so on it went til he hit 180....

..somehwere...some place i have the paper of the cermeony....i am not into that sort of stuff in general, but it's something i'll keep forever....

[oldster]

Oasis, no I don't see any benefit for 5k-Half guys in doing MP runs. Unless you're training for the marathon, there are better things you could be doing than MP runs, which need to be 20+kms to be useful, and can mess up the rest of your week. As for AT runs, this is actually, following Daniels, how I define "tempo" running (i.e. the pace you could run for one hour, fully tapered, all out). And, I think diminishing returns really set in for this kind of running beyond 40mins. Even in a marathon program, I wouldn't bother going beyond 40mins, considering all the other long and difficult things you'd already be doing (long E-pace runs, MP runs, etc.). And long before I ever read Daniels, or had every really heard of proper tempo running, I was in the UK at the British Olympic Medical Centre, wherein all Britain's top guys from the 80s had all been tested. I was there with a friend (steeple guy who was being tested for chronic fatigue problems). Anyway, along with my friend, I got to ask their top researcher at the time (name escapes me) basically as many questions as I could think of in an hour or so. In the course of our conversation, I remember him talking about AT running, and the gist of what he said was that a runner should do as much of this kind of running in a week as possible, which he felt was around 40mins for someone running the typical 70-90mpw. He also said some things about weight training which I've since heard confirmed by others, such as the researchers at Peak Performance in Ottawa (i.e. that even distance runners should lift heavy and low reps).

Oh, and I'm here because I'm basically at my desk all the time anyway, I can read and write really fast, and, most importantly, I have more T.A.s this term and don't have much grading! (However, I have winter courses that I should really be revising...).

[oasis]

Oldster, how does the following week look for a buildup/base phase:

M - easy 60 min
T - tempo fartlek, 6-8 x 3 min w/ 60 secs rest
W - easy 60 min
T - tempo 20-40 min
F - rest
S - 60 min w/ strides
S - 90 - 2 hr long run

for me this would be roughly 60-65 miles/ week
thanks

[krs1]

A couple of things:

1. No where did I say to run your easy run fast. My point is that people are misinterpreting what EASY is and, in fact, running too slow on their easy days.

2. To say my "assertion that elites who train easy out of that range are anecdotal is likely not entirely accurate" without backing that statement up with proof of why that is not accurate is pretty misleading. I have been at an elite level since I was 18-19 years old, and have had contact/training coversations/trained with/observed literally hundreds of elite athletes. I am VERY, VERY confident when I say that most elites do not subscribe to the belief of running the majority of their runs extremely slow.

3. I have both editions of Daniels' running formula, and have read them numerous times. If you only look at the VDOT table in version one I will say that the times he gives for E paces are probably at that 74% VO2max, and very much on the fast side if you were to try and do that every day. What I like about edition 2 are the training tables in the back which give a better break down of the RANGE of E pace running. Also, Daniels states that "Easy running pace (E pace), although typically in the range of only 59-74 percent of VO2max[/u], elicites desireable physiological benefits that build a strong base from which higher intensity training can be performed." In an earlier chapter as a lead in he states "I've described quite a few central and peripheral benefits to comfortable training--speeds associated with 59-74 percent of an individual's aeorobic capacity"[/u]. It's right there. This is the range that you are going to get the best pyhsiological benefit from E running, and the paces that correspond to them. Sure, you need a really easy day once in a while, but for the most part you do not need to be doing this for the majority of your runs. If the E running pace were irrelevant Daniels would have just said to run whatever pace you want and not have included E running as part of his "specific types of training (or training intensity zones) that help a runner elicit the desired pyshiological response to help him or her imporve performance."

mattmc said:

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.

[krs1]

I pulled out my Coe/Martin to see their thoughts. I tend not to go to this as much as Daniels as Daniels is a little easier for the coach/athlete without a physiology background to understand.

A few quotes:

"Aeorobic conditioning represents the bulk of a distance runner
s training"

"...aerobic conditioning runs typically are done at 55% to 75% of VO2max pace, depending on the distance covered and the level of fitness."

"Running slower than 55% VO2max pace brings little measurable aerobic improvement and merely adds to impact stress"

[krs1]

SB,

I think the core work especially has really helped with keeping away the injuries, more so now that I am in my mid 30's and don't recover as quickly as I did 10 years ago. And the plyos have definitely helped at maintaining the 1500m speed. I first started experimenting with speed drills and plyos when I got my first edition of Coe/Martin in 1987 and read some of the speed drills they did. I started going to a park in the mornings a couple of times a weeks and going through a lot of what was outlined in the book. I got away from the plyos when I was in university which may be one reason why that was a period where I was more prone to injury. Leading into the Olympics in 2000 I did two things to my program. I reintroduced the plyos, and I really upped my mileage (90-110 miles in the fall/winter). I don't do as much plyo work now that I am working with Juli, but the are there all year, as are the drills. From mid Oct until the end of Sept there is at least one day a week devoted to drills and plyos.

I'll try to get to my weight programs evolution in the next couple of days.

I don't know if a lot of guys do strides from standing starts. I only do them when Juli specifically asks me to do them. Part of the reason we started doing standing starts is because I am really horrible getting off the line ;-) But it is important. You learn how to drive off the line, accelerate to get into position, get up to speed quickly. It is an area that I constantly need to work on.

oldster said:

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).

[krs1]

M: AM: 4 miles; PM: 6 miles + drills + speed hurdle drills + hurdle mobility + 6x100m + 1 mi down; Abs

T: 13 miles w/fartlek (7min, 6 min, 5min w/3:30 rec, 4min, 3min, 2min w/2:30 rec, start at 4:50 pace and try to work down to 4:30); Core; Weights

W: AM: 4 miles; PM: 9 miles; Abs

Th: PM: 70 min run

F: 45 min run + drills + strides + 3x1000m (30 sec 200m, 40 sec 200) w/200m rec + 15 min wd; Abs; Weights

S: AM: 6 miles; PM: 6 miles; Core

S: 15 miles

[delmonte]

A few questions/comments:
1) Is it not an all or nothing program with Daniels? Do you not have to commit to the entire program as opposed to, say, doing what your coach is having you do and then following Daniel's E-Pace runs on your off days? I have never read the book(s) and i know little on this subject, but it seems as though an athlete should not be selective in their training: I'll do the intervals my coach wants, the E-pace runs that Daniel's wants, the drills that Kevin does (Which I would love to hear about ...am I right or wrong on this point? Just seems to be too many chefs in the stew; but I'd love to hear more on this...

2) In terms of doubles, I would be interested in knowing when each athlete does their two runs (generally). 8 hours from each other, 10 hours from each other...

[pq]

Can anybody get coldneck to weigh in on the thread? Ditto for duke/Oz? Would be cool to hear from Bedley about his pre-CIM training also.

BTW, I've emailed Dr. Daniels and told him about the discussion. Would be nice to have him weigh in.

krs1 - that multi-pace workout you showed us (the one that requires a laptop computer to track all the rep and interval durations and pace changes...) - is that kind of session something that fits within Daniels' system (in a strict sense)? Excuse my ignorance, I've never read his book and therefore have only a general understanding of his approach.

[Steller]

Hey Del Monte- I think it is absolutely perfectly reasonable to be selective in different parts of their training (selective meaning, what kind of training philosophy you use). So going by your coach for workouts, and then making sure you are running your recovery runs at the right recovery according to Daniel's tables is fine. The 'key' is to read/investigate and figure out what kind if training philosph(ies) (this can be plural) works and fits best with you so that you have a defined training purpose for every time you go out the door.

For example, I believe in Lydiard's theory of long duration running and aerobic development...even for 800m runners. Bowerman and Dillinger's ideas of phasing and separating hard and easy training days throughout the training block. Jack Daniel's further refinement and establishment of appropriate training intensities and zones taken from about 25 years of scientific research from both himself and the likes of: Holloszy, Costill, Saltin, and more.
Gerald Mach's introduction of running specific drills (As, Bs, Cs), which has been futher refined by modern plyometric training-- some of which has been researched by the Australian Inst. of Sport (or John Cook formerly of George Mason). The idea of training periodization first introduced by the Russian Metveyev in 1961, and as far as runners are concerned was further established and refined in their seminal book 'Training Distance Runners' by Peter Coe and David Martin. And finally, the Ethiopian model of doing short 'power-hills' year round to maintain neuromuscular firing and strength. Reading, researching and embracing the best out of all of these training ideas/philosophies will only allow you to put all the pieces of the training puzzle together in the best fit for you.

If you don't understand 'why' you are doing a certain workout or any training session from your coach-- question him or her. If your coach does not have a clear answer, that makes physiological sense, you might need some more questions to be asked elsewhere to make sure you are doing the right things in training... (on the other hand, some coaches may just have a great intuition of what is needed without understanding the whys very well).

The best coaches seem to be ones who have a strong understanding of basic human physiology while still understanding the each athlete is different and not a robot, coupled with good long-term planning skills and an ability to get in an athletes head and 'push the right buttons' (motivate).

In line with all of this discussion, there was a very good review that just came out from Joyner and Coyle in the Journal of Physiology special Olympic edition this past week title “Endurance exercise performance: the physiology of champions”. Coyle has some good experience in this area considering he was Lance Armstrong’s physiologist. It covers the scientific areas of VO2max, lactate threshold, efficiency/economy, anaerobic tolerance. But, interestingly and thankfully, these scientists also realize there is a lot more to what makes a champion than just physiology when they state in the abstract:

“It should also be cautioned that complex motivational and sociological factors also play important roles in who does or does not become a champion and these factors go far beyond simple physiological explanations. Therefore, the performance of elite athletes is likely to defy the types of easy explanations sought by scientific reductionism and remain an important puzzle for those interested in physiological integration well into the future.”

If any of you want a copy of this paper, just email me and I can send you a pdf.

Cheers, Trent

[e-mail]

[oldster]

Excellent little thumbnail on Daniels place in the "web" of distance training science and practice, Steller. As I said in an earlier post, I think that one of this things that's great about Daniels is his constant awareness that we all train in the context of our lives as we live them. He provides sample programs but never strictly prescribes. What he provides are some very clear and physiologically grounded guidelines according to which we can all compare our daily training practice, and which help in creating a balanced and properly cycled year-round program. He recognizes that most of the details need to be worked out according to the specific situation and goals of athletes and coaches. I would argue, however, and have learned from a certain amount of bitter experience, that if the basic principles he provides are consistently flouted, trouble will arise in some form or other, and that heeding his guidelines will tend to produce long term consistency and, ultimately, better results. In terms of the specific question of E-pace, I admit that I've never experimented with going slower than his tables suggest and so can't say what effect this has. But, to those who go consistently slower, I would suggest that they try to get closer to the middle, or even top, of his ranges and see what happens. I'd be willing to bet that, although you might feel a little more tired, you will still hit your workout times and will not run into problems. If you're training at full capacity you should expect to feel quite tired most of the time, even if you're getting proper recovery between sessions.

[pq]

Without (really) intending to belabour my point about easy running, HRE summed up my opinion just about exactly in an off-line discussion just now, where he wrote:

"I just think that it's the absence of enough fast running that slows you rather than the presence of a good bit of slow running."

He was making a point about Lee Troop's marathon training, which included quite a lot of 7:00-30 pace easy running (according to a magazine article he'd read). Of course, I suppose we could also mention Weldon Johnson, Kellogg's most "famous" athlete, who dropped his 10k PB by about a minute (to 28:06 if I recall?) after a period of training that included a whole lot of 7:00 mileage.

I personally don't think "slow" easy running makes you faster. But it helps to make you stronger, to help prepare you for the rigours of the faster training you need to do to make you faster. And it is good rest, which is necessary to let the body adapt to the harder training.

I guess I did just belabour my point... sorry, ha.

[krs1]

oldster said:

I'd be willing to bet that, although you might feel a little more tired, you will still hit your workout times and will not run into problems. If you're training at full capacity you should expect to feel quite tired most of the time, even if you're getting proper recovery between sessions.

Steve,

I really like you last point, and had been debating how to relay the same message. Recovering between workouts doesn't mean you have to feel "race fresh" going into each workout.

[krs1]

pq said:

I personally don't think "slow" easy running makes you faster. But it helps to make you stronger, to help prepare you for the rigours of the faster training you need to do to make you faster. And it is good rest, which is necessary to let the body adapt to the harder training.

I guess I did just belabour my point... sorry, ha.

What do you mean by "stronger?" If you mean optimally increasing aeorbic conditioning then the sceince says you are not correct. If you mean strength as in mucle and connective tissue strength then I would somewhat agree with you with the warning that the extra time on your feet and increased impact stress could actually cause more problems than what the increased muscular strength gains are. My thinking is you are better off sticking to the slower ends of Daniels' and Coe/Martin's easy training zones and then getting you muscular strength increases in the weight room.

[oasis]

krs1,

do you base your training zones off your PR's or recent race times?

[pq]

Again, Kevin, to clarify, when I speak of slow easy running, I never mean to imply ALL slow easy running, but some slow easy running.

Optimal aerobic development cannot occur with only slow running, but it can include a component of slow easy running (IMHO, and at least, for certain, it has worked for me, if not necessarily as a general rule), of course combined with faster easy running, and just plain faster running (workouts and races of various types and durations over an extended period of time).

On the subject of impact stress due to more time on your feet, I don't personally buy that argument (for ME). Like anything, repetition of a stress induces a response. Provided mileage is increased gradually, nearly anyone can adapt safely to high mileage (I think this is widely accepted, no?). If a portion of that high mileage is very easy, then the chances of inducing impact-stress related problems would surely be lower than if all of it is (relatively) fast. I gather you might suggest just eliminating that easier mileage (since it is of no use) or make it faster (again, since it is of no use)? That may be the right answer for some athletes, but may not be the right answer for others (again, I don't think there are any universal right answers in our sport), and may depend, for example, on the specialization. Maybe an MD runner, like yourself, would never benefit from some added easier running. Maybe most marathon runners would.

I don't personally see the weight room as a better way to develop running-specific strength than by running, but I will admit I offer this opinion from the perspective of never having done any running-specific weight training. Much like you have offered the opinion that very easy running is of no benefit from the perspective of never having tried it yourself (and of course, relying to some degree on the scientific interpretation offered in Daniels' book).

[krs1]

pq said:

Again, Kevin, to clarify, when I speak of slow easy running, I never mean to imply ALL slow easy running, but some slow easy running.

Optimal aerobic development cannot occur with only slow running, but it can include a component of slow easy running (IMHO, and at least, for certain, it has worked for me, if not necessarily as a general rule), of course combined with faster easy running, and just plain faster running (workouts and races of various types and durations over an extended period of time).

On the subject of impact stress due to more time on your feet, I don't personally buy that argument (for ME). Like anything, repetition of a stress induces a response. Provided mileage is increased gradually, nearly anyone can adapt safely to high mileage (I think this is widely accepted, no?). If a portion of that high mileage is very easy, then the chances of inducing impact-stress related problems would surely be lower than if all of it is (relatively) fast. I gather you might suggest just eliminating that easier mileage (since it is of no use) or make it faster (again, since it is of no use)? That may be the right answer for some athletes, but may not be the right answer for others (again, I don't think there are any universal right answers in our sport), and may depend, for example, on the specialization. Maybe an MD runner, like yourself, would never benefit from some added easier running. Maybe most marathon runners would.

I don't personally see the weight room as a better way to develop running-specific strength than by running, but I will admit I offer this opinion from the perspective of never having done any running-specific weight training. Much like you have offered the opinion that very easy running is of no benefit from the perspective of never having tried it yourself (and of course, relying to some degree on the scientific interpretation offered in Daniels' book).

Couple of quick responses:
I am not arguing the need for some slow easy running. I've already made the point of saying that there are times where I am specifically asked to run slow and easy, particularily after a number of days of high mileage or a number of very strenuous sessions. My main arguement is against those that suggest that you can do the majority of your off days very slow and still see the same optimal performance gains.

Saying that it is my "opinion that very easy running is of no benefit from the perspective of never having tried it" is not true. My opinion is that very easy running is of very little benefit based on the science presented by very running specific scientists such as Daniels and Martin.

[pq]

krs1 said:

(1) My main arguement is against those that suggest that you can do the majority of your off days very slow and still see the same optimal performance gains.

(2) Saying that it is my "opinion that very easy running is of no benefit from the perspective of never having tried it" is not true. My opinion is that very easy running is of very little benefit based on the science presented by very running specific scientists such as Daniels and Martin.

(1) I don't think anyone on the thread has suggested that the majority of your off days should be very slow.

(2) Apologies - I put the emphasis in the wrong place. You were already very clear that your opinion was based on the scientific interpretation offered by those authors. BUT, you haven't tried to include slower (than E pace) running on some of your easy days, so you can't really say, with certainty borne from personal experience, whether such running would indeed impair your development. Nobody can say, for certain, whether it would. It's fair to trust the science. And I would never suggest you should try some slower easy running (I'd never have the audacity to suggest anything to you). I'm simply suggesting that - for some people - some easy running slower than Daniels' E pace is just as good as running in his E pace range.

I hope I've clarified. I can sense I should shut up for a while now and let the thread develop without my continued rantings about the many benefits of slow running. :-)

[Steller]

RE: strength training

strength training (weights) for mid-distance and distance runners probably starting with famed coach Percy Cerutty (Herb Elliots coach). There is now some considerable evidence (some from AIS and some from a Scandinvian group) that weight training will help running economy.

I personally believe that a more running "functional" lower-body way of maintaining and developming strength training are very short (~10 to 15 second) steep hill repeats with lots of rest (>90 sec)...especially done throughout the endurance general prep phase.

[MattMc]

I think I need to modify my previous bellicose anti-Sully & Boyd stance. After re-reading it I realize that it came off as slightly hostile and I did not mean for it to.

I think that I should look at the second edition as the ranges are likely representative of the intesities at which I train.

Overall, I think that we (Kevin, Steve and I) are on the same page, but saying it differetnly. I want to emphasize that it is probably more harmful to run your off days too fast than slow, and I was worried that some of the younger runners might take this thread as 'I need to run my off days faster".

My second overall theory is that it is more important race-wise to hit your workout/ tempo paces and to worry less about the easy run paces. As we have all said (Linc, KRS, Oldster) we tend to fall into the proper pace without much effort. The danger is if you are putting too much effort into hitting your E pace and can't hit your T/ MP or I pace. Same goes for your race results.

Kevin, I meant to point out that your evidence of eflites training at X pace is anecdotal, as is all of ours. Unless someone does a systematic review of elites' training paces that doesn't rely on self-reporting (which I think is not entirely accurate) it is difficult to have a real idea of paces. We all tend to inflate our paces/ training when talking to others. I could provide some examples of elite guys who run much slower than I do but what would that prove? To you it's an exception to the rule, to me it might be a trend-- who knows without real data.

What I can say from my own experience training with groups is that the pace of off-day runs tends to be the same for the elite and nono-elite guys, but the workouts and races are where the real differences are. What is the significance of this? Maybe none. Maybe the 'slower' guys are busting too hard on their off days and the elite guys are adequately recovering. Maybe the elites are loafing and the slower guys are getting more benefit and gaining on them? Without good data and exclusion of the myriad other factors it is difficult to know.

Matt