Slow Down (Read 1910 times)

BUT ... I also know that this is a controversial topic, and that there a whole lot of people that argue that "long slow running = long slow racing," that you race like you train, that the tempo run is the most important run in your schedule, etc. I hope to hear from both sides on this one, for my own education.

I'm not sure there are two sides to this debate, JK, unless one side is that only running slow will make you fast and the other is that only running fast will make you fast. I don't think anyone holds either of those positions. I've really worked this year on slowing down my easy runs (once or twice a week), but I've paired that strategy with a promise to myself to get to the track every third day or so to run faster than my aerobic pace (threshold running or critical velocity). I've also added 60m strides at the end of my easy runs to stay in touch with speed. I can really tell the difference between this type of strategy and my old bone-headed hardman strategy of running as hard as I can every day. The difference is that I'm fresh for my hard days--and able to run my tempos/intervals well. The advice I'd give is common sense: run your easy days easy and your hard days hard. If you're gasping for air on your easy days, then you're training poorly. But if you're never gasping for air, you're not pushing your limits.

That's such good advice. I'm still at that stage where most of my runs are actually run/walk combos and I have to admit that if I see another runner out on a run (which I often do) I always pick it up try and run when I see them as I worry more about what they will think of me than my own progess and wellbeing (god I'm so dumb!). Good to be reminded to only train within the boundaries of what I can do - thanx

JK--looking through those forums, I found people mainly misunderstanding each other rather than representing different positions on training. It's true, you will never be able to run sub 16:00 in the 5k if you only run 9:00 miles in training. But I don't think that anyone makes that claim. Macbean's claim (yes, he's a jerk) that LSD "only helps with recovery" is really an acknowledgment that running long and slow is an important part of training. The dilemma of quantity of miles vs. quality of running involves a false choice. The answer is to get faster you must increase both, and the degree to which they are mixed will depend upon several factors: your own body's response to training, your strengths and weaknesses as a runner, your racing goals (5k or marathon?), etc. My opinion is that many runners who begin running later in life will improve more rapidly by incorporating speed work into their routine, primarily because speed is the weakness of the older runner, not endurance. And I would put the emphasis on speedwork mainly because that's the harder stuff to motivate for. LSD is fun. Busting your ass on the track is work. But it has its rewards as well. Each individual must experiment with different strategies. If I were coaching you, JK, from the limited info that your log gives, I would hypothesize that you are, indeed, running your long runs too slowly. The variation in the pace of my training is about 2 minutes--my easy runs are about 7:30 pace and my tempos drop down to 5:30 pace. In working towards my last marathon, I ran no runs longer than 1:45, and only one run longer than 1:30. Overdistance without a certain amount of quality can be a waste of time, or even counter-productive: teaching your body to run slow. I would advise, as an experiment, trying to keep all of your running under 9:30 pace for a while to see if you can develop comfort and efficiency there to be able to maintain that as an easy pace. If that means no runs over 10 miles for a few weeks, so be it. This post is already way too long, but I want to say one more thing. 'Easy' doesn't necessarily mean slow. And 'Fast doesn't necessarily mean hard. If you don't let the easy days when you're feeling good turn into unplanned tempo runs on occasion, then you risk getting stuck in the same old easy pace. The one running plan you don't want to experiment with is the one that has you running the same slow pace all the time. That's a plan without experimentation, and it will, indeed, leave you stuck being the same slow runner.

I might. Then again I might not. Tell you what, when I get as fast as you i'll think about it.

Modified to add: Somebody make sure KookyKlaire reads this thread.

Well I am her secretary and she dictated that she is too busy reading Lydiard to bother.

My opinion is that many runners who begin running later in life will improve more rapidly by incorporating speed work into their routine, primarily because speed is the weakness of the older runner, not endurance.

I'd love to believe this, but it seems the 35 year old me has a lot more trouble recovering from interval workouts than the 20 year old me did.

I'd love to believe this, but it seems the 35 year old me has a lot more trouble recovering from interval workouts than the 20 year old me did.

Yes--that's right, but perhaps that's because speed is your area of weakness. Believe me, I can't run the way I did when I was 22. I have to take longer to recover. But that doesn't mean that fast running is not essential to my training. In fact, I have to be more careful about my easy running so that I can squeeze more quality out as I get older. And by interval training, I'm not talking about busting out 400s at 5k pace. I'm talking about running at or slightly faster than threshold pace. Xanadu wins for post of the day (at least in this thread). Runningahead is awesome because it's civil and encouraging of the variety of types of running. My attitude towards running is most like Claire's--run hard or go home. I've had to temper that attitude over time with a bit of intelligence and patience (those are my weaknesses). We all run for different reasons. The single most important factor for success in running is to be able to identify the reasons why you run and reflect on what it will take to get you there. The information is out there, but the system you choose must mesh with your own temperament and personality. If it ain't enjoyable, you won't stick with it, and that would be the worst shame of all.

A lot of these types of discussions tend to turn into arguments over semantics. I think some terms get taken way too literally especially by beginners but also by experienced runners with a particular world view. Easy is a relative term for a distance runner. Running for 8 miles at 2 minutes per mile slower than your 5k race pace is relatively easy compared to racing a 5K, but it's a hell of a lot harder than walking the kids to school. Or it should be if you want to get faster. Part of the hardening process of training is getting comfortable with being uncomfortable and then being able to distinguish between all the various degrees of uncomfortable. This hardening is what allows an experienced runner to write "easy" in his log book next to the entry for a 10 mile run done near the high end of aerobic (or the low end of uncomfortable) and mean it. Also is there a signup sheet for the Jeff fan club around here?