Slow down to speed up? (Read 1223 times)

I've recently become curious about this concept and was hoping some more experienced people could give me some insight. I've been doing some reading as well as talking to runners I know, and a theme that seems to come up is slowing down most of the every day running. I imagine the benefit of slowing down the running is so that you can do more of it since it's at a slower pace, but is it as beneficial to run at a slower pace? If I decide to run 10 miles one day and I cover it in 75 minutes and it feels well controlled, would I get the same benefit if I ran it in 80 or 85 minutes? Or is the benefit of running it slowly that I could potentially do 10 at the same pace the next day without needing to recover, thus giving me more overall mileage? Running in high school and doing a very small bit of college running gave me the mindset that if I can cover a distance in X time in a reasonably comfortable manner, than I'm getting more out of that run than if I did it slower. Basically, I'm used to hammering my workouts and thinking that this will let teach me to hammer my races. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this, particularly those who may have had the same outlook as I did and have since taken to slowing down a lot of their daily mileage.

Willamona covered a lot of it... Basically there are two main things you can do to be a better long distance runner. 1. You can run more, and 2. You can run faster. Running slower some days helps you do both of these. If you run fast all the time, you won't recover enough to get in the mileage you need to become a better long distance runner. Racing can improve your running, but it also breaks you down. If you run too fast all the time, the effect will be to break you down faster than you can recover and improve, or at the same rate so you don't end up getting much fitter. It's also a fact that you can run more miles when you slow them down. Overall mileage volume shows a very high correlation to racing performance, meaning the more you can run, the faster you can race usually. So if you're running less, you're probably not racing as fast as you could be. Also, running too fast all the time keeps you from putting 100% effort on the days where you are supposed to be running fast. Say you were going to run a workout of 20x400m in 65 seconds each. But you ran 10 miles in 75 minutes the day before, so you were too tired and only ran 20x400m in 67 seconds. Sure, that's still a good workout, but if you ran them in 65 seconds, that would've had a stronger training effect.

I'd like to hear what others have to say about this, particularly those who may have had the same outlook as I did and have since taken to slowing down a lot of their daily mileage.

Bells, I was a balls to the wall hammerhead runner in high school and college. My basic mentality was fairly simple: if I run harder than everyone else, every day, I'll be faster. I had a rule: never run slower than 7:00 pace. That's a good mentality. It took me farther than most. But I always felt I was underperforming. And I was injured a lot. I have only recently (after 18 years of running) started to slow down on my easy runs. I started trying to do this a year ago, but only committed to this idea fully about six weeks ago. Since then, I've kept my easy days frighteningly easy. Boringly easy. At least a minute per mile slower than what I used to run. Yesterday, I ran 8:30 pace. How is the experiment working out? I'm not sure. I've only been trying for 6 weeks. In that time, I've run only two workouts: one 3 mile tempo at 6:00 pace, and another 3 mile tempo at 5:50 pace. I used to finish my "easy days" at that pace. Everything else has been easy running around 7:30 pace on flat surfaces. Like you, I was skeptical and scared that it would be impossible to race hard without running hard. I was skeptical until this Saturday, when I ran 5:55 pace for a 10 miler and dropped 5:40, 5:40, and 5:35 for my last three miles. And it felt easy. Frighteningly easy. Other indications? I ran two 80 mile weeks, back to back, and they felt like 40 mile weeks used to feel. No soreness, no fatigue. Just fresh-legged running. All of a sudden consecutive 100 mile weeks seem like just a matter of adjusting schedules, not a matter of physical courage or a magical incredible barrier to jump. I slowed my easy pace a minute per mile, but now I can handle twice the volume at that pace. Sounds like a fair sacrifice to make. Just wait until I add some intensity.

The key is adding mileage, most of us need to slow down to be able to do that.

I've never been a fast runner but... 3 years ago I was running my easy and long runs 15-30 seconds/mile FASTER than I am now but racing most distances 60-90 seconds /mile slower. Last year I took HUGE chunks off all my PR's running 60-75 seconds per mile slower most days. And I havent really added intensity back yet. Still working my base.

The HRM suggestion is good, and that's actually how I got myself onto a pretty consistent schedule. In January I started doing all my runs at X heart rate and it was suspiciously easy to get up to 50 miles a week from nothing with little issue. However, I forgot to bring it on a short vacation at the end of July, and after running without it I realized I was kind of dependent on it to tell me what my pace was rather than just being able to know intuitively. I stopped using it then, and I'm not sure I really want to get back into it.

One thing I've discovered using the HRM is that I almost always know what my HR is within a few beats. At first, I found myself constantly looking at it. Now I don't so much, but download and analyse after I'm home. When I do look at it, I try to tune into my body first and estimate what I think my HR is by how I feel and then check to see how close I am. After doing this for awhile, I'm pretty acurate in my estimate and can do runs without it and still be where I want to be.

The idea is to use the HRM to get yourself in a zone where your body is using more fat than glycogen in the fuel mix (more slow twitch fibers). This will slow almost everyone down who tries it, as the body is not used to using more fat than glycogen to process oxygen. If you stick with it, build mileage by 5% per week, taking some rest days and cutback weeks alonng the way, you will start to get faster in that same HR zone, eventually getting as fast as you used to be when you ran at higher HR's. Difference is your slow twitch fibers have become gargantuan and your body has developed great endurance. You can maintain your fast speeds for much longer. You also will probably be much healthier and less prone to injury. So, the idea is to get faster in a fat-burning HR zone, not to run slow. You are slow at first, but that is temporary. Read this from Mark Allen (6-time Ironman Tri Champ)--once he started doing this, his endurance went through the roof and he started winning every year. This slowed him initially by over 45%, but he eventually got back to his "blistering" paces. He would do base periods with this training, followed by a brief speed-training-intervals period, then racing: from Heart Rate Training by Mark Allen "...when I entered the sport of triathlons in the early 1980's, my mentality was to go as hard as I could at some point in every single workout. And to gauge how fast that might have to be, I looked at how fast the best triathletes were running at the end of the short distance races. Guys like Dave Scott, Scott Tinley and Scott Molina were able to hold close to 5 minute miles for their 10ks after swimming and biking! So that's what I did. Every run, even the slow ones, for at least one mile, I would try to get close to 5 minute pace. And it worked...sort of. I had some good races the first year or two, but I also suffered from minor injuries and was always feeling one run away from being too burned out to want to continue with my training. Then came the heart rate monitor. A man named Phil Maffetone, who had done a lot of research with the monitors, contacted me. Phil said that I was doing too much anaerobic training, too much speed work, too many high end/high heart rate sessions. I was forcing my body into a chemistry that only burns carbohydrates for fuel by elevating my heart rate so high each time I went out and ran. So he told me to go to the track, strap on the heart rate monitor, and keep my heart rate below 155 beats per minute (note: 180-age). Maffetone told me below this number that my body would be able to take in enough oxygen to burn fat as the main source of fuel for my muscle to move. I was going to develop my aerobic/fat burning system. What I discovered was a shock. To keep my heart rate below 155 beats/minute, I had to slow my pace down to an 8:15 mile. That's three minutes/mile SLOWER than I had been trying to hit in every single workout I did! My body just couldn't utilize fat for fuel. So for the next four months I did exclusively aerobic training keeping my heart rate at or below my maximum aerobic heart rate, using the monitor every single workout. And at the end of that period, my pace at the same heart rate of 155 beats/minute had improved by over a minute. And after nearly a year of doing mostly aerobic training, which by the way was much more comfortable and less taxing than the anaerobic style that I was used to, my pace at 155 beats/minute had improved to a blistering 5:20 mile. That means that I was now able to burn fat for fuel efficiently enough to hold a pace that a year before was redlining my effort at a maximum heart rate of about 190. I had become an aerobic machine! On top of the speed benefit at lower heart rates, I was no longer feeling like I was ready for an injury the next run I went on, and I was feeling fresh after my workouts instead of being totally exhausted from them." --Jimmy more on this stuff at the Low HR Training forum

The HR stuff is fine, but don't over think it. Most low HR training, Maffetone or otherwise, is simply a tool to get people to do their easy runs truly easy, and thus run more miles. And the more miles you run, the greater your aerobic development, so easy pace will naturally get faster.

True that lower HR running allows you to build mileage easier, with lesser probability of injury. But Maffetone training is a bit more involved than be just a simple tool. It's about health first. Then it's about building your aerobic system. Then it's about adding some anaerobic, after you've developed the aerobic. It's really about teaching your body to utilize fat as Allen says. A way to tell if your aerobic system is built is to go to McMillan Calculator pop in your best 5k time, then check to see if the possible times for longer races that the claculator give are matching your long race PR's. If your PR's are substantially slower, then your fat-burning slow twitchers need development (or it's possible you're more of a sprinter). Mine didn't match up a few years back, I went to the business of using the lower HR's exclusively for 12-16 weeks in fall and spring, then adding some higher HR"s. My long distances began to match my 5k's. It happened the same way Mark Allen described. Keep going! --Jimmy