Never mind. Deleted post.
Damaris
As part of the 2024 London Marathon, I am fundraising for VICTA, a charity that helps blind and visually impaired children. My mentor while in law school, Jim K (a blind attorney), has been a huge inspiration and an example of courage and perseverance. Please consider donating.
Fundraising Page
Okay, recovery is 9:38 to 10:22
Long runs 8:35 to 9:53
easy runs 8:30 to 9:31
PRs: Boston Marathon, 3:27, April 15th 2013
Cornwall Half-Marathon, 1:35, April 27th 2013
18 marathons, 18 BQs since 2010
I saw it too.
A little faster than I thought, but that's the way McMillan works now and me loves McMillan.
Do you think 12mm is too slow for me though? Edit:When I say i run fast that means 8 mm pace for 10+ miles. For me, that's fast, and pretty close to my "race pace" since my race pace and training pace have been almost the same till this point.
Do you think 12mm is too slow for me though?
Edit:When I say i run fast that means 8 mm pace for 10+ miles. For me, that's fast, and pretty close to my "race pace" since my race pace and training pace have been almost the same till this point.
I think 12 is probably slower than you need to go. My HM PR pace is 8:25, and I never run much slower than 11s, and that's a recovery run. A long, slow run is 10:20-10:30 pace, usually, and that's a pace I can hang onto easily, even on my 20 milers.
Running slow, though, is great. About two years ago, I used to have this thing where I never wanted to run slower than 10 minute miles. This wasn't really a difficult pace, per se, but it wasn't really easy either. The thing that really let me up my mileage, and thus really improve, was to just always run "easy". If it meant that my body wanted to go slower that day, so be it.
My wildly inconsistent PRs:
5k: 24:36 (10/20/12)
10k: 52:01 (4/28/12)
HM: 1:50:09 (10/27/12)
Marathon: 4:19:11 (10/2/2011)
Damaris, what did I miss? Tell me!
You're throwing in an added factor by specifying + LT + VO2Max - and then ran slow all the time. What about the person who always ran slow from the beginning, no LT, no VO2Max, no fartlek, no strides, just long slow miles?
If the overall volume is substantially higher than that runners prior base, then that runner should get faster. Just random numbers... a 40mpw runner who is always running 'easy' ramps up to 80mpw while still running 'easy'... that runner should see dramatic race time improvement. The aerobic upside is much higher for most runners than the benefits of imrpoving LT or VO2Max. That upside can be realized by simply RUNNING MORE.
Alternatively, that same runner could stay at 40mpw and convert some of those miles to speedwork, and that runner would likely improve, but I don't believe that payoff is nearly as substantial as that which comes from running volume... and trying to do both at the same time often leads to bad outcomes...
For those who try to identify some magical LSD pace range... it really isn't necessary... it's just 'EASY'... it isn't a workout that needs to be between Pace A and Pace B. Easy running doesn't work that way.
be curious; not judgmental
I clarify my prior comment. I would say LSD should be at 1-2 mm slower than pace. I still think McM is too aggressive.
I agree that the new McMillan* is too aggressive, at least for mid-pack-ish runners running moderate mileage. It now gives me a range of 8:46- 9:44 for my easy runs (this is based off a 39:23 5-mile race (7:53 pace)). I almost never run my 'easy' miles faster than 9:50, and 8:46 is almost my HM pace. My easy runs almost always end up averaging between 10:00 and 10:30. 9:44 is definitely, for me, an 'effortful', not 'easy' pace, and 8:46 is a significant effort.
*McMillan paces were adjusted a few months ago
I don't think I'll ever want to run 80-100 mpw. So, that option as a way to get faster is out for me. I run about 50 mpw when not training, and 55 to 70 miles in training. That's it, I refuse to do a mile over 70 at this point. I had 5 marathon training cycles last year, constantly being in training could easily drive someone nuts. One needs to set limits somewhere... With my type of lower mileage, I need more speedwork and my ratio of quality runs to easy/recovery runs is not 50-50, but close to it (by quality, I also mean hills, progression runs, MP miles, on top of intervals and tempo). So far, I'm still seeing an improvement in my finish times. So... I must be doing something right somewhere...
Are we there, yet?
If the overall volume is substantially higher than that runners prior base, then that runner should get faster. Just random numbers... a 40mpw runner who is always running 'easy' ramps up to 80mpw while still running 'easy'... that runner should see dramatic race time improvement. The aerobic upside is much higher for most runners than the benefits of imrpoving LT or VO2Max. That upside can be realized by simply RUNNING MORE. Alternatively, that same runner could stay at 40mpw and convert some of those miles to speedwork, and that runner would likely improve, but I don't believe that payoff is nearly as substantial as that which comes from running volume... and trying to do both at the same time often leads to bad outcomes...
From personal experience I didn't find that to be true, at least in the near-term. When I bumped my weekly mileage from 60 to 80 mpw I got noticeably slower. It wasn't until after I dropped my mileage back down to 60 mpw AND added back speedwork that I saw any improvements in times.
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K 05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour
06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
Goddess of the Cuisine
Yes. Even if 8 mm is your race pace, 10:00-10:30 would be slow enough, unless it's just not slow enough to get that endorphin rush.
In transit, arriving on time.
Did you sustain 80+mpw for 10 weeks or more? That is the key... volume over time. After acclimating the body to running over 80mpw every week, running 26.2 miles in one shot get remarkably easier... it's almost impossible to NOT get faster.
Now, if for someone who isn't going to run more than 'x' miles per week no matter what, then making a small percentage of those miles uptempo makes sense. The volume ceiling has been set, so the focus shifts to other areas for improvement.
Did you sustain 80+mpw for 10 weeks or more? That is the key... volume over time. After acclimating the body to running over 80mpw every week, running 26.2 miles in one shot get remarkably easier... it's almost impossible to NOT get faster. Now, if for someone who isn't going to run more than 'x' miles per week no matter what, then making a small percentage of those miles uptempo makes sense. The volume ceiling has been set, so the focus shifts to other areas for improvement.
This was 40 years ago, but I think I logged about 1000 miles in 3 months. I'm also talking about getting faster as in 10K, 5K, and mile times. I'd been at 50-60 mpw for about 3 years already.
Yeah, that's about what I was doing... 350+ per month with no speedwork. My race times dropped like a rock. Not sure what to say... others I know who've followed the 'RUN MORE' philosophy seem to confirm the hypothesis that running volume trumps intensity, but clearly there are outliers.