Rea BarryP's threads here on ST. Basically, more running is better. However, running hard too often can lead to injuries.

---

What I do: http://app.strava.com/athletes/345699

Yes, read BarryP's threads.

The gist of it is that most of us get plenty of aerobic conditioning from the bike, and the limiting factor for run fitness is injuries. Joints and connective tissues respond to stimulus much slower than muscular and aerobic systems, therefore one should do consistent, easy miles to condition them. It's the only way to strengthen them without injury.

Raising your injury tolerance through easy high mileage makes it much easier to target your muscular and aerobic systems.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Run PR's: 18:05 - 36:58 - 1:22:59 - 3:07

"Volume" is the short answer. Sure training at threshold is great, but anyone that tries to do 50+ miles per week entirely at threshold pace isn't going to be running anywhere for very long. Slow runs give a good deal of the physiological benefits of more intense training, with a much lower level of fatigue and lower risk of injury, allowing you to increase volume and ultimately see quicker and greater improvement.

You might find this article interesting, especially Tables 1, 2 and 3 at the end. Sure, it's written for cycling but it gives a broad idea as to the benefits of training at different intensity levels. Obviously training at too low an intensity isn't going to have many physiological benefits as the blank column for Level 1 in Table 2 shows, so it's all about striking a balance and getting your zones right.

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...ower-training-levels

I agree (and have implemented the Barry P approach for two years), but 9:00 minute miles for IM pros...? I haven't ran a 9:00 minute pace intentionally, even on recovery runs, in a super long time. My easy pace is 7:45/mi, tempo miles hover around 6:20/mi. That seems too slow.

---

@floathammerholdon | @partners_in_tri

i have no choice.......

---

Steve

This is a very good point too, especially for those new to running or anyone planning on increasing mileage significantly.

Because running slowly alows us to run more frequently and frequency trumps pace.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

It's just an excuse fat runners use to justify why their long runs are so slow. <pink>

Yeah, everything you read says run slower on most days but be sure to get one or MAYBE two days of speedwork per week. I think every elite marathoner I've followed does this, and it seems to work for them. But I do have a few friends who run like they race (fast), and they do well too. So who knows.

It seems to make sense that running slower will lead to fewer injuries than running hard, assuming the same mileage. But then again it used to make sense that heavily padded shoes will be safer and now we all know that barefoot is the only way to go unless you want to die. Or is it you need Hokas now? Or flipflops? Or shoes made from recycled low profile tires? I forget.

Ryan Hall does recovery runs at greater than 9 minute mile pace. He can outrun everyone on the planet save for a handful of other guys who train similarly.

Your easy pace and recovery pace are way too fast. Kind of that simple.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Maybe apples to oranges?

I guess my recovery pace would be too fast (if that's the case), but is it safe to assume that the training practices of elites would automatically transfer over to us AGers?

---

@floathammerholdon | @partners_in_tri

This...

And I wouldn't argue with Gwen Jorgensen's training either.

You agree with it, but you just don't believe it, so you don't do it. :0)
That makes excellent ST sense.

As s been mentioned - volume as measured in time, not distance. You can typically handle more volume at an easier pace because it isn't creating as much damage and fatigue. That's not to say all your running should be slow (relatively). Also, read up a bit on the MAF method and fat adaptation. The tricky part about being able to do increased volume by running slower is that we need to figure out where to get that time from in our busy lives. Pros have all day to train and rest. Most of us typically have a limited amount of time to devote to training so we tend to want to load up with tempo and threshold work but neglecting the slow easy stuff limits your ability to recover and adapt to the higher quality stuff.

I think it is better to look at intensity instead of speed.
The goal is to run hard when it is hard, and easy when it is easy.
If the easy runs are getting to hard, then you will not be set up to do proper hard runs/intervals.

Search for Stephen Seiler, he has done a lot of research and even been here on ST

I only know sweet spots from tennis rackets and baseball bats :-)

The zone 1 vs zone 2 question (both being below the first lactate turnpoint in the 5 zone system we use a lot here in Norway) is interesting. There is no physiological marker distinguishing these two "zones". I suspect that with really high training volumes and really big motors, elite guys move move their Low intensity work down a little into zone 1 just because that zone widens. However, more recreational athletes will spend more time just under threshold intensity.

I also am still of the opinion that 3 zones works quite well for most people: Green zone (talking intensity, starts feeling like you are working after an hour, feel like eating as soon as you are finished, Yellow Zone (threshold, typical zone for those 45-60 minute workouts you hustle to squeeze in after work, pretty tough workout, but you did not have to go near your personal cellar of mental fortitude to finish), Red zone (requires mental mobilization, clear increasing perception of effort with every interval bout, no appetite for about an hour after training). And of course the most common training mistake is that a green zone session becomes yellow because of half wheeling, and the next day's planned red zone session fades to uhhhh....pink. Show me a champion and I will show you a person with intensity discipline who plans the work and works the plan, even on days when someone rides past them that they know they could reel in :-)
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4941446;so=ASC;sb=post_latest_reply;#4941446

One big factor that differentiates between your average age grouper and a professional is the amount of time available to run. If the intent of keeping your recovery pace very easy is to be able to fit in more training, it only works if you have time to actually follow through. if you only have 3-4 hours per week to run, you may be better off doing more running at a faster pace to increase your training load.

I used to do all my easy paced runs at 7:30/mi pace. Even at only 30miles a week my legs were always beat up and I was dealing with bad hamstring issues. Results were decent, but I struggled to stay consistent. Last year I started working with a coach who harped on me to slow down...a lot. It was amazing. All of a sudden I could do two-a-days and feel relatively fresh. I had a bounce in my step even as my mileage increased. I was running a lot more and feeling better. It was a great illustration of why this approach is so effective.

---

-Andrew

Actually I think you'd be surprised at how many hours many pros train vs. age groupers train.

The primary differentiation between pros and age groups is some combination of:

1. Time to recover
2. Talent
3. Intelligence of training

In my defense, my training paces were set off the Macmillan pace calculator based on race results. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Barry recommends in one of his threads.

---

@floathammerholdon | @partners_in_tri

Those three factors are obviously huge differentiators (although I think I'd put talent first), but my impressions are that overall time training is still significantly higher than your average amateur.

Talking just triathlon, I would guess most AGs are putting in 8-12hrs per week, of which maybe 3-4 hours of which is running (20-30miles). How much time training time are professionals putting toward their craft? From what I've read, it seems many are in the 20-30hrs/wk range, which is a pretty significant difference. There are some AGs who probably are putting in that kind of time, but very few.

---

-Andrew

This is my understanding as well.

Some other good references for your understanding are Andrew Coggan's Training and Racing with a Power Meter (was originally a chapter for the USA Cycling coach manual/whitepaper, but has a good summary at the end of some of the physiological consequences of training endurance. Yes, it's for cycling, but easy for most to understand and apply). Don't get caught up in the Levels/training zones though...pay attention to the adaptation that occurs at the intensity.

Also take a look at some of Steve Magness' slideshare powerpoints. Very good practical application of the science side (but still comes down to how you bake the cake).

When you work through those, grab some popcorn, type into the search box "more is more," read, and then type in "performance based vs physiological based metrics," read.


As much low-intensity endurance training as possible, sprinkling in the occasional speedwork (random fun sprints less than 100-200m). Transition to event specific volume/intensity as needed. Remember most importantly that you are not training to improve a consequence of training (i.e.- heart rate, vo2, LT, VT), but rather improve the time result during racing (i.e.- last year you hit 6:45min/mi avg pace, this year you want to hit 6:15min/mi average pace). In other words- don't worry if a LT/VT curve shifted right, if your HR is lower, or if your VO2 increases...worry about what the hh:mm:ss say.

---

http://www.reathcon.com

I strongly suspect that these pros doing 9min/mile in running were in the middle of a 30+ hour training week where they'd bee running 70-90 miles per week on top of all the bike and swim hammering. At that point, 9min/mile is probably a pretty good showing for toasted legs.

There's no way they would be doing 9min/mile if they were training the 9-13hrs/wk that a typical AGer trains. Still, us AGers can still do those slow runs if we're still pushing our leg endurance with the hammering we're getting over those 9-13 hrs.

Source? I'd really like to see that. Other than maybe for a single mile up a hill at altitude in Africa, kind of hard to believe.

This is helpful. I will revisit that section of the Allen/Coggan's book. I had not heard of Steve Magness so I will read up on that.

Regarding some of the other comments about allowing for higher volume and muscular adaptation, that would make perfect sense if it were the "recommended" method for non-elites and/or those new to running. It seems apparent that elite athletes who have been running at a reasonably high level for more than a decade would have maxed out that aspect. Yet some still do it, are successful and have coaches that design training plans based on science. If the rationale is low intensity cardio conditioning, then biking seems like like a reasonable alternative (i.e. bike an extra couple hours vs doing an extra 90 minutes of easy running). However, if there are muscular strength/conditioning benefits even for the highly trained elite who may be running ~100m/wk, then you would go with a sport-specific approach (i.e. running more at any pace should help your running & running easy requires less recovery). Understanding what is going on will help determine if we should do more volume at a pace that seems easy (be it 7:45 or 9:45) or if it should be incredibly easy (barely above walking effort).

Volume and adaption, check.
You make a good point about a life long athelete still building muscular endurance.
From what I have read, there is an advantage to training 'slower' is two fold. One, your body can do the same effort at a lower hear rate. Two, you exercise a different part of your overall fitness when you run slow than when you run fast.
As far as the HR stuff goes, who cares what your HR is, only speed matters!
For me one consideration is heart health - I'm not sure if running at redline for an hour is actually good for my heart! I'm sure running an hour in z2 is.