fast miles vs junk miles

[palladium]

Just curious as to what people think on this issue. When I ran seriously, I kept the majority of my 80 to 90 mile weeks at 5:40 pace as I felt it necessary to always be running fast. Never really had a physiological reason for it, and am curious as to what people think on this front. Some of my teammates were big proponents of fast running, whilst others would rather run 110 miles at 6:40 pace.

any thoughts?

[Asterix]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

Why go to extremes? Some miles should be fast, some should be slow, some in between. How many of each depends on: the athlete in question, what they are training for, where they are in their season and what their training history is, among other considerations.

[doug b]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

it varies from person to person, dave bedford and lasse viren ran 200 a week, kip keino ran under 30 miles a week, but with 10-15x a quarter in 55-60 seconds and 4-6x a half in 154-2 minutes, coe ran low mileage but fast, rodgers ran 140 or more at 630-7 minutes, musyocki and steve jones ran 60-80 but usually at sub 5 pace. each person is different.

[EPelle]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

I ran between 70-76 mpw when I was 19 - with my long days at 5.30 pace. Mile splits on other runs varied between 5.00 and 5.30, with a closing mile usually around 4.50 or so. I carried on like that for an entire summer, feeling great and running fast every day (though it didn t feel "fast").

I never rested. I felt great, relaxed and never gave my body time to really just cool off and take it easy. Running at 6.30 pace felt too slow, and I couldn t handle the "boredom" of running that pace.

Result: torn ligaments in both knees and out an entire track season (was out in September and couldn t recover in time for January training). Haven t reached that volume for years.

Every mile should have some significance, whether in recovery or in workout. I am not one who believes in logging miles just to add them up to a weekly total. If you are tired one day, run less if needed. Give your body a break, before it breaks you.

[Cyril]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

Palladium-

Like you during the off-seasons (summer/winter) from ages 16-22 I would run 80-110/wk most of which was a 6/mi. or better. This is for a guy who would have a 10k race pace at just under 5/mi. (31ish) I also had my fair share of injury problems.

When coaching, I took a more moderate approach. Every mile had a purpose. Base miles were for the purpose of building aerobic and running efficiency. Therefore, base miles were to be done relatiely easy (70% max hr - for a 4:20 h.s. miler this would be about 150-155bpm). We would also have occasional (weekly or 2xweekly) tempo runs to open things up a bit and build the AR/lac threshold. We would also do striders and form drills few time per week to keep some leg speed and work technique. These striders would be no more than 100m. and they would do no more than 10 reps. Miles were under 50/wk during base training with only one run of 60 minutes per week.

This seemed to prepare the kids well for the next phase which was usually a bit more individually tailored for each kid, but consisted of plenty of track work - intense but not high quantity, while keeping the aerobic work aerobic (slow).

The kids had very few injury problems and very good performances. And (IMO) with less overall training effort - but the effort that was put in was high quality and with purpose.

[palladium]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

thanks for the views guys. i too was a 30 to 31 minute 10k guy when running those miles. i suppose some context is necessary. most of this is pre or early season running, with 1 tempo workout (5 miler or 6 miler or something to that effect). though i never got injured, i've also had an impossible time trying to get back into it at a pace even remotely that fast. also felt bored at the 6:30 pace...

thanks again for all your feedback.

[Cyril]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

Palladium-

You and I are very similiar. To this day I have trouble going out and running easy. Even though I know better, I don't feel like I am getting much bang for my workout buck and I also get bored and am still very competitive - though considerably slower. The only way I can get myself to run easy is to go with a noncompetitive friend and have good conversation on the run.

When coaching it was different. Because I had some new ideas that I thought would be better for the kids I would insist that they not get competitive in easy workouts. The funny thing is, even though I ran with them (very easy for me at that time), I competed just as fast (in all-comers and roads). This was with much fewer miles and much less effort.

[5k Guy]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

Frank Shorter provided the best advice I have ever been given on the subject.

He said " when its time to work hard, work hard but when its time to rest, rest. It doesn't make sence to work hard or race on days when you should be recovering nor hold back on days meant for hard work."

For distance guys 10k - Marathon, I propose a schedule similar to what Shorter did.

13 workouts per week (same as Geb)
7 main workouts and 6 secondary workouts

The main workouts break-up as follows:
1 workout focused on speed with intense intervals on the track
1 workout focused on stregnth with long intervals or race ppace work on the road or track
1 workout focused on long endurance, usually a long run where you are out there for 2 to 3 hours. (10k guys may go shorter and slightly faster than marathoners)
4 workouts focusd on recovering from the three workouts above (pace should be whatever is necessary to recover, often Shorter did not time such runs)

6 secondary workouts are taken in the same days as the main workouts except for the long day. They consist of comfortable distance runs focused on building ones enduarance base.

Of course there are variations for seasons, distances and personal abilities but I think this is the basic program that most world class distance runners programs are based.

[palladium]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

>Palladium-

You and I are very similiar. To this day I have trouble going out
>and running easy. Even though I know better, I don't feel like I am getting
>much bang for my workout buck and I also get bored and am still very
>competitive - though considerably slower. The only way I can get myself to run
>easy is to go with a noncompetitive friend and have good conversation on the
>run.

very interesting that you ran as fast with the slower training. i too know i have to be more realistic with my runs and am determined to be more wise about it going forward, otherwise i'll never get back into it.

thanks again.

When coaching it was different. Because I had some new ideas that I
>thought would be better for the kids I would insist that they not get
>competitive in easy workouts. The funny thing is, even though I ran with them
>(very easy for me at that time), I competed just as fast (in all-comers and
>roads). This was with much fewer miles and much less effort.

[Run DMC]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

Lydiard is my guide in all this. He suggests running until you are "pleasantly tired". 5:40 miles would leave you exhausted after long runs if your max 10K was 5:00. In the base phase Lydiard suggests mostly easy running to develop Aerobic capacity - this means about 90sec/mi slower than your 10K pace.

In college we ran a ton of miles at 6:30-7:00 pace. During the season 4 workouts a week were hard - a 2:00 run of a comfortable/conversational pace, a high intensity interval workout, longer intervals with short rest, and a "moderate" run in which the pace was about 30-45 seconds/mi off max 10k pace (usually 60-90min). The rest of our runs were 50-80min at conversational pace. In the summer there were no intervals and usually only 1 or 2 "moderate" runs per week. Guys had times that were in the 14:00/29:00 neighborhood with several All-Americans.

IMO junk miles are those 2-4mi morning runs done to pad the weekly mileage.

As an additional point. Most people think they run faster than they actually do. Unless courses are measured accurately, training times can be taken with a grain of salt. As an example, in "Running with the Buffaloes", Goucher does a 22mi run at 5:45 pace on a measured course. He was a 13:30/28:30 runner at the time. That is 60sec/mi over his 10k max, but was an outstanding workout.

DMC

[MJD]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

Goucher does a 22mi run at 5:45 pace on a measured course. He was
>a 13:30/28:30 runner at the time. That is 60sec/mi over his 10k max, but was an
>outstanding workout.

The devil is in the details. That would have been 25% slower than his 10km pace(69 seconds per mile slower). It would be like a 31 minute 10km guy doing 22 miles at a 6:15 pace. A good workout but not outstanding.

[trackhead]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

And to further that point (about Goucher) Gebrselassie's long run is no faster than 5:40min/mi. Everything else he runs (which is not specific training) is in the 6:15+ range.

[malmo]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

>As an additional point. Most people think they run faster
>than they actually do. Unless courses are measured accurately, training times
>can be taken with a grain of salt.

Differences in the running vary widely. Depends on the circles you run in. Nearly all of the athletes I've known (hundreds) over the decades ran on measured courses.

Perhaps, your crowd might take notes and start doing the same?

[malmo]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

SHOULD READ: Differences in the running experience vary. Depends on the circles you run in. Nearly all of the athletes I've known (hundreds) over the decades ran on measured courses.

Perhaps, your crowd might take notes and start doing the same?

[Run DMC]

Re: fast miles vs junk miles

It is true that most runners know an approximate distance for their regular courses, but do most really know if their normal "10 mile loop" is actually 9.7 or 10.3? Unless it was specifically measuree with a wheel, I doubt it. You don't need splits on easy days and having them only encourages you to run harder than you should. Again, Lydiard says especially on non specific training days, you run for a duration not a distance. The pace should be dictated by how you feel not an arbitrary pace per mile. That is why they are called "recovery runs".


>>It would be like a 31 minute 10km guy doing 22 miles at a 6:15 pace. A good workout but not outstanding.

The greater the distance the slower you have to go in racing or training. 12-15 mi at that pace would be a good workout, 22mi is outstanding. I hope you believe that this guy would feel the effects of that workout for over a week. And if he continued to push himself without some slower, shorter days he would eventually break down (as Goucher did in the book). Also read that Tom McArdle averages 6:30 on easy days but has run 28:18. As Trackhead said - Geb has the ability to run under 4:20 for a 10k, but runs 5:40 on long days and 6:15 on easy days. Hmmm, Why would the WR holder in the 5K AND 10K run slower than a 31min 10K guy???

BTW - I am not an advocate of running easy all the time, just on the rest days. My point is that slower miles don't necessarily make them junk miles. And fast miles when you should run easy will destroy any chance of racing well.

DMC