"Easy" runs

Oh ZZ, yes, as you said before running is a science, but being a scientist myself I am aware that even science is open to question from time to time, this may be news to you.

Never said must run hard all the time, never said slow running was wimps, never said might as well go out for a walk instead or running in a dismissive way toward running. I actually value walking as an excercise as well as a pleasure, I find the effort required for a run with my partner to be comparable to a good walk.

Oh, an my knowledge is based on my experience and that obtained from other sources like books and people, computers, TV, radio. Similar to most people knowledge pool I guess.

Now I've got hoovering to do, call it tonights cross training

Wow!!! It's amazing what happens in the period of an afternoon!!!

Talking of periods...There are two people on this thread that are acting like the fairer sex the week before theirs....

On a serious note - thankyou for the answer to the slow run/easy run question, whoever it was. Sorry forget now.

If somebody starts asking about the difference between an easy run and a recovery run, will we need another tub of popcorn?

The physiology of running follows basic rules. There may be variables to how much people benefit, but the principles are the same.

To claim you are a scientist Marty, you approach running in a very unscientific way! There's no logic to your advise, no reasoning, thought, or proof.

If we all got thrown into a swimming pool at the age of 3yrs old, most would find ourselves to the side. This doesn't mean we are swimmers, this doesn't mean we have become experts on swimming. It's the same with running!

You have managed to reach a fairly average/below average club level by your way of training. Don't be fooled that this is the correct way to progress long term. Where's your schedule?

ZZ, would you like to tell us your previous running guise and I will remind you of something you said to me that was 100% unmotivational and totally wrong. You seem to advice people prepared to run 50-70 miles a week to achieve their goal, but not someone like me that one believes that half that mileage is a feasible amount to achieve the same or similar goals.

Yes their is proof, by my results. Probably a good way to learn, especially when it comes to the human side of things. How we react mentally is not an exact science and cannot be learnt from a book. if someone is demotivated by easier runs then they have every right to question the benefits of them. By doing this I am not talking shite as you so kindly put, merely questioning if they (or some running  schedules) are for them, or maybe there room for manipulation or deviation. Unlike the principles of the physiology of running, the psychology of runners is not so easy to understand and is far more subjective. Why are so many running plans published anyway? maybe down to different experience and recommendations.  

You have utter disdain for the likes of me that doesn't want to be an olympic athlete or even serious club runner, but whom set goals that I believe are still rewarding achievements.

Why would I post my schedule? you already said you want  laugh at it? I have already mentioned this before and have only changed / adapted slightly over the two years yet have remained injury free and still improving. 

I like how you stated that you don't want to get personal yet say I know nothing, talk shite, say I am an average club runner at best (well this is an achievement in my books), funny way of not getting personal isn't it? I have never mocked your running achievements have I?

I have no respect for people that pick up one of two comments and try to pick holes in them yet ignore the other 99% of what is said. No respect what so ever.

 PhilPub, that is a good question, but not sure i'm in the mood for it now!

Hi SophieM (I presume you're the SophieM I know?!?!)...

Ignoring the arguments, slow runs are definitely a key part to training - as long as you incorporate other types of run into your training.

When I was a beginner, I used to rag myself to bits on every single training run. I'd be the moron at the gym who'd be gripping the sides of the treadmill just to be sure that I wasn't slower than the previous training run.

The result was I got injury after injury and didn't improve for nearly a year.

In late 2006, I started to run everywhere at a slower pace. For me, this was 8:30m/m pace. I was allowed "off the leash" to race cross country, but all my other runs were slow. I soon broke 20 minutes for 5k, following by 40 minutes for 10k.

I've now done a sub-18 min, a sub-37 min 10k, a 60 min 10 mile and an 80 min half, but the majority of my running is still done between 7:30m/m and 8m/m pace. I incorporate interval sessions and tempo runs, but by mixing these up with easy runs, I find I get the recovery I need and am still making improvements.

Excellent times Rach, most men would be happy with those times. Have you heard of D2D?.....she could learn alot from what you've just said.

Lets get something straight marty. I don't have 'utter disdain' for anybody. I have utter respect for anyone that takes on running, and trys to learns the skills of training correctly.

The truth is, you're not actually running long enough, or frequent enough to need a regular easy run. Try running 50+miles/week, 6 days/week and you might understand the reasoning behind an easy run.

A friend told me only last week, when we were talking about easy runs. He had been in conversation with a 5X National X country winner, a while back. The jist of it was......

You run easy when you need too. Most newbies wont understand this, so they need to follow a schedule. He claims you should run at a steady pace(faster than easy), for your standard run, and drop down to easy, after a very hard session and only when your legs feel tired. This is a guy that had been running from childhood, and his body was very hardened to running.

His standard run was close to 6min/mile, but he still raced at least a min/mile faster than this. Alot of newbies don't even train a min/mile slower than their 10K race pace, but this guy did, and he still didn't call it an easy run! His easy runs were another 15-20secs/mile slower than this.

Most guys I know consider Easy and Recovery the same thing. Technically it's not. Recovery is a touch slower.

"The truth is, you're not actually running long enough, or frequent enough to need a regular easy run. Try running 50+miles/week, 6 days/week and you might understand the reasoning behind an easy run"

Yes, I agree with this. The main reason being an old ankle injury from football prevents me running too often. So given my predicament I have excluded the so called easy run, although I agree that there is some confusion over the definition of easy and recovery runs. But I was told that I wouldn't get sub 40min 10k on my training regime, well this is discouraging and was not what i wanted to hear. So I tried my best and achieved this, but maybe not using the standard approach. When option are limited we need to try other variations. I don't really think posting my own experiences is bad just because it is different. I know my ultimate mileage will always be limited, I have to work within these boundaries without messing with me health but with results I find satisfying. Now I don't think that what I say above is shite or that of someone with no knowledge as you previously stated, I read this forum to learn many things that I don't find readily in books, but still opinions vary significantly, I try to take this into account. Some times we need to test theories ourselves.

If I do get injured with my current shedule I would post this as a warning to others than maybe my approach has not been a success. But so far so good. I have learnt to listen to my body and rest when I feel tired or the odd niggle.