Easy Running and bio-mechanics

Clearlier

Something to think about...

Easy runs easy, hard runs hard. It's a simple mantra but what does it mean in particular what does it mean for easy running?

Should you keep within a certain range? I've read Salazar saying something along the lines of 'there's no point in Mo doing a 7minute mile - it's just too slow and doesn't help'. Of course Salazar has the luxury of being able to prescribe the Alter-G for some recovery running.

What about those bio-mechanics? How do you maintain good form when you're running 90 seconds a mile slower than your marathon pace? Should your running form be the same no matter what pace you're running at?

Letyourselfgo

Clearlier wrote: »

Something to think about...

Easy runs easy, hard runs hard. It's a simple mantra but what does it mean in particular what does it mean for easy running?

Should you keep within a certain range? I've read Salazar saying something along the lines of 'there's no point in Mo doing a 7minute mile - it's just too slow and doesn't help'. Of course Salazar has the luxury of being able to prescribe the Alter-G for some recovery running.

What about those bio-mechanics? How do you maintain good form when you're running 90 seconds a mile slower than your marathon pace? Should your running form be the same no matter what pace you're running at?

I've replaced my easy runs with a cadence run. Treadmill set to 10 minute miles but my cadence is quick 180+ which I think/feel equates the run to 8mm
My heart rate has come down on these runs from 82% to 78 so getting closer to the less than 75%
I actually feel great after these runs which I guess is the objective on easy days?

Can't quote but below is from an article in the running times


Some physiologists agree with the faster approach. One of those is Bob Otto, director of the Human Performance Lab at Adelphi University. The real question, he asks, is what does a slow run accomplish? In an email to Running Times, he details the downsides of going slow: It provides orthopedic trauma, allows athletes to practice something they would never use in a race and provides insufficient cardiovascular or metabolic stimulus to accrue improvement.

"Conversely, the faster-paced run may provide some cardiovascular stimulus, may enhance metabolic function, mimics the biomechanics of race pace and hopefully provides less orthopedic trauma than the slow run," he writes. "Although the ideal scenario is to decrease one's stride frequency to run slower and maintain a similar biomechanical foot strike, we know that most people change their mechanics significantly and their stride frequency moderately. I am an advocate of practicing like you want to perform and find little value in a 'slow run.'"


http://m.runnersworld.com/race-training/the-easy-day-pace

sconhome

Clearlier wrote: »

What about those bio-mechanics? How do you maintain good form when you're running 90 seconds a mile slower than your marathon pace? Should your running form be the same no matter what pace you're running at?

Keep your form constant.

Posture should be the same. Cadence should be similar, adjust your stride length.

Be aware that at different speeds various cadence will feel more natural. Slower speeds naturally tend towards slower cadence but this greatly increases ground contact time. Not so bad if you run on your entire foot (greater distribution of forces over the area) but if you are a forefoot runner you are increasing load (on same area) by running slower.

Clearlier

AKW wrote: »

Keep your form constant.

Posture should be the same. Cadence should be similar, adjust your stride length.

Be aware that at different speeds various cadence will feel more natural. Slower speeds naturally tend towards slower cadence but this greatly increases ground contact time. Not so bad if you run on your entire foot (greater distribution of forces over the area) but if you are a forefoot runner you are increasing load (on same area) by running slower.

Should you adjust where your foot strikes the ground depending on speed? I know that I'm naturally much more on my toes when sprinting than when I'm running easy.

sconhome

Clearlier wrote: »

Should you adjust where your foot strikes the ground depending on speed? I know that I'm naturally much more on my toes when sprinting than when I'm running easy.

Perfectly natural response.

I believe at slower speeds more of the foot should be engaged in the landing process to dissipate force. This is why I work with a more cushioned and structured shoe for slow, steady stuff and lighter more responsive shoes for faster work off the toes.

demfad

Clearlier wrote: »

Something to think about...

Easy runs easy, hard runs hard. It's a simple mantra but what does it mean in particular what does it mean for easy running?

Should you keep within a certain range? I've read Salazar saying something along the lines of 'there's no point in Mo doing a 7minute mile - it's just too slow and doesn't help'. Of course Salazar has the luxury of being able to prescribe the Alter-G for some recovery running.

What about those bio-mechanics? How do you maintain good form when you're running 90 seconds a mile slower than your marathon pace? Should your running form be the same no matter what pace you're running at?

The biggest mistake among non-elites is to run the easy runs too hard.

(Too hard is not always the same as too fast.)

If youre not a sub 2:30 marathoner and your "easy" runs are 7 minute miles or faster then quite simply you are either running them too hard or you are not running enough mileage.
Push youre mileage up a chunk (over time) your "easy" will be closer to 8 minute miles as anything faster is not sustainable. Over time this will ease down a lot at the lower intensity.

When this happens your general endurance has improved and the easy paces McMillan dictates will be a little more relevant, just a little.

Low and behold you are now running easier easy miles at a lower intensity using less muscle and running more of them. Therefore your body has a greater capacity to exercise: more miles in a given time period, youll be more rested for your sessions and stronger in them.

For form the easy running should be fast light strides.

If youre on high mileage particularly base building you must do loads of strides to keep the form good for the easy runs.

Krusty_Clown

demfad wrote: »

The biggest mistake among non-elites is to run the easy runs too hard.

(Too hard is not always the same as too fast.)

If youre not a sub 2:30 marathoner and your "easy" runs are 7 minute miles or faster then quite simply you are either running them too hard or you are not running enough mileage.
Push youre mileage up a chunk (over time) your "easy" will be closer to 8 minute miles as anything faster is not sustainable. Over time this will ease down a lot at the lower intensity.

When this happens your general endurance has improved and the easy paces McMillan dictates will be a little more relevant, just a little.

Low and behold you are now running easier easy miles at a lower intensity using less muscle and running more of them. Therefore your body has a greater capacity to exercise: more miles in a given time period, youll be more rested for your sessions and stronger in them.

For form the easy running should be fast light strides.

If youre on high mileage particularly base building you must do loads of strides to keep the form good for the easy runs.

That's exactly what I was going to post. Mo is not going to get significant efficiency gains from running easy paced miles but for the rest of us (who don't have fully developed cardio and running muscular systems) easy miles equate to progress (alongside suitable stimulus (workouts)). As pointed out, we also don't have the same recovery facilities (daily physio, under-water treadmills, Nike nutrition programs) so recovery can be assisted by slower miles. Will there be a coat, in terms of running form? Perhaps, but I'd imagine it's largely offset by the efficiency gains.

average_runner

I read alot of books on running over the last few years. While Alberto is about pushing and pushing, alot of the others recommend you go 2 mins slower than your race pace or even slower.

demfad

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

That's exactly what I was going to post. Mo is not going to get significant efficiency gains from running easy paced miles but for the rest of us (who don't have fully developed cardio and running muscular systems) easy miles equate to progress (alongside suitable stimulus (workouts)). As pointed out, we also don't have the same recovery facilities (daily physio, under-water treadmills, Nike nutrition programs) so recovery can be assisted by slower miles. Will there be a coat, in terms of running form? Perhaps, but I'd imagine it's largely offset by the efficiency gains.

I agree. Joe Vigil (Deena Kastors coach for her olympic marathon bronze advocates the below ranges)

Percents relative to Velocity at VO2 max

 Aerobic Threshold Development: 65%-75%
 Marathon Pace Development: 70%-84%
 Lactate Threshold Development: 84%-88%
 VO2MAX Development 90%-95%
 Supramax Development: 100%-120%

For yourself at the moment, the aerobic threshold development might take place between roughly 6:30-7:30. Even though you're on high mileage you've still probably got more gains potentially from general endurance. I think in some or most of your easy runs youre developing your AT.

As you keep developing the pace of these easy runs at the same effort should keep coming down etc. The question is (and only you will know the answer) if you were to slow down your easy miles further would your current speed sessions/races improve? They may not, your easy pace may be truly easy for you. But if slowing the pace allowed you to recover more and you could run your session faster, that might be significant for you. That being the case, youd have to concentrate and be diligent with form and not skimping on a few relaxed strides whenever youre feeling the aches/stiffness or to pre-empt the aches stiffness. e.g a few at the end of a long run/after a particularly stiff or shuffly run etc.

EDit: Another way to work out if your easy runs are easy or not is this: if you were to slow the runs a notch would you imagine the pace in time coming back up at the easier effort? If so you still have general endurance gains at the lower intensity to make and slowing the intesnsity will benefit you. (If its working dont fix it ofcourse. From youre loog it looks like you run by feel on these runs)

Anyway im a great man for giving advice but not following it but it may be relevant. I have a feeling youre easy runs are quite easy though.

Back to MO etc. Another thing to consider is the high vs low mileage elite runners particularly females. The low mileage variety did loads of the AT paced easy runs.

I think Grete Waitz ran doubles every day @ 5:50 pace. The other type is the bigger mileage ran with easier runs between. I Think Ingrid Kristiansen was an example. More pronounced sessions.

I think Radcliffe was unique in that she was on the big mileage and ran a lot of her normal runs in that zone to push up her AT.

walshb

Clearlier wrote: »

Something to think about...

Easy runs easy, hard runs hard. It's a simple mantra but what does it mean in particular what does it mean for easy running?

Should you keep within a certain range? I've read Salazar saying something along the lines of 'there's no point in Mo doing a 7minute mile - it's just too slow and doesn't help'. Of course Salazar has the luxury of being able to prescribe the Alter-G for some recovery running.

What about those bio-mechanics? How do you maintain good form when you're running 90 seconds a mile slower than your marathon pace? Should your running form be the same no matter what pace you're running at?

Salazar is spot on. It's all up the individual. He/she feels the run and feels the effects. Mo running at 7 mins pace is probably of no benefit to him. The dude is an elite great. Mo's 7 minute pace would be like me (and some other joe soaps) at 9 mins 30 or 10 mins. Waste of time and energy.

Gleedog

Really interesting thread. But heck stuff like this confuses the hell out of me. Good arguements for both sides, but I guess its up to what works for you.
From experience, running hard the whole time will lead to an injury, so easy days easy and hard days hard is what I'll stick to for now