Page 1 of 1

A good article reinforcing making easy days...easy

Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:42 am
by TexNav
I was searching for something somewhat related, but came across this article and am glad I took the time to read it.

http://camilleherron.com/2012/09/10/slo ... ce-faster/

If 9:00 min/mi pace for easy days is good enough for these 2:37 and faster females, I think it is good enough for me! Especially yesterday after doing some ruck marching. In all seriousness though as I've been building back up my mileage I have just been jogging my easy days, mostly 8:30 min/mi. at the fastest and just enjoying the local river trails and I've actually begun enjoying running more overall. A little niggle that had stayed around for a few weeks, also has slowly disappeared.

Re: A good article reinforcing making easy days...easy

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:39 am
by ap4305
Overall a valuable reminder, even though I question some of her other points ("if your easy days aren’t easy, you didn’t go hard enough on your hard days"..."run with a metronome (~App on iphone) set at 180 (steps a minute).")

Re: A good article reinforcing making easy days...easy

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:29 am
by Jim
I'm trying to find that article on Competitor.com where Matt Firzgerald debunked the 180 steps a minute argument.
This isn't it but it is good nonetheless.
http://running.competitor.com/2013/04/t ... hs-2_68683

Also this: http://running.competitor.com/2012/07/t ... -you_54957

Personally I find it laughable that coaches tell rec runners who move at 9:00min/mile and slower that they have to run 180 steps/minute or more.  That's like telling a weekend hacker to swing his driver at 130mph and he'll hit it as long as Tiger Woods.  The hacker isn't capable of swinging more than 90mph (and even making ball contact) just like the rec runner can't sustain a cadence faster than 180 steps for more than a minute or two.  Has anyone on these boards over 4'6" tall ever tried running 9:00/mile and 180 steps/min?  It's fricking awkward and not efficient.

Re: A good article reinforcing making easy days...easy

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:30 am
by runthe8
ap- How much should cadence slow when running slowly?  Just curious...I actually do run at about 180 steps per minute when I'm running tempo pace or faster, but I'm sure it's less when I'm trotting along.

Re: A good article reinforcing making easy days...easy

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:45 am
by TexNav
Great points above, and I certainly wouldn't begin to try the 180 steps per minute cadence at slow speeds either, I'd probably end up with shin splints for sure. I actually forgot that portion of the article when I posted it, lol! The easy pace portion was definitely what caught my eye. Plus as I've had to do a number of my runs later in the evening recently, aside from Tuesday workouts, and I've found keeping the pace truly easy has helped my ability to fall asleep. Otherwise, late workouts really have a tendency to keep me awake late. And the summer heat is climbing and that is another stress!

Re: A good article reinforcing making easy days...easy

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:40 am
by ap4305
[quote="runthe8"]
ap- How much should cadence slow when running slowly?  Just curious...I actually do run at about 180 steps per minute when I'm running tempo pace or faster, but I'm sure it's less when I'm trotting along.
[/quote]

We really don't know for sure, but we do know the evidence behind 180 as the "magic number" across all speeds is little more than conjecture, especially when allowing for individual physical differences (as Jim astutely points out).  Watch elites warming up/cooling down and its clear they aren't at 180 all the time even though their race cadences tend to cluster around 180.   

Re: A good article reinforcing making easy days...easy

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:44 pm
by Tinman
Speed of travel is one factor that influences the ideal stride-rate, so 180 is not necessarily ideal nor magical.

Re: A good article reinforcing making easy days...easy

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:16 pm
by ap4305
[quote="Jim"]
I'm trying to find that article on Competitor.com where Matt Firzgerald debunked the 180 steps a minute argument.
[/quote]

The guys at Sweat Science have also tried to bring sanity to the 180spm dogma.

http://sweatscience.com/the-problem-wit ... onal-data/
http://sweatscience.com/cadence-in-elit ... ccelerate/
http://sweatscience.com/how-limb-length ... g-cadence/