12

5K training program (Read 187 times)

J-L-C


    I wasn't really going to comment at all at this thread but then I saw this.  This is one of the most "thinking" comments I've seen for a while.  Good on you, JLC. 

     

    Thanks a lot, Nobby!

    J-L-C


      I am a big believer in benefits of a "long run" even for 5K racing. Remember, 90% + of your aerobic fitness determines you 5K fitness. I would not take out this run which contributes more to aerobic improvements and capillary development than any other type of work out.  I think it will not be wise to take that out of the schedule. 9 miles gives you benefits that two 4-5 milers won't. I say run 9 miles and an easy 2-3 the next day.

       

      I agree with you to an extent. A long run has great benefits but in my opinion is something you add on a bit later when you've got everything else sorted out, especially for events that don't demand longer workouts.  I don't think the OP is at that point, yet.

       

      I find frequency to be far more beneficial than overextending any individual long run. Not only can you train more often, but you can usually train more overall and still recover better. Look at 99% of really good runners and they're running more than 7-8 times a week. There's a very, very good reason for that and I posit that those reasons are the same for the 30 min 5k runner as they are for the 13 min 5k runner.  But instead from the get-go so many call for the ubiquitous "long run" and it's just not necessary. And sometimes it's detrimental to the overall plan itself.

       

      So with that said, I don't think it's more beneficial to do 9 miles one day and then take off the next day, which is what the OP was planning. In that instance I strongly feel that it is far better to just run the same both days rather than taking a 48-72 hour window "off".

       

      I think your suggestion of doing the longer run and then an easy 2-3 the next day would probably be the best bet of all, though, but I don't think 9 miles is necessary. Maybe just 6-7 since he's running so little and would probably benefit from simply running more often, anyway.

      J-L-C


        I am a big believer in benefits of a "long run" even for 5K racing. Remember, 90% + of your aerobic fitness determines you 5K fitness. I would not take out this run which contributes more to aerobic improvements and capillary development than any other type of work out.  I think it will not be wise to take that out of the schedule. [b]9 miles gives you benefits that two 4-5 milers won't.[/b] I say run 9 miles and an easy 2-3 the next day.

         

        Are you sure? For a 5k? I don't think there's a definitive answer but thousands of anecdotal testimonies would suggest that it's not.

         

        http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/10/is-9mi-once-better-than-45mi-twice.html

         

        To be sure, there are times when a long run can be a big boost to any training, and a long run is certainly necessary to maximize performances in longer events (you're probably not going to run your best marathon if you've never ran longer than 15 miles at a time), but is the long run really this end-all, be-all aerobic improvement machine?

         

        I think the statement that a long run contributes more to aerobic improvements is misleading at best and downright erroneous at worst. If it were so vital to conditioning and it improved aerobic performance to such a greater degree than "any other type of work out", then we'd likely eschew all forms of other training to focus solely on long runs. We'd probably do 20 milers every other day and fill in the gaps with some very slow 3-4 milers or something. And obviously we don't.

         

        As I said before, no single run or workout is going to get you where you want to go. Rather, it's the culmination and variety of a number of runs and workouts and paces over a long period of time. If you're doing a run or workout that requires you to take unnecessary time off from training in order to recover, then it's quite possible that said run isn't ideal for your program.

         

        And that ties back in to a long run being a good thing to add on to a schedule that is already almost complete. At that point you're capable of handling a harder training load because you've built up to it. A long run in turn becomes nothing more than an extended easy run that you will bounce back from the next day and continue on with your training.

        Gustav1


        Fear is a Liar

          Thanks again for all the input! I looked at the Higdon plans - I think I will try something like the 5k intermediate plan. What I want to do is keep Monday as a rest day, speedwork on Wednesday, run 4-5 miles on Tue, Thur, Fri, Sat, and go 5-6 on Sunday. I will also do a run the day before race day.

           

          Also, does running a certain amount of time help different parts of traing? I can't remember where I read this but I thought it said run at least 40 minutes for one type of benefit, 60 minutes for something else, and 90 - 120 for the long run. Is there a " minimum" amount of time to run to receive  training benefits? Should I shoot for 60 minutes a day?

           

          I started to read about the Arthur Lydiard plan and would like to research it some more. It sounds like something I would like to try.

           

          Thanks!

          I'm so vegetarian I don't even eat animal crackers!

            Are you sure? For a 5k? I don't think there's a definitive answer but thousands of anecdotal testimonies would suggest that it's not.

             

            http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/10/is-9mi-once-better-than-45mi-twice.html

             

            To be sure, there are times when a long run can be a big boost to any training, and a long run is certainly necessary to maximize performances in longer events (you're probably not going to run your best marathon if you've never ran longer than 15 miles at a time), but is the long run really this end-all, be-all aerobic improvement machine?

             

            I think the statement that a long run contributes more to aerobic improvements is misleading at best and downright erroneous at worst. If it were so vital to conditioning and it improved aerobic performance to such a greater degree than "any other type of work out", then we'd likely eschew all forms of other training to focus solely on long runs. We'd probably do 20 milers every other day and fill in the gaps with some very slow 3-4 milers or something. And obviously we don't.

             

            As I said before, no single run or workout is going to get you where you want to go. Rather, it's the culmination and variety of a number of runs and workouts and paces over a long period of time. If you're doing a run or workout that requires you to take unnecessary time off from training in order to recover, then it's quite possible that said run isn't ideal for your program.

             

            And that ties back in to a long run being a good thing to add on to a schedule that is already almost complete. At that point you're capable of handling a harder training load because you've built up to it. A long run in turn becomes nothing more than an extended easy run that you will bounce back from the next day and continue on with your training.

            Oooooo...  So close!  I think, first of all, to look for a "physiological reason" to do something or not is the wrong starting point.  There are still lots of things that science hadn't quite figured out.  When you say "aerobic development", what do you exactly mean that?  I think there are easily a half a dozen benefits you'll get from "long run", mental benefit included; some of which may be considered this "aerobic development", others may not.  What science did in the past couple of decades "wrongly" is to single out any ONE development--of course, that's the only way they can do their research--and measured that one element.  Take VO2Max, for example; I'm not sure what that exactly mean in the context of "improve performance" but we sort of know that it's linked to "aerobic capacity".  But the problem is; when people don't quite understand, they simply get this as: VO2Max = aerobic development = endurance performance.  This is where this stupid idea of "Tabata sprints improved VO2Max better than 1-hour continuous run; THEREFORE, Tabata sprints is a better workout for endurance sport..."  I'd say any idiot can figure out this is stupid. But some people actually believe this and lost their sleep over whether or not switching their beloved long run training to sprint-training.  Of course, if, how you said it?, VO2Max was "end-all, be-all" factor to improving performance, yes, it may be so.  But it ain't.  It's ALWAYS a mixture of various factors.  When Arthur Lydiard said "interval training is not speed training," many eyebrows were raised.  But the truth is, it isn't and he used it differently.  BUT it also improves speed.  It also improves VO2Max too.  It probably improves a handful of other stuff too.  But the MAIN purpose of training, at least the way Lydiard used it, is to develop runners' anaerobic development.  Dick Brown used this concept successfully with Mary Decker before she won 2 gold medals in 1983 World Championships in Helsinki.  She did "intervals" in the pool--she wasn't doing ANYTHING for her speed doing it that way.  But it did the job.

             

            Now, many like to think Peter Snell was an exception and he would have become as great of a runner under anybody with any type of training method.  You can ask him directly and he would disagree with that without any hesitation (mind you, he does know a thing or two about human physiology too).  And, as you may know, he did fair amount of 22-mile runs to prepare for his 800m races.  And he would also tell you the importance of those 22-mile runs to his preparation to running twice around the track.

             

            Rod Dixon won 1983 New York City Marathon and many remember him as a marathon runner but he also was a bronze-medal winning track runner in 1972 Olympics in 1500m.  He had great range of speed and I believe he ran something like sub-1:50 for 800m as well.  He made a very smooth transition from 800/1500 to 5000, finishing agonizing 4th in 5 in Montreal and I believe he could won another medal in 10 if he chose to run that, what did he call a marathon, strange bloody damn...something, in 1984.  Of course he would attribute his great range of distances to all the long runs he did; but this is something I didn't even know until recently (4 or 5 years ago) that, at the age of 21, when he was competing as a 1500m runner, he would go and do 3-hour long runs.  Did he benefit from those?  Or did it "slow him down"?  In fact, he said he ran sub-4 mile a few months before he won NYC.

             

            Of course, if someone says something like this, many would jump and make this "end-all, be-all" sanctuary and only focus on that--thinking "this is the magic pill".  This must be the reason for all this long-run craze for people preparing for a marathon.  You've GOT TO do so many 20-milers...and they plod along 4, 5, 6 hours on weekends.  Of course, if long runs are so good, and those elite benefited from 2-3 hour runs, 4 should be better and 5 should be better still, right?  Of course, that ain't happening.  To me, from my observation, those who plod along 4, 5, 6 hours on weekend seem to stay plodding along; they had never become Olympic champions for some reason...

             

            Long runs are absolutely important for those who are training for 5k IF they want to actually do well in that 5k, not just merely "survive" the 5k.  It's funny people always talk about "waste" and they think, to prepare for a 3-mile run, to run 12 or 15 or 20-mile is a waste of time.  Yet, they thrash themselves through rounds and rounds of intervals at 6:45 pace when their race pace is somewhere around 8...  Seems to me, THAT's the waste of speed...  There are two different types of training approach; the one that actually PREPARES YOU TO RUN WELL and the one that will get you to the finish line (a survival run).  For the latter, you probably don't need a long run for a 5k.  With the same reason, you may want to consider doing a bit of a long run (>12 miles) for a marathon.  The former is different--it's more BALANCED and do EVERYTHING to prepare you to become an over-all RUNNER.

              Thanks again for all the input! I looked at the Higdon plans - I think I will try something like the 5k intermediate plan. What I want to do is keep Monday as a rest day, speedwork on Wednesday, run 4-5 miles on Tue, Thur, Fri, Sat, and go 5-6 on Sunday. I will also do a run the day before race day.

               

              Also, does running a certain amount of time help different parts of traing? I can't remember where I read this but I thought it said run at least 40 minutes for one type of benefit, 60 minutes for something else, and 90 - 120 for the long run. Is there a " minimum" amount of time to run to receive  training benefits? Should I shoot for 60 minutes a day?

               

              I started to read about the Arthur Lydiard plan and would like to research it some more. It sounds like something I would like to try.

               

              Thanks!

              What do you mean by "training benefits"?  Maintenance?  It's pretty well-known that you need 15-20 minutes 3 times a week to "maintain" your current fitness level.  So that's a training benefit.  Do you actually want to do decent and, say, do you want to get things like capillary development or increase the number and size of mitochondria, etc.?  Then you'll need the runs of 90-120 minutes.  As far as I'm concerned, "minimum" training benefits means "you do better next week than this week".  For that, you'll need to "do better this week than last week."  Better does not necessarily mean longer or faster; but BETTER.  If you can't do better, it's either you're doing too little OR too much.


              Mmmmm...beer

                I might just be a freak, but I've had huge gains in speed with nothing but easy base building.  I think there's a lot to be said for building your endurance, and I think my frequency and mileage has helped with that.  I'm not discounting speed work, but I think a lot of beginners (like me) can benefit from building a really strong base, regardless of the distance you're training for.

                -Dave

                 

                2014 Goals | sub-19 5k done! | sub-40 10k | sub-1:25 HM | BQ done! | sub-3 M

                  I might just be a freak, but I've had huge gains in speed with nothing but easy base building.  I think there's a lot to be said for building your endurance, and I think my frequency and mileage has helped with that.  I'm not discounting speed work, but I think a lot of beginners (like me) can benefit from building a really strong base, regardless of the distance you're training for.

                   

                  That's not unusual for a runner starting from scratch. Base building should always be a prerequisite for any race-specific training.

                   

                  And I'm a fan of the long run in 5k training. The long run is one of several types of "quality" runs that, imo, should be part of any runner's normal program. If a 90-minute long run is detrimental to an overall training plan, then I would argue that plan is seriously flawed.

                  Runners run.

                     

                    That's not unusual for a runner starting from scratch. Base building should always be a prerequisite for any race-specific training.

                     

                    And I'm a fan of the long run in 5k training. The long run is one of several types of "quality" runs that, imo, should be part of any runner's normal program. If a 90-minute long run is detrimental to an overall training plan, then I would argue that plan is seriously flawed.

                     

                     

                    ++ 1

                    Those who try, fail! Those who do what it takes to succeed, succeed!!

                    Gustav1


                    Fear is a Liar

                      So I have to admit to doing my training wrong as far as speed work - doing too much, too fast, and unsupported with weekly mileage. I guess that really holds back my potential. I have learned a lot from these posts.

                       

                      As far as long term goals, out of a 6 day running schedule how many runs should be 90 minutes or more to get things like capillary development or increase the number and size of mitochondria?

                      I'm so vegetarian I don't even eat animal crackers!

                        So I have to admit to doing my training wrong as far as speed work - doing too much, too fast, and unsupported with weekly mileage. I guess that really holds back my potential. I have learned a lot from these posts.

                         

                        As far as long term goals, out of a 6 day running schedule how many runs should be 90 minutes or more to get things like capillary development or increase the number and size of mitochondria?

                         

                        Ideally, it would be nice to do 2 of these bigger work outs a week. If you want more bang for your buck, my recommendation is to  focus on 2 "quality days" per week. Work up to 90 minutes mid week including quality work like tempo miles, 10K effort intervals, Fartleks or whatever you want followed by a small dose short/fast striders or 200s etc with warm up and cool down miles around this. This multi-paced work out within a run has tremendous conditioning benefits.  You get time on your feet, quality and a touch of speed.

                         

                        On weekend, you can do the long run of 90-120 minutes - slower or with quality. When I am healthier, I include quality in this work out also such as marathon paced miles or the last 20-30% of run finished stronger. Again, this adds more bang to your buck. This would give you 2 work outs a week. If your miles are higher, you can take the quality out of the long run and do a another separate quality day mid week.

                         

                        NOTE:  You need to be doing some decent miles the other days to support two 90 minute runs a week and only high miles if doing 3 quality work outs per week. You don't have much in your log so I am thinking you probably should focus on building miles before adding a lot quality to any of your runs. The above gives you a goal to shoot for over time but give yourself the time needed to gradually build this up.

                        Those who try, fail! Those who do what it takes to succeed, succeed!!

                        12