Forums >General Running>Lets be realistic
Feeling the growl again
I keep reminding myself of this. Is it also true that people think speed training is what you need for a 5K, when it's really still more endurance training?. That's on the basis that a 5K is actually a long race in racing terms vs. someone who was training for 800 meters or 1 mile or something.
I'm with Jeff 100% on this one. People over-index on the speed aspect and forget that even in events as short at 5K true "speed" is meaningless. Few runners have problems running fast, they have problems running fast for 5000 meters. That's endurance and strength.
I hammered away at my 15:37 5K PR for several years during marathon off seasons, doing extra intervals etc and ran a frustrating volume of races in the 15:37-15:40 range. It was during hard marathon training (100-120 mpw) off a 3-day taper that I finally split 15:39-15:18 for 10K.
Yes, I was still doing "speed training" but as geared for the marathon. What I learned was that optimization of your aerobic potential through "marathon" training drawfs what "5K training" adds by gaining you a few seconds on your kick.
I won't speak for elites, but for most of us the only real differences we need to make to turn our marathon training into 5K PRs is:
-Shorten long runs to 16 miles or so and add some quality. Save the gas you'd spend on longer runs for other workouts.
-Add some intervals with longer recovery closer to 3000m pace
-Short, fast hills for power
-Fartleks or intervals at least at 5K pace if you don't do them for marathons (I always did).
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
I've got a fever...
3 per sec = 180
3 parsec = 9.78 light years
On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office. But you will wish that you'd spent more time running. Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.
"If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus
Self anointed title
1 - Running with correct technique (even in prepared bare feet), on any surface, is injury free. 2 - Running equals springing through the air, landing elastically on the forefoot with a flexed knee (thus producing quiet feet). On landing, the foot should be directly below the body. (Walking is landing on the heels with a straight leg). 3 - Any and all additions to the body damage running skill. 4 - Quality beats quantity; the speed at which you practice the most will be your best speed. 5 - Walking damages running. 6 - The correct running tempo for human beings is between three and five steps per second. 7 - Arm power is directly proportional to leg power. 8 - Good posture is critical to running. (Don't lean forwards!). 9 - Speed kills endurance; endurance kills speed. 10 - Each individual can only execute one "Program" at any one time; an individual can be identified by his or her idiosyncrasies (i.e. "Program"). An individual can change his or her "Program" only by a determined, educational effort; each individual's "Program" degenerates unless it is controlled constantly. 11 - Static stretching exercises cause injuries! 12 - Running equals being out of breath, so breathing through the mouth is obligatory (hence the nickname "Puff Puff Pirie").
1 - Running with correct technique (even in prepared bare feet), on any surface, is injury free.
2 - Running equals springing through the air, landing elastically on the forefoot with a flexed knee (thus producing quiet feet). On landing, the foot should be directly below the body. (Walking is landing on the heels with a straight leg).
3 - Any and all additions to the body damage running skill.
4 - Quality beats quantity; the speed at which you practice the most will be your best speed.
5 - Walking damages running.
6 - The correct running tempo for human beings is between three and five steps per second.
7 - Arm power is directly proportional to leg power.
8 - Good posture is critical to running. (Don't lean forwards!).
9 - Speed kills endurance; endurance kills speed.
10 - Each individual can only execute one "Program" at any one time; an individual can be identified by his or her idiosyncrasies (i.e. "Program"). An individual can change his or her "Program" only by a determined, educational effort; each individual's "Program" degenerates unless it is controlled constantly.
11 - Static stretching exercises cause injuries!
12 - Running equals being out of breath, so breathing through the mouth is obligatory (hence the nickname "Puff Puff Pirie").
You know, a lot of this was way ahead of it's time.
5 per sec = 300
What do you think he meant, in number 4, by "practice" and "best?"
Could be for sprinting
For real?
He mean't that if you want to run a 5k at 65 seconds per lap, then most of your repetitions should be at this speed.
(Remember - he was talking about 5 / 10k here - it doesn't necessarily hold true for the marathon)
I'm with Jeff 100% on this one. People over-index on the speed aspect and forget that even in events as short at 5K true "speed" is meaningless. Few runners have problems running fast, they have problems running fast for 5000 meters. That's endurance and strength. I hammered away at my 15:37 5K PR for several years during marathon off seasons, doing extra intervals etc and ran a frustrating volume of races in the 15:37-15:40 range. It was during hard marathon training (100-120 mpw) off a 3-day taper that I finally split 15:39-15:18 for 10K. Yes, I was still doing "speed training" but as geared for the marathon. What I learned was that optimization of your aerobic potential through "marathon" training drawfs what "5K training" adds by gaining you a few seconds on your kick. I won't speak for elites, but for most of us the only real differences we need to make to turn our marathon training into 5K PRs is: -Shorten long runs to 16 miles or so and add some quality. Save the gas you'd spend on longer runs for other workouts. -Add some intervals with longer recovery closer to 3000m pace -Short, fast hills for power -Fartleks or intervals at least at 5K pace if you don't do them for marathons (I always did).
Thank you, Spaniel, you just described Lydiard training for me! ;o)
Okay, so I'm biased. But I believe Lydiard training principles cover everything. It's been proven, it's still being proven effective (Japanese runners, McMillan's group, etc.) and it really takes a guess work out of your training. Yet most people still come back with very fundamental questions... What's up with that? Seriously, people make fun of my writing so damn long--I can just write one sentence; "Go back to Lydiard" and call it a day.
I love Gordon Pririe for his character. But you still have to remember; he was from the "interval" era, coached by none other than Gerschler and Reindell, in fact, I think he was more or less one of the guineapigs! He did well--setting some world records and all--but, to Lydiard's criticism, he never won the championship title, including, if I remember it correctly, European champs, let alone Empire Games and Olympics! Granted, he won the silver behind Kuts--and hie battle with Kuts in the 10 is absolutely epic--but he still came short. And that shows, according to Lydiard, the disadvantage of interval-trained athletes--they never know when they'll peak. In other words, as I would say, crap-shooting. You can train hard and never reach your potential if you don't do it intelligently. I cut 2-minutes off my 5k time in 3 weeks just by balancing my training! Pirie, in the end, never beat "Arthur's Boys" in the end because, as a great runner as he was, he just didn't balance his training correctly. He did, however, coach some really good runners including a gal by the name of Anne Audain. But if you go back to HER biography, she'll tell you she was always injured when Pirie was coaching her and, it wasn't until she switched to John Davies that she really blossomed. Once again, I'm sure Pirie's training prepared her to some extent. But unless you balance your training correctly, yuo may never run near your potential. It was seen in recent years with Ritzenhein--I have no doubt whatever he did with Brad Hudson made him as strong as he is. But it wasn't until Salazar tweeked his training, whatever he did, that he all of a sudden posted some very good times. It wasn't like Salazar all of a sudden swang a magic wond and he started running well in a matter of few months.
And in regards to endless "speed" training, I just recently received an e-mail from this college coach in Japan. His team finished something like 10th in the prestigeous Hakone Ekiden last winter (it's a 2-day event where 10 runners compete over 200km distance). He brought the entire team to this Lydiard clinic I had with Peter Snell a few years back in Japan. He told me that, one of his runners, an 800m runner, did lots of distance work during the winter but had some leg problem and couldn't do much speed training at all. He mainly jogged with only a half a dozen track training. He went on to the regional championships, not expecting much with this runner. It turned out he finished second and set a PR. In fact, he kept getting faster and faster through the prelims. "It was like exactly what Lydiard said in his book," he said. Remember, Peter Snell did "only" 9 speed training sessions in 10 weeks in his preparation to Tokyo Olympic Games where he won 2 gold medals.
Just recently (a few weeks ago), this young lady I'm coaching PRed in her half marathon by 6 minutes. Frankly, I didn't really do much with her during the winter and I only tweeked her training in the last 2 weeks. She was skeptical going into that race but when she PRed by so much, I jokingly asked her whether I could still take credit for her PR! I know how to tweek the final stage of training to get the best out of the runner. But I can't take credit for how strong she is--that's what SHE did herself.
Going back to this genetic thing... Holly S, I promised wannaberunner that I'd be nice to you (;o)); I peeked your training log and it showed that you recently did 12X400 within a 10-mile workout. They were run somewhere around 2:00, the second half of the set all under 2-minutes... If I remember it correctly, they were done with 1-minuet recovery. Take this workout, for example; what is the purpose of this workout and what were you expecting to achieve from this workout? Endurance? Speed? Tempo? You run 5k at about 7:30 pace already, which is not shabby at all. So I don't see much point of doing intervals at 8:00 pace... By taking "only" 1-minute recovery, you are most likely not fully recovered by the time you do the next run so you cannot expect to run fast. But if you expected to get some tempo effect, wouldn't that be better off if you just simply did 4-miles at 8:20 pace for example? If you expect to work on speed, wouldn't that be better if you did, say, 6 X 400 at 1:45 pace? Or, if that pace is a bit too much to hold, how about 8 X 200 in 52 seconds? Wouldn't a workout like that contribute more for your "speed" than 12X400? And isn't it a little too premature to say that you don't have "talent" to run fast unless you first train to be fast?
I've been teaching this "Beginning Women's Running Class" for MDRA in the past 6 years. We kept the track record of 100% of those who complete the class had improved their one mile timed run. It's an 8-week course and we do the timed mile run in the first week and then the last week. Every single one of them had improved. This year, the fastest gal in the first week was 9:30. In 8 weeks, we had 3 of them ran sub-9 (the fastest 8:15) and the slowest of the last run wuold have placed 12th in the first timed mile run (out of 30 "students"). I always tell them in the first class of this track record and always add that it's got NOTHING to do with coaching per ce! They took that first step; they made a committment to run and they kept at it for 8 weeks. We do drills, intervals, fartlek... They ALL improve. So out of the first run where some people might run ONE mile in 18-minutes... How would YOU determine what kind of "genetic talent" they have? Absolutely sucks and there's no hope for them? I don't believe that. EVERYBODY has hopes and potential that they never knew. The only way you'll know your own genetic talent is by finding out--not by predetermining it before you try--and honestly to say that you've tried everything you can possibly think of.
The biggest thing most people get wrong is thinking there is a huge difference between marathon and 5k training. It's a few subtle changes of emphasis, mostly having to do with the workouts. The 5k is a long distance race.
When most people follow 18 week marathon training programs they are really doing something closer to ideal 5k training than ideal marathon training. And then when they're done and they're in between training plans and they drop weekly mileage from 60 to 40 and try to start hammering 800s every week under the guise of "focusing on the 5k for a while" they're dong the exact worst thing, even though conventional wisdom (and possibly even short-term results due to the taper effect) say otherwise.
Runners run
For real? He mean't that if you want to run a 5k at 65 seconds per lap, then most of your repetitions should be at this speed. (Remember - he was talking about 5 / 10k here - it doesn't necessarily hold true for the marathon)
It could also be read "the best speed for you is the speed at which you run most of your kilometers."
But, I can see "practice the most" as meaning the pace at which you run most of your repetitions, especially if he was referring to 5/10k.
I run most of my miles at about 8:00 pace - is that my best 5k pace?
+1 to spaniel and Jeff. The biggest thing most people get wrong is thinking there is a huge difference between marathon and 5k training. It's a few subtle changes of emphasis, mostly having to do with the workouts. The 5k is a long distance race. When most people follow 18 week marathon training programs they are really doing something closer to ideal 5k training than ideal marathon training. And then when they're done and they're in between training plans and they drop weekly mileage from 60 to 40 and try to start hammering 800s every week under the guise of "focusing on the 5k for a while" they're dong the exact worst thing, even though conventional wisdom (and possibly even short-term results due to the taper effect) say otherwise.
When I trained for the marathon on 50-60 miles a week, I shocked myself at how bad I performed.
When, a month after the race, I ran 5k, 10k, and 5-mile races, I surprised myself at how well I did.
And, yet, here I am, on only about 1 1/2 months of base, trying to bust the 5k of my dreams.
No, man. That' s why I found that maxim confusing.
mta: It's a language thing. I wasn't getting his meaning of "practice." I get it now. If I say, "I'm off to practice," I mean that I'm going to a 2-hour session of a bunch of different things (running, hitting, pitching, sitting).
Why is it sideways?
I think the idea is a simple and important one. Running is a skill, and running a particular pace in a relaxed way takes practice. The way to get most practice running 5k pace is to run a whole bunch of miles slower than that so that you can become an aerobic beast and then you'll be able to practice 5k pace well in your workouts.
Note: running a lot at a quality pace does not mean running everything at a quality pace.