12345

How much is enought for sub 18:30? (Read 2513 times)


Feeling the growl again

      But if you slow down you get 460 ATP per fat molecule. If you train your body to utilize more fat and less glucose, your potential is MUCH greater.  In fact for 5k, there should be little if any anaerobic training.  But if you don't want to spend the whole summer going slow and base building, I would still stick to stuff that is not anaerobic as you don't want chemicals and hormones such as cortisol tearing down your cells and destroying your aerobic system.

     

    Sorry, but this is not true.  Sure fat is very calorie-dense but it is also slow to mobilize from stores and metabolize.  The only way you are getting any significant energy during a 5K from fat is if you are running very, very slowly.  The 5K is driven primarily through glycogen, blood sugar to a lesser extent.

     

    I'm not sure what "chemicals" from anaerobic training are tearing down your cells...I don't think there is any science behind this statement.  For that matter aerobic metabolism produces superoxide and free radicals which are toxic to cells...but our cells are adept at handling these poisons.

     

    However you are right, you need relatively little anaerobic ability for the 5K.  It is more important for the mile and very important for the 800m.

    "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

     

      if your running a 5:15 mile and have the aerobic base you should already be able to break 16:30.  If you want to maximize your potential build a good solid base and test your MAF.  Try to use the 180-age formula for your training HR.  People have so much more potential than they realize.  A 18:30 runner could be running 16 probably if they didn't first get the base.  anaerobically you can get 2 atp per glucose whereas you get 36-38 in most peoples what they consider normal training zones.  But if you slow down you get 460 ATP per fat molecule. If you train your body to utilize more fat and less glucose, your potential is MUCH greater.  In fact for 5k, there should be little if any anaerobic training.  But if you don't want to spend the whole summer going slow and base building, I would still stick to stuff that is not anaerobic as you don't want chemicals and hormones such as cortisol tearing down your cells and destroying your aerobic system.

       

      Where are you getting all these (incorrect) information? 

        I'm not sure what "chemicals" from anaerobic training are tearing down your cells...I don't think there is any science behind this statement.  For that matter aerobic metabolism produces superoxide and free radicals which are toxic to cells...but our cells are adept at handling these poisons. 

         

        According to Peter Snell PhD, here are disadvantage of doing too much anaerobic training:

         

        • Low muscle pH causes mitochondrial membrane damage

        • High cortisol – causes proteolysis (muscle breakdown)

        • No increase in aerobic enzymes

        • No increase in capillary density

        • Potential tissue injury, strains, fractures


        Feeling the growl again

          According to Peter Snell PhD, here are disadvantage of doing too much anaerobic training:

           

          • Low muscle pH causes mitochondrial membrane damage

          • High cortisol – causes proteolysis (muscle breakdown)

          • No increase in aerobic enzymes

          • No increase in capillary density

          • Potential tissue injury, strains, fractures

           

          I wouldn't disagree but they key words here are "too much".  People seem to typically interpret that as "next to none", in addition to mis-interpreting a lot of fast aerobic workouts as being anaerobic.  It's all about the mix.

           

          Dallas was using a very vague term -- "chemicals" which led me to think there was really no concrete information (science) behind the point he was making.  What you referenced above are all legitimate possibilities, but none of them are "chemicals", and that is what I was getting at.

          "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

           

            Spaniel:

             

            All due respect, hate to say, I don't think Dallas knows what he's talking about... ;o)  In fact, I can see a lot of Lydiard stuff in what he had to say; but not accuratedly but, if someone who has NO background knowledge of Lydiard skims through the first chapiter of Lydiard's book, I feel you'll get a lot of what Dallas had to say.


            Feeling the growl again

               

               I can see a lot of Lydiard stuff in what he had to say; but not accuratedly but, if someone who has NO background knowledge of Lydiard skims through the first chapiter of Lydiard's book, I feel you'll get a lot of (this)

               

              Admittedly it has been a very long time since I read Lydiard...if I want to know what Lydiard said I'd just wait for you to post and explain.  Wink

               

              My perception is that to "get it", you need to really read and understand the whole concept.  When you pull out bits and pieces out of context you get a lot of the misconceptions that float around.  The whole "LSD" thing, that aerobic and speed training should not be mixed (vs the concept of periodization ie changing the mix), etc.

               

              It's ok though. People can learn, and that's what this place is about.

              "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

               

                So let me get this straight; you are a young aspiring "athlete" who wants to know what would be the MINIMUM amount of work you'll need to do to achieve grand performance of 18:30 for 5k?  One thing is for sure; I'd much prefer some young kid whose 5k PR is 21 minutes who wants to know what's the MAXIMUM amount of work he could do without breaking down so he can shoot for 15-minutes.  A typical letsrun message board question...  So many young kids want to know what the minimum work they have to put in to achieve the bottom-of-the-line achievement...  Maybe I'm just getting old (or have gotten old); but whatever happened to "young and reckless" and get out and almost kill themselves with no guarantee in sight?  No wonder we don't see Jim Ryuns or Gerry Lindgrens or Steve Prefontaines any more.  They like to talk about Pre because it's cool; but his heart is dead.

                 

                I feel like I may have phrased my question poorly. I am not looking for an easy way out of my summer training. I just have a specific starting goal that I would like to reach, and I like running. I was really just looking for some guidance on how to get there and not a specific digit or weekly mileage...

                 

                Sorry for the misunderstanding.

                 

                EDIT: And for the "young and reckless" comment I've actually ramped up mileage to quickly by accident before and both inflamed my plantar facia(right foot) and gotten Sever's disease.

                  How old are you?

                   i guess i should specify that if you are in HIGHSCHOOL and ran 60 MPW and can't break 19, then you are training wrong.

                    EDIT: And for the "young and reckless" comment I've actually ramped up mileage to quickly by accident before and both inflamed my plantar facia(right foot) and gotten Sever's disease.

                     

                    You weren't the one who starts out running 5-minute-mile as a "warm-up" before he "slows down" to run the rest of however many miles a day he runs???  Don't think running a lot (and "a lot" I mean more or less somewhere between 60~100MPW) will injur you.  Most of our bodies (perhaps not all unfortunately) are built to withstand a lot more running than most of us on this forum think they are capable of.  For most "healthy" high schooler, boys OR girls, running 100km (roughly 60MPW) is not that much to ask for.  Most injuries can be traced back to wrong training approach (too fast/hard) or wrong equipment (ill-fitted shoes and/or wrong choice for "running" shoes--and, believe me, there are PLENTY of wrong choice of footwear today).

                     

                    It looks like some folks here really like to play around with numbers so here you go...

                     

                    For a healthy young boy, if he can run 60MPW, he should be able to run a lot better than 19-minutes for 5k--I'd put my foot down and say more like 17:00.  If you're one of those people who are running 60MPW and struggling to run 19-minutes, here's a news for you.  Running 60MPW won't NECESSARILY make you able to run 17:00 but more like it'll make you enable to do necessary training to run 17:00.

                     

                    To run 17:00 for 5k, you'll need 4:55 for the mile.  That is possible with 60ml/kg.min of VO2Max.  That's 4.2 liters of oxygen for someone who weighs 70kg.  If you can run 4:55 mile, you should be "safely" train at about 7:30 per mile pace.  With a kind of "base-building" training program, that will give you approximately 70~80MPW.  For someone who is shooting to run 18:30 for 5k, it requires 5:20 for a mile.  It requires 3.8 liters of oxygen for a 70kg man to run a 18:30-5k race.  As for "speed", it requires 400m calculated speed of 67-second, or 15.4 second 100m speed is ALL you need.

                     

                    Of course, this is nothing but just a calculation.  You'll be off here and there but these are based on mathmatics, statistics and practical experience--if not dead-on, it should be fairly close.  I'm usually the one to go against the number game.  But sometimes the best way to convince people who are so obsessed with numbers is to counter with numbers and calculations.  And, I'm sure most of you have seen that well-used line here at RA; something about "run a lot, mostly easy..." line.  You'll notice how false it is to try to work on "speed" to achieve certain performance level.  Most people don't understand how to prepare for a race.  Someone mentioned something about his friend who can "only" run 21 minutes or 16-second 100m.  I'd say; did he really prepare himself to run 100m full-out?  How did he "periodize" to get ready for that 5k race?  Unfortunately, many just simply conclude; "Oh, it's talent (or lack of)..."  A lot of the readers here train very hard--almost too hard--without satisfactory results.  By just tweeking some minor things and bang!  He/she will run surprisingly well and think; "Man, how did I get so good?"  That's a million-dollar question (or maybe a few hundreds...).  If you can actually answer that, you'll be on your way to run PR after PR...at least for a while.

                      Spaniel:

                       

                      All due respect, hate to say, I don't think Dallas knows what he's talking about... ;o)  In fact, I can see a lot of Lydiard stuff in what he had to say; but not accuratedly but, if someone who has NO background knowledge of Lydiard skims through the first chapiter of Lydiard's book, I feel you'll get a lot of what Dallas had to say.

                       

                      Isn't the MAF test a Phil Maffetone thing? He was training Ironman triathletes and marathoners, not 5K runners, right? 

                        ATP

                        Well, look what the cat dragged in! Mr. Triphosphate! Ha! What up guy? I haven't seen you since 18th grade! You look great!

                        "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus

                           i guess i should specify that if you are in HIGHSCHOOL and ran 60 MPW and can't break 19, then you are training wrong.

                           I knew that's WHAT I you were SAYING, dood.

                          "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus

                          MrH


                             i guess i should specify that if you are in HIGHSCHOOL and ran 60 MPW and can't break 19, then you are training wrong.

                             

                            I'd go further. If you are in highschool and run 30 MPW consistently and can't break 19 then you are training wrong.

                            The process is the goal.

                            Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call Destiny.


                            Feeling the growl again

                              I'd go further. If you are in highschool and run 30 MPW consistently and can't break 19 then you are training wrong.

                               

                              - You must qualify that this is for boys.

                              - You must qualify that "consistently" means basically year-round, something that in and of itself is relatively unusual at the HS level.

                              - You must acknowledge that this broad statement ignores the very, very real difference in applying this standard judgement to a 9th grader vs a 12th grader, as well as inherent differences between individuals.

                              "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

                               

                              dallasboycows


                                - You must qualify that this is for boys.

                                - You must qualify that "consistently" means basically year-round, something that in and of itself is relatively unusual at the HS level.

                                - You must acknowledge that this broad statement ignores the very, very real difference in applying this standard judgement to a 9th grader vs a 12th grader, as well as inherent differences between individuals.

                                 I agree.  I'm just saying I haven't met too many high school and above individuals who can run a low 5 that can't run a 18:30.  They usually run in the low to mid 17's just from what I've experienced from males.

                                12345