Work on strengths or weaknesses? (Read 933 times)

First of all, only a handful of runners have flat or progressive VDOT curves as they go up in distance. Very few of us are that aerobically developed. You'll notice that, although VDOT determines aerobic potential at given distances, the same VDOT over longer races will put you in much more elite company. The way I see it, there are two ways you can determine what event to focus on. You can run the distance that is your strongest relative to other distances that you run, or you can run the distance that will allow you to be most competitive relative to others (generally, this means running more miles and going up in distance). For example, my talent peak probably lies in the 3k range, but I can have better finishes (relative to my competitors) in marathons. As for how you should train--I believe (as do many athletes) in using the early prep period to work on other distances, especially shorter ones. That's why you see Galen Rupp getting crushed racing one mile races on boards right now, even though he hopes to be in the 10k mix in Beijing. One of the reasons to get this kind of training out of the way early, is that you want to spend a lot of time at race pace when you get close to your biggest races. You can only run so many hard miles, and running pure speed stuff means that you devote less energy to race pace work. The more time you spend at a specific pace, the more adapted you become to it. You will find it easier to hit a groove and consume less energy. I actually believe in cutting the classic VO2max workouts in favor of race pace workouts, as you get closer to the end of your season. They can still get you to your maximum heart rate, but you have the added benefit of becoming comfortable with your pace.

Excellent post and an interesting question. There was a thread on CR’s old comp wire thread where this same question was raised. Almost all the regulars were strong runners, but there was only one who might have been considered elite. The strong consensus was to put most of your energy into working on your strengths. This might be somewhat counterintuitive, with the thinking being that we should work on our weaknesses so that they will no longer be liabilities. However, the truth is that we are going to get a better return on investment by putting most of the work into what we do best. “I actually believe in cutting the classic VO2max workouts in favor of race pace workouts” Agree, although personally I stay away from 5k race pace for the most part, and go mostly with stuff in 10k-HM range. The limiting of time spent on V02 max is especially true for older runners. I could work on mine until the cows come home and it would never do any more than make me a little bit sharper. Big gains must come from elsewhere. “in using the early prep period to work on other distances, especially shorter ones.” Yes, yes! So what do you do? Do you focus on the distance that you will do best in relative to the competition or the one that you have the ability to score highest on the grading scale?

Well, here's my plan: Maybe another year or two of middle distance. I want to feel like I've reached a point of seriously diminishing returns before moving up. After that, I'll probably do the half marathon for a few years. I'd like to try running really high mileage, just for the fun of it (5000+ miles/year). When I run a half that I'm happy with, then I'll add the extra long runs and go for a couple of full marathons. This seems to be a fairly common career path for competitive runners, although I run with a masters 800meter guy who can still go sub 2. It's definitely shown me that there are other options.

First of all, only a handful of runners have flat or progressive VDOT curves as they go up in distance. Very few of us are that aerobically developed. You'll notice that, although VDOT determines aerobic potential at given distances, the same VDOT over longer races will put you in much more elite company.

I think this is a great point, and one that often gets overlooked. Whether it's VDOT, McMillan's, VO2max, Purdy, or some other calculator, folks overlook that fact that it takes a tremendous aerobic base to run times in long races that are supposedly "equivalent" to one's shorter performances. If you want to run the marathon predicted by your mile or 5k time, it's possible, but will take tons and tons of aerobic work. This doesn't pertain directly to the OP's question, but was an important enough point that I felt like highlighting it. BTW, some running prediction calculator resources: RA Race calculator One nice option with the RA calculator is that you can out in two races (say a short and a long one) to get a more personalized calculation. RA VO2max Daniels' VDOT Another VDOT plus others This one is fun because you can calculate equivalent times based on altitude, temperature, windspeed, treadmill inclination, ascent/descent on the course. McMillan Multiple (Purdy, VO2max, Reigel, Cameron) -- I like this one because it averages out several calculation method. I've also noticed that the Purdy calculator seems to predict slower (and thus more realistic for most of us) times at longer distances. Running for Fitness Similar to the previous one, but also includes age grading.

If performance is truly your concern.... 1) Select your distance specialty based on your strengths. If you are a speed person, you're never going to be at your best in a 10K. Race 400m-1500m. If you're like me and have zero speed, you can do speedwork all the time and never compete well at shorter distances (even in sub-31 10K shape I could not run a 2:00 800m). So I concentrate on 10K-marathon. 2) Once you select your distance, you need to polish your strength but be very aggressive about mitigating your weaknesses. You have more to gain from working on your weakness than your strength. If you are a 800m runner, you can probably gain more by improving your endurance over the last 200m than by trying to gain speed over the first 200m. If you are a 10K specialist and have been so for awhile, improving your speed and anaerobic abilities may be the best way to get to the next level and will certainly help you out-kick the competition when place matters.

>You have more to gain from working on your weakness than your strength Is this anecdotal or do you have some other data to back it up? I've read and heard to the contrary. Also, I have found in my own experience that I get more return by working on strengths than weaknesses I remember too, btw, when you ran that sub-31 on the track. It seems that you were concerned before the race that you hadn't done enough anaerobic work. Instead you were doing more longer intervals and threshold type workouts. I'm not sure that was the case but I thought it was. If true it was probably no accident that ran better off the training you were doing for a longer race than if you'd trained specifically for that 10k. It was probably the best race you've ever run

... just wondering how other people would answer that question...

I have thought a lot about this question. Last summer my best races were 20:15 5K, 34:17 5 miles, 43:39 10K, and 1:38:29 HM. If you enter those times into calculators, the 5K was the "best" time. The relationship between those races is linear: the 5K is better than the 5 miler, which is better than the 10K, which is better than the HM. That seems to indicate speed is my strength. However, based on my previous times, the 20:15 5K was actually a little slower than I was a couple years ago, while the 5 mile time was a 54 second PR, the 10K was a 51 second PR, and the HM was a PR by over five minutes. I improved more in longer distance races than shorter ones, which may indicate endurance is my strength. My plan this summer is to train as I did last summer, working on endurance (quality workouts @ 10K to HM pace with only weekly 100 to 200 meter striders and monthly 5K races working speed.) _________ this is a great thread

Having a better 5K than longer distances is not necessarily any indication that "speed" is your strength. Without looking at your training history, it is more likely that you are just not aerobically developed enough to make the longer races "measure up". This is a common conclusion that people draw, and can be misleading when applied to training. If you are unusually fast at SHORT distances (ie 400-800m), that is usually a good indication of a good speed ability. When the sweet spot is more in the 5K range, it is much more difficult to figiure it out unless you have already been running for years and gone to pretty high base levels.

Excellent point. I've been trying to figure out how to say this and now I don't have to anymore.

I'm not sure what type of data/evidence you're looking for, pretty much everything in training is based on accumulated experiences, and likewise this is what I draw from. You are correct, going into that 10K I was concerned because it was a tune-up race a month out from a marathon, so I did not do the needed speedwork to optimize for 10K. I got lucky, however, and it was more of a time trial than a real race. The pace started reasonable and accelerated throughout, no surges or mid-race competition. This played to my mileage-based preparation. However, with 2 laps to go when the breakaway group of 3 of us went for the win, the other 2 guys easily pulled away and I had more kick. My last lap was not significantly faster than any other. If placing had been my goal, it would have been a failure. I did not mean to imply that you rely on your strength and only cursory train for it; you need to do your homework, indeed I ran very high mileage for that race. Rather, you need to be more aggressive than average at addressing your weaknesses. You can only approach your potential if you are prepared on both ends. If I ignore speed and say "I'm not a speed guy, I'll rely on my aerobic potential", I get myself in trouble because if I don't concenrate on mitigating my weakness it becomes even more glaring and more an impediment to my progress.

My guess is that you ran your best race because most of your energy was devoted to working on your strength, which is more in the direction of endurance. You might not have run as well if you'd spent a high percentage of your time on V02 max and working on your finishing kick. I'm not saying that we don't have to work on our weaknesses--not at all, just that most of our energy should be spent working on our strengths. It was probably no accident that you ran your best race during a period of peak mileage and lots of threshold work.