2024 Advanced Training and Racing Thread (still competitive jerks) (Read 281 times)

mt79


    Flavio - If you want to lower the 800, you need to run faster.  Looking at your log

     

    4x (600@10k + 400)
    4x (400@5k + 400)
    4x (200@mile + 200

     

    Thats too slow for 800 training.  Your 400s should be close to or a little slower than 800 race pace.  Your 200s/300s should be faster than 800 race pace.  I don’t know if you also training for something else, but those paces need to come way down.  Otherwise you are wasting your time.

    Marky_Mark_17


      Mark - the books say the 1500 is 67% aerobic, 33% anaerobic, while the 800 is 50/50, though that varies I guess depending on how fast you are.
      The faster you are the race becomes more anaerobic.

       

       

      I'm pretty sure the 1500m is closer to 75-80% aerobic on average.  Steve Magness has spoken about this quite a bit and there aren't many folks around that would be more knowledgeable than him on the topic.

      3,000m: 9:07.7 (Nov-21) | 5,000m: 15:39 (Dec-19) | 10,000m: 32:34 (Mar-20)  

      10km: 33:15 (Sep-19) | HM: 1:09:41 (May-21)* | FM: 2:41:41 (Oct-20)

      * Net downhill course

      Last race: Runway5 / National 5k Champs, 16:22, National Masters AG Champ!

      Up next: Still working on that...

      "CONSISTENCY IS KING"

      mt79


        Might be closer to 85% aerobic for 1500:

        http://centrostudilombardia.com/wp-content/uploads/IAAF-Corsa-Generale/1996-Energy-system-contribution-during-400-to-1500-metres-running.pdf

        darkwave


        Mother of Cats

          Might be closer to 85% aerobic for 1500:

          http://centrostudilombardia.com/wp-content/uploads/IAAF-Corsa-Generale/1996-Energy-system-contribution-during-400-to-1500-metres-running.pdf

           

          I'm going to comment that how aerobic or anaerobic the 1500 is depends on how fast you are - it's not a fixed percentage.  Racing the 1500 in 6:30 is going to be far more aerobic than racing the 1500 in 3:45.

           

          Merkle - this weekend I'm scheduled to run the 5000 on Sunday morning, the 800 on Sunday afternoon, and then the 1500 and the 400 on Monday morning (probably about 45 minutes between the two).

           

          I should be competitive in the first 3 distances; I will have my rear end handed to me in the 400.  Which is OK - I'm doing it because currently there is no national record on the books for the 400 for my para-athlete division in the over 50 category (they keep age group and open records).  So I thought I'd get a time on the books, knowing that as soon as she gets a chance a friend of mine (who sprints, is a T36 female, and also just turned 50) will eclipse it.

           

          Nice thing about para-athletic meets is that blocks are never required for my division - we're allowed to start any race (even the 100m) from a standing start if we like.  They're also a bit more relaxed about the false start rule in the coordination-impaired/neurological category, since a lot of people in that category have occasional involuntary twitches/etc.

          Everyone's gotta running blog; I'm the only one with a POOL-RUNNING blog.

           

          And...if you want a running Instagram where all the pictures are of cats, I've got you covered.

          mt79


             

            I'm going to comment that how aerobic or anaerobic the 1500 is depends on how fast you are - it's not a fixed percentage.  Racing the 1500 in 6:30 is going to be far more aerobic than racing the 1500 in 3:45.

            That’s not necessarily true.  

            https://www.ajkinesiol.org/m/journal/view.php?number=496

             

            OBJECTIVES

            To compare the aerobic and anaerobic energy system contribution during 1500m running between collegiate untrained (UT) and endurance trained (ET) subjects.

            Discussion

            The principal finding of this study indicated that the total relative contribution of the aerobic system to the Asian ET was significantly greater (75.7 ± 1.5 %) as compared to the Asian UT participants (65.4 ± 7.0 %) during a 1500m treadmill run (p = 0.011) <Figure 1 and Table 1>. The aerobic energy system predominated as the primary source of energy from as early as the 40th second of the 1500m treadmill run. The disparity in the aerobic energy system contributions between the two groups was congruent to the extended literature [1,11]. In this study, the mean aerobic contribution for the Asian UT and the Asian ET were lower than the 84 ± 3% reported by Spencer & Gastin [1] for elite 1500m specialist runners. Hence, we may conclude that Spencer & Gastin’s participants had a higher VO2 as compared to the Asian participants in this study that included collegiate Asian UT and Asian sub-elite ET individuals, which may explain the lower percent value. In contrast, the mean aerobic contribution for the collegiate Asian ET revealed similar results reported for sub-elite 1500m runners (75-83%)

             

            What they seem to find is that the better trained the athlete, the higher the % of aerobic.  One thing I noticed was that body fat % seemed to be a factor in predicting aerobic vs anaerobic.  If I’m reading the paper and the charts correctly.

            DavePNW


               

               this weekend I'm scheduled to run the 5000 on Sunday morning, the 800 on Sunday afternoon, and then the 1500 and the 400 on Monday morning (probably about 45 minutes between the two).

               

               

              Wow that is a lot of racing in a short time—you’re Jesse Owens! Are there no qualifying heats of any kind? I’ll be curious to see how you feel in the second race of each of those cases. Is it better to go longer then shorter than the other way around? Do you have any experience racing such short distances? I’ve never raced anything less than 5k, that would be very weird for me. Or, anything on the track for that matter. I keep saying I’m going to try the all-comers track meet they do around here, but haven’t been able to bring myself to show up to one yet.

              Dave

              mmerkle


                 

                mmerk - kind of surprised you haven't broken 17 yet given you do well on shorter distances. I don't think you need perfect conditions to run sub 17, but I would say TDP has to be south of 140, which at least by us in NYC, you won't get consistently until September.

                 

                What are your thoughts on the 17:55 I just ran in 162 TDP? A 5% pace adjustment comes out to a 5:30/mile. But I don't follow the pace adjustment by TDP closely, so I'm not sure if that's a good guess.

                 

                dw That's a lot of racing! Hope you crush it.

                 

                mt79 That result is the exact opposite of what I thought to be true haha. I thought a well-trained 800/1500 runner can stay anaerobic for longer before burning through their gas and having to operate mostly aerobically. Because isn't the idea that the anaerobic system provides more energy per unit time, and that's why you are anaerobic for short, high intensity events? Or is it more like... their aerobic system is so damn strong that they can stay mostly aerobic even at a fast pace and hold off on becoming mostly anaerobic until the last 200-400 meters? Idk man I'm confused.

                mt79


                  Mmerkle- It seems that the higher the V02, the higher expected aerobic %.  So I assume that means they have trained their aerobic system to an elite level.

                  Marky_Mark_17


                    What are your thoughts on the 17:55 I just ran in 162 TDP? A 5% pace adjustment comes out to a 5:30/mile. But I don't follow the pace adjustment by TDP closely, so I'm not sure if that's a good guess.

                     

                     

                    Yeah those adjustments are pretty rough.  Like, it'll definitely be slower in those conditions but I wouldn't treat the 5% as anything other than ballpark.

                     

                    No real value in a made-up measure like TDP either. Dew point is simpler and tells you exactly the same thing.

                    3,000m: 9:07.7 (Nov-21) | 5,000m: 15:39 (Dec-19) | 10,000m: 32:34 (Mar-20)  

                    10km: 33:15 (Sep-19) | HM: 1:09:41 (May-21)* | FM: 2:41:41 (Oct-20)

                    * Net downhill course

                    Last race: Runway5 / National 5k Champs, 16:22, National Masters AG Champ!

                    Up next: Still working on that...

                    "CONSISTENCY IS KING"

                    JMac11


                    RIP Milkman

                       

                      Yeah those adjustments are pretty rough.  Like, it'll definitely be slower in those conditions but I wouldn't treat the 5% as anything other than ballpark.

                       

                      No real value in a made-up measure like TDP either. Dew point is simpler and tells you exactly the same thing.

                       

                      I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence - TDP is composed of dew point. I think you need the temperature in there to give you the full picture. For example, 80+50 is going to be somewhat similar to 65+65. I wouldn't say that 65 dew point in that example is much harder running conditions given the temp is 15 degrees cooler. Obviously it's not perfect though because it doesn't take into account things like solar radiation or wind: I'll take a post-sunset run of 140TDP with a 10-15MPH wind over a 130TDP with zero wind at noon run any day of the week.

                       

                      162 TDP is impossible Mmerkle. I think the worst 5K I've ever run is somewhere in the 155 range, and I felt awful at the end. Of course, to the point around it not being perfect, every race distance is different. My very hot NYC marathon was in the 140-145 TDP range, which resulted in me having chest pains and severe dehydration, walking, etc. For a 5K, that would be warm, but totally fine if you hydrated before.

                       

                      Anyway - long winded way of saying you do probably need to get a 5K in when TDP is south of 140, but you don't need to wait until optimal conditions in October or November like you do for a half+. I think a 17:55 in your conditions says it's possible, but but cutting a full 20 seconds off per mile wouldn't be a guarantee in better weather. I would say confidently you can do 10-15 faster, 20+ if you have a good day.

                      5K: 16:37 (11/20)  |  10K: 34:49 (10/19)  |  HM: 1:14:57 (5/22)  |  FM: 2:36:31 (12/19) 

                       

                       

                      Marky_Mark_17


                         

                        I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence - TDP is composed of dew point.

                         

                        And dew point is already a function of temperature and relative humidity. IDK maybe it works better when you use a logical measurement system like celsius where freezing point is zero.

                        3,000m: 9:07.7 (Nov-21) | 5,000m: 15:39 (Dec-19) | 10,000m: 32:34 (Mar-20)  

                        10km: 33:15 (Sep-19) | HM: 1:09:41 (May-21)* | FM: 2:41:41 (Oct-20)

                        * Net downhill course

                        Last race: Runway5 / National 5k Champs, 16:22, National Masters AG Champ!

                        Up next: Still working on that...

                        "CONSISTENCY IS KING"

                        CommanderKeen


                        Cobra Commander Keen

                          Mixed news in my running world lately.

                           

                          My favorite HM, which I've run all 8 years since it started, will not be held again. That is a bummer in and of itself, but it also was connected to an Oktoberfest celebration in the little German town it was in and my family really liked going there for a weekend.

                          I suppose that will allow me to try finding a faster race for a PR attempt in October.

                           

                          On the plus side, the head of the health science department at a local college has a demonstration of a VO2MAX test for some high school students coming up and asked my coach if he knew anyone who would be interested in doing the test. And I be interested, even though knowing that number likely won't actually do anything for me.

                           

                          This should be a great opportunity to see either just how low that number is, or just how inefficient my running form is. 

                          5k: 17:58 11/22 │ 10k: 37:55 9/21 │ HM: 1:23:22 4/22 │ M: 2:56:05 12/22

                           

                          Upcoming Races:

                           

                          August 31 - Brookhaven 5k

                          October 13 - Prairie Fire Half

                          November 2  - Crossroads Marathon

                           

                          Marky_Mark_17


                             

                            I'm going to comment that how aerobic or anaerobic the 1500 is depends on how fast you are - it's not a fixed percentage.  Racing the 1500 in 6:30 is going to be far more aerobic than racing the 1500 in 3:45.

                             

                             

                            This makes sense to me.  One surprising finding from one study was that the aerobic % was actually higher for females than it was for males (~86% vs. 77%).  There was a fairly small sample size involved there though so I wouldn't read too much into that.

                             

                            Keen - bummer on the cancelled race.  I would be gutted if my personal fave (Omaha HM) ever got canned.  Not sure about your part of the world but the combination of downturn in numbers during/post-Covid along with increasing traffic management costs / requirements has killed off a few events here. There's been a big surge in running interest over the past 6-12 months though so hopefully that helps.

                            3,000m: 9:07.7 (Nov-21) | 5,000m: 15:39 (Dec-19) | 10,000m: 32:34 (Mar-20)  

                            10km: 33:15 (Sep-19) | HM: 1:09:41 (May-21)* | FM: 2:41:41 (Oct-20)

                            * Net downhill course

                            Last race: Runway5 / National 5k Champs, 16:22, National Masters AG Champ!

                            Up next: Still working on that...

                            "CONSISTENCY IS KING"

                            flavio80


                               

                              This aligns with my (admittedly limited) experience with Mexico.

                              To be fair, it also aligns with pretty much every big city around the world.

                               

                              MT - Thanks for your input. I'm speculating that the coach figured I needed to improve my aerobic capacity and focused on that for now.

                              Tomorrow is a checkpoint along the way, I intend to do a final attempt at the end of August.

                              I'm only speculating though, the only thing the coach said is that we're working on improving my lactate tolerance.

                              Ultimately I follow what the coach prescribes to the dot cause they can see my training objectively, something I have a hard time doing.

                              Yes, I'll also be targeting 5K and 10K come September.

                               

                              MMerkle - Based on your recent results, I'm 100% sure you can run sub 17, provided that you try to run it when the weather is better and you taper for it (and you are able to keep the current levels of fitness).

                              For reference my fastest 5k ever in warm conditions was 18:50 on a very early morning race (7am) with the temps around 70F.

                              And my PR is nearly 1 minute faster than that.

                               

                              Mark/MT - Interesting discussion about the split in the 1500. It's nice to hear other takes on it and that there are even studies about it.

                               

                              Darkwave - Best of luck on your races!

                               

                              me - Can I complain about the weather ? It's supposed to be summer here, yet the temperatures are mild and it's damp.

                              Can it please be like a real summer with dry weather and higher temperatures to help with my 800m attempts 😂

                              Anyway, tomorrow is the day, I'm going to the track for another 800m time trial. I'll give it my best. See you on the other side.

                              Up next: 800m time trial Aug 19th, target time 2:19

                              PRs: 800m 2:26.57 Jul 2024 | 1500m 4:54.1 Sep 2019 | 5K 17:53 Mar 2023

                              CommanderKeen


                              Cobra Commander Keen

                                 

                                Anyway, tomorrow is the day, I'm going to the track for another 800m time trial. I'll give it my best. See you on the other side.

                                 

                                His name was Flavio

                                5k: 17:58 11/22 │ 10k: 37:55 9/21 │ HM: 1:23:22 4/22 │ M: 2:56:05 12/22

                                 

                                Upcoming Races:

                                 

                                August 31 - Brookhaven 5k

                                October 13 - Prairie Fire Half

                                November 2  - Crossroads Marathon