Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
The Middle Ground
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Briefly before I head into a meeting:
The rep sessions were on a 4 week programme of 200s, 400s, 800s and 1600m and the tempo sessions were usually 4miles, the LSRs were 12-20 miles (prep for starting a marathon plan on 1st Jan).
Basically over that time my 5k time went from 29:34 (ahem) to 25:40 and the reps equivalent times per mile went from 8:46 to 7:34...
However, just after I had finished that period and went into marathon training my 5k times tumbled from 25:40 to 22:20 in about 7 weeks, I also set a 10 mile pb of nearly 5 minutes and a 10k pb of nearly 8 minutes - I'd like to think that was the effect of all the speedwork coming through in adaptation...
That's not a jelly bean you can see in the shorts of elite women.
Interesting that the Goldilocks zone cited in the article is at 4.0 mmol which is approx. Jack Daniel's tempo pace. A while ago he maintained that paces between easy and tempo were junk miles (i.e. marathon pace training for non-marathoners) - although he later changed his mind. We're soon running out of zones to train in!
Given the continually fluctuating nature of the zones anyway, given training loads, variations, fatigue and improvement it is just more persuasion that you need to be hitting all of the zones (MP / HMP / Tempo / 10k) in your training. A coincidence that progression runs are so popular in Kenya and that their huge aerobic base built over years allows them to turn a higher % of their daily runs into such runs? No, don't think so. There does seem an over reliance on this hour tempo pace and it's a shame that MP running (for example) gets so little thrift for non-marathoners.
The other junk mile conversation is in the very slow mileage category. You have to have an objective for each run and ensure your technique isn't affected by slower running. If you want a recovery run - you run as slow as necessary to aid your recovery. If your objective is aerobic development you will want to have some sort of pace baseline to make it an efficient workout.
Is anything a junk mile in isolation, purely by virtue of its speed? I don't think so.
M, you're a cunning linguist.
I completely agree. I mentioned the two hard days without suitable recovery, and I suppose at the other end of the scale if you have recovered, doing another recovery run would be of no benefit. So all hard or all recovery, junk! But mix them up and you're on the way to something good.
I guess the next problem is that something can be of benefit without being of the best benefit. So lots of easy running, great for aerobic base and can continue building that base for years, but at some stage if you can't tweak it with the quality stuff your training is not giving you the greatest return.
Training across all zones and many paces I understand, but where did this idea of Tempo come from anyway? The best pace you can maintain for 1 hour... For some that's 10k pace, for others (very few) it's HM pace. Surely it's silly to have a pace that slows (relative to your race pacing) as your ability increases? I'm sure there are other definitions of Tempo which make it appear more useful!
The only consistently unchallenged advice is to get a variety of paces into the training.
I know that there seems to be a never ending search for the 'perfect' session, and if I had to pick one it would be a weekly 10 Miles @MP for distances between 10K to marathon, but the truth is that you probably do need to experience a range of paces regularly to develop a good range of motion and to keep the various nervous system stimulii in practise.
Just having a quick look at the track sessions that Charlie Spedding got through in his Olympic build up:
6x1000m(2:30 jog) - Approx. 4:40/mile
10x400m(90s jog) - Approx 4:17/mile
16x200m(200m jog) - Approx 4:11/mile
5x1600m(400m 'float' in 90secs) - Approx 4:40/mile
3x800m(2 mins) - Approx 4:20/mile
800,1000,800,1000,800 - Range 4:30-4:50/mile
2x(2x800,1x1600)+2x800 - Range 4:22-4:30/mile
600,1200,4x200,1600,800,1600 - Range 4:08-4:50/mile
2x(8x200) - Approx 4:00/mile
10x400(90 secs jog) - Approx 4:08/mile
6x800 (2:30 jog) - Approx 4:20/mile
5x400(400m jog) - Approx 4:00/mile
So he pretty much used all paces between 60s/lap and 75s/lap during his track sessions and then all paces upwards from there to 105s/lap equivalent in his road sessions and even 120s/lap equivalent for recovery runs.
I never get specific paces set for me in training, just efforts and times, with the expectation that that will bring a variety of paces into my training. There is the expectation too that a 'rep' at 10k effort will produce a faster pace than 3 miles continuous effort at 10k pace. All of which I haven't explained well at all but means that there is a variety of efforts/paces covered in training, which I think we are in agreement with!
Ratzer - re the parkrun then the LSR, I remember Mike Gratton once mentioning that in his day the XC races were always on a Saturday (possibly even the road races too but I can't remember) so he always did a race then the LSR on Sunday. Clearly different paces though so different physical stresses (stressors?) too on the body
Oh I do like the word confluence, what a marvellous word!
Afternoon all!
I think this idea of a 'no-man's land' training zone is extremely misleading. I can only think of it as being a very simplistic prescription for newbie runners to get their heads around the 'hard-easy' principle, and especially as a way to press home the point about running at an easy pace (<75%MHR / <70%WHR, etc) in order to build some sort of aerobic base before even thinking about icing the cake with harder stuff... Then the idea of a tempo run is introduced, and just as the newbie runner should be encouragaed to run easier for the easy runs, so they should be encouraged to run slightly outside the comfort zone if the run has a specific purpose, e.g. for improving LT.
Once you're at the stage of having a reasonable aerobic base and have a handle on 'covering the bases' I think the no-man's land idea breaks down entirely - although maybe it's still a useful concept when reminding yourself about the purpose of a particular run, lest anyone should switch off while they're running, and a recovery run suddently takes you into MP-effort HR territory!
Anyhows, I went down the track for the first time in 4 months last night! 5 x 1200 (w/200 recovery) - 4:10, 4:09, 4:09, 4:07, 4:05 Fairly conservative pace but at least I got quicker without blowing, and no gyp from the knee. It's good to be back!
I think from personal experience the 'no-man's land' they refer to is the range of paces between MP and MP+25%.
But that doesnt mean you should avoid that training range as though its going to do you some harm, its a perfectly beneficial training zone.
However, if too much of the weekly training is in that zone it does reduce the ability to get as much as you could do out of the higher quality sessions. Better to slow down most of the bulk miles down to MP+25% and push harder in the anearobic/upper aerobic sessions.
Alongside explaining the 'no-man's land' though it then requires an explanation of exactly what MP is and how it can change over time.
Phil - Nice, controlled session. It always feels like you've got it just about right when you get a series like that where the times improve by a second or so per rep as the muscles/tendons keep getting a little more elastic throughout the session. A knee that holds up to a session around 5:30/mile cant be in that bad a nick.
And the thing about reps getting slightly faster as the session goes on leads me to the question of whether Curly actually got lazier as her 800 session went on last night. Her first 5 were 3:23,3:23,3:23,3:23,3:23? Brilliantly consistent or creeping laziness?
Cheers, although that's probably a flattering way of looking at it. It felt more like a case of giving it a little extra welly when I knew what I had left!
Metronomic stuff from Curly. You sure she wasn't just chasing a mechanical hare??
In all seriousness, one other thing that tends to make the reps get quicker towards the end (especially the last one) is when a few fellas let their egos get in the way and it all turns into a bit of a race. I do try to avoid getting drawn into this, to maintain good form and control. (Honest!)
In Parker's basic HRM approach, he says that the zone beweten 70-85% working HR is to be avoided. So easy days shoudl be below 70% but hard sessions above 85%.
However, in Hadd's HRM approach, he suggests running at low HR (<75% max, <65% wHR)) until your pace at that particular HR is stable ... and then to increase the HR by 5bpm ... and again, once stable to increase again by 5bpm etc. So Hadd has you working through Parker's "no go" zone ... continuing this until you are fit enough to run aerobcially at 90% max HR (about 85% wHR).
Oi you!!! The last one was 3:29 though...spikes got a bit much on the 6th rep
I was taking it a bit easy but not intentionally, I couldnt push on for some reason, all explained today by the not feeling very well and am therefore being even more lazy and having a rest day
Interesting stuff on here as usual - I feel like I have about 10 sages in a room all dispensing useful advice - its bloody great but sometimes I feel I dont add as much as I should to the discussion so excuse me if I'm not joining in- its because I am happy to sit and 'listen' to those more knowledgable (sp?)
That's usually a result of clock watching all the way round! I've done it in the past and it involved sprinting or walking the last 15m depending on what my watch said. But I'm sure that's not the case here.
Confluence.
Moraghan - yeah, I've certainlly thought about it. My enthusiasm for racing depends on the kind of race in question. So for example, the off-road half marathon I had booked in ages ago for mid June (Midsummer Munro, 3,000ft ascent) I'm actually looking forward to now since (a) I'm confident the knee will hold out and (b) I should be fit enough to at least make a good effort of it, even if I'm not in pb shape.
On the other hand the thought of a 5,000m race on the track is still a bit daunting. I know the club could do with me turning out to run round in 17 and a bit mins (which would be a scoring time for the B team) but I know I wouldn't enjoy it very much! I'm quietly relieved that I'm on holiday* when the next match is on. A few weeks after that I should be in better shape anyway, so it should be all systems go for a regular summer of 5,000, the odd 10k, etc, then a target half marathon in September (probably Bristol) to get a Champs time for VLM 2011. Not to mention a 25k mountain race in B.C. (Canada) in September as well, which should just be great fun.
*I'll be getting in some scenic running this year. The holiday's in Sorrento, so a few miles up and down the hills on the Amalfi coast should be a good bit of prep for the half.
A few points...
1. Hadd was a big fan of working at MP to MP + 30 secs per mile for those with a poor aerobic base.
2. Once that is established, the fortnightly run of 10 miles (or about 1 hour depending on pace) at this intensity is kept whatever season you are in - much like PRF's weekly 10m in 60 mins
3. Sometimes it is better to go by time and effort than predetermined pace. I tried a 6 x 600 @ 3k pace off 1 min recoveries earlier. Not feeling great recently for reasons I can't quite fathom but probably long term related to swine flu. Anyway, turned it into 6 x 2 mins and due to getting brilliant encouragement from Hilly I managed it and feel tons better even though the times were probably not great.
Agree on point 3 - I am still feeling a bit off and will likely not be able to complete my session tonight at true MP tempo pace so I will try to peg it to effort instead.
BR glad to hear you got somegood sutff out off the session
Phil - sounds like you have some exciting plans ahead! Although the Munro sounds like madness to me
BR - Acedotally, I've heard others comment on swine flu in the same way ie the main symptoms clear pretty quickly over a 2-3 week period but the tail end effects, although mild, can last a few months.
Your point about running to effort rather than predetermined pace is the way I run every session. In fact, I'm not sure that I could run any other way. The pace is the output of a session rather than the input, so running to a predetermined pace would seem unnecessarily awkward in terms of speeding up/slowing down to stay on schedule.
Although I would always run to distance and effort rather than time and effort but that is just personal preference ie I like to know where the finishing line is!
So what is MP?
If I have run a mara in 3:30, then my 'Last' or 'Best' MP was 8min/m.
If I want to run a mara in 3:00, then my 'Aspirational' MP is 6:50min/m.
But I would argue that my MP, right now, is the steady pace I could run at for 26.2 miles and hit complete oxygen debt, or exhaustion, or whatever you might call it at exactly that point.
Because it's a marathon, however, I've also got to make sure that my energy stores are managed to last that distance, so there's another variable in the equation that you might not have in working out shorter race paces.
If we ignore the second variable, MP is anaerobic. I say this because the oxygen debt is building constantly across the entire distance. Only the slightest bit anaerobic, but nonetheless that's what it is. If we have to manage our energy stores, however, the pace changes, because I only have enough glycogen in my body to fuel about 2 hours of exercise doing the kind of work I'd do in a marathon. Now, even my 'Aspirational' race involves about 1 hour at best aerobic pace, burning fat only.
So what is MP? I know I have to train to reach a good best aerobic pace, and train above LT, but I still don't know what MP is...???
Ratzer - all the right questions there that show how it is a pace oft misundertood.
In effect, MP is the pace you would currently be capable of running a marathon at if it was just like any other race, ie no glycogen depletion issues to deal with.
Using recent race times for shorter distances would give you your MP.
Eg
5K pace+ 45 secs/mile
10K+ 30 secs/mile
10Miles + 22 secs/mile
HM + 15 secs/mile
You may find that your 5K race time may give a different MP to your 10K race time but once you've raced a bit they shouldnt be that far apart.
Does this mean that race pace calculators are giving me a skewed prediction of what marathon times are? For a better prediction should I take something like the HM+15secs pace and use that for two hours to find the distance I cover, then work out the time for the remaining distance at best aerobic pace (let's say wall pace, or MP+25% for argument's sake)?
Would that give a better representation of where I'm at compared to where I'd like to be?
Or is the difference really not worth the extra calculation effort?
Also, though, as you've confirmed that MP is anaerobic, I should keep a reasonably low percentage of my overall training at that pace. On the flip slide, using that pace for anaerobic training means long distances to build up lactic acid, with long durations, which means a distribution of lactate around the body and longer recovery times, so is it too slow for above LT training? If so, apart from getting used to race pace, what would you use it to train for??
I was going to ask the same thing Ratzer regarding MP.
It's difficult to know what MP to use to calculate training paces from ...
My 10K pace is 6:50 m/m ... so my marathon pace should be 7:20 m/m. But no way could I run a 3:12 marathon at this stage. And I think a lot of folk would be in the same situation ... 5K-HM paces are much more likely to follow the "clock face" rule of thumb. So, for example, on Monday I'll attempt to run my marathon at about 7:50 m/m ... 7:20 would probably leave me in pieces somewhere around 18-20 miles.
Yep, the calculators are based on relative world/national records so are unrealistic until you've got a huge aerobic base. They should be seen as times that you are ultimately capable of as long as you're able to put in lots and lots of endurance work over a number of years.
In reality, it would be difficult to get your actual marathon pace down to theoretical marathon pace on less than 80mpw over 5 years or more likely 100mpw+ over a bit longer.
Examples of how a huge aerobic base can bring the marathon time into line:
Haile Gebreselassie:
HM pace 4:30/mile
Marathon pace 4:44/mile (HM+14secs/mile)
Marigold :
HM pace 5:03/mile
Marathon pace 5:20/mile (HM+17secs/mile)
Me:
HM pace 5:39/mile
Marathon pace 6:24/mile (HM+45secs/mile !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Hence the reason why I'm still confident of smashing my PB even 17 years later because I never put in the required aerobic base to bring the time into line. The PB was run on an average mileage of approx 50mpw which is nowhere near enough to provide the optimal aerobic base.
Ratzer - You'll notice from the sub 3 thread that there is always a lot of doubt surrounding what pace to go off at in a marathon and the decision is usually left until quite late in the day. As a starting point, you know you can run a marathon at MP+25% and breeze round with a big chunk of your glycogen stores intact at the end. You also know that MP is almost certainly going to leave you burnt out somewhere between 15-22 miles unless you've done huge mileage.
So, you're looking for the mystical MP+xx% whereby 'xx' is the smallest number that will allow you to run a strong race to the end. You are certainly on the right lines by thinking in terms of using MP for 20 miles + MP+25% for 10K and then averaging the total over the full distance to give you something like MP+6%. Personally, I think until you've achieved a marathon at MP+10% then that should be the target to aim for.
And, yes, to your other question about keeping the percentage of your overall training at MP low. In fact, unless you're superman you dont really have much choice in the matter. I'm currently doing a weekly 10K @MP while I concentrate on shorter stuff (5K/10K) and in the marathon build up it will range between 10 Miles-14 Miles @ MP. These are tough sessions (even 10K at MP is a big effort) but ultimately very beneficial and they feel great when you've completed them.
Is that right though? I thought they were based on a formula for how much you slow down in relation to distance (aka the Horwill clock thingy) - then granted, to keep the relationship going over very long distances a solid aerobic base is vital.
The way I've viewed the race time predictors when it comes to the marathon is always as a best case scenario. I don't think the predicted mara time is unrealistic per se, I just think that compared to other equivalent times (e.g. working out HM from a 10k, 10 mile time from 5k, etc) there are a few things that set the marathon apart...
- The usual caveat of "the athlete has to be adequately trained for the distance" is more important than ever. No matter what pace you try to maintain, one thing that affects performance during a marathon compared to shorter distances is pure fatigue. So even if you've got your effort level spot-on (e.g, in relation to running at a % of LT or whatever), the runner who manages to keep a steady pace throughout the race is the one who actually increases their effort towards the end, i.e. by definition they've left something in reserve; something they wouldn't need to do in shorter races. (If anyone has managed to race 26.2 miles without experiencing HR drift I take my hat off to them!)
- What time do you put in the race time predictor? Generally a pb. You might have run 4 x 10k in the past 6 months, but it's your 10k pb you plug in to the race time predictor. So what you're asking the predictor to do is work out what time might be possible, if race day conditions are as good as you've ever raced in and the day goes just as swimmingly well as it did when you sailed round your local park 10k and couldn't explain why you felt so good. Yes, this could conceivably happen on the perfect marathon day as well, but there are an awful lot more things that could go wrong too.
- pre-race prep. With the taper, carb load, big race logistics etc, I believe it's significant that the marathon, unlike shorter race distances, takes you out of your day-to-day routine, and that this can adversely affect your preparations in many different ways - feeling bloated on race morning, 'MP' not feeling as comfortable as it did in training and feeling heavy-legged by mile 10, etc. Again, you only get one chance at the marathon, yet it's the best-of-the-bunch of the little picture races that you use to plug in to the race time predictor.
So PRF ... whenever you talk about MP you mean your theoretical MP (5:54 in your case)?
Dan,
Yes, except its currently 6:24 (based on recent 5K/10K times) as I work my way back up there..........
Just to confuse the issue a bit - by the time I line up for the Amsterdam marathon in October I'd expect MP to be about 6:05 but that is NOT the pace that I expect to run the race at. MP+30secs/mile will be a great result if I can get anywhere near that.
Then, for VLM next year I'd be looking to get MP down to maybe the 5:54 you mention and reducing the differential down to MP+20secs/mile maybe.
Very simply, you're attacking your marathon time from 2 angles:
MP is a reflection of how your SPEED work has gone.
The MARGIN over MP is a reflection of how your ENDURANCE work has gone.
Good points, Phil.
For some people, and only for some periods of the year the marathon intensity may have to be nailed down to become a combination of an intensity to develop your fitness AND a race pace practice. At this point (imo) is where the confusion begins as it's dependent on what you used to calculate your marathon intensity initially and what you used to determine your marathon goal time. These paces could be the same, race MP could be quicker to reflect better fitness or even race MP could be slower if your ability to convert has been shown (through the training) to be questionable. For many marathoners, particularly inexperienced ones, this may be a firm decision point. For experienced marathoners it may be a case of don't sweat it and work it out close to race day or just trust the training and run the whole thing by feel.
But most of the time use it as another training intensity. A massively underrated one as well.