Wilson Kipsang's Training Schedule

The Animal Within wrote:

"For that reason, for example, all the athletes in Iten know that the appointment on Tuesday is at 7am on the track, or on Sunday is at 6:00 o'clock for going for long run, starting from the same point."

This is the key right here. A national culture! Could you imagine if we could get all the top runners in Portland or LA or New York (or wherever) to come together to train. College, youth, Olympians all meeting in one spot every week for training.

Instead we have colleges, sponsored training camps, HS teams all fighting for scraps. How good could HS kids be if instead of training solo with your team you are training all together. If we want to change the broken model this is how.

+1

Coach Canova I have a few questions regarding Wilson training, physiology, and your comments on this thread.

As you certainly know Stephan Seiler and some colleagues have shown the last ~12 years or so that the best endurance athletes do a large part of their training, 80% or more, at "low intensity", which for the physiologists means below their 1rst Ventilatory Threshold (VT1) or, quite equivalently, below their 1rst lactate threshold (LT1, defined as the point at which lactate starts to rise above resting levels) :

http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

They have a three-zone divisions to quantify intensity of training. Zone 1, below VT1/LT1 they call it "low intensity".

Zone 2, that they call "moderate intensity" is between VT1 and VT2 (VT2 being close to the MLSS).

And zone 3 ("high intensity") is all what is above MLSS.

Seiler and colleagues has thus found that ~80% of training (or more) of the best endurance athletes is done in zone 1 ("low intensity"), while the remaining ~20% or less is shared between zones 2 and 3.

In your post you mention that ~50% of the training of the best Kenyans is very easy running. I'm wondering wether your schedules, and the training of the best Kenyans marathoners (Wilson, Kimetto, etc.) follow Seiler's "80/20 rule", or if these animals are different than the rest of us ?

One of the keystone of your programs is the fast long runs, done just a bit slower than marathon pace (around 90-95% of MRP). Are these paces still below the VT1/LT1, so physiologically should be classified into the physiologists' zone 1 ("low intensity", even if, for these exceptional athletes, 90-95% of MRP is already quite fast and intense ) ?

A second question : I find it hard to analyse your schedules knowing than all training is done in altitude, and mostly on dirt track and not on nice asphalt roads. Which correction factor would you recommend to apply to the pace read from your program, to translate them into equivalent pace in race conditions (sea level, and modern tracks / asphalt roads) ?

A third question : what is approximately the intensity in the 1'/1' and 30''/30'' fartlek your mention, or in Wilson 2'/1' fartlek mentioned no the thursday of his schedule : is the pace "very fast" (3k or mile pace for these athletes), or is it something more gentle like closer to their 10k pace ?

Last : how fast are the long intervals we see on tuesday in Wilson schedule : is it some of your intervals with variations to learn the body to reuse lactates as a fuel, i.e. series of 1000m "fast" slightly above their half-marathon pace (a bit above their MLSS) followed by 1000m "slow" near their VT1 (a bit below their marathon pace) ?

Thanks a lot for all your insight.

To Head Coach, I'm not Canova but you can see a video of a Kenyan 2'/1' fartlek run here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shsKtA9yMuk

Wilson Kipsang is actually doing the workout, it's before his World Record but he had run 2:04 and he still doesn't lead the group!! The fast sections look incredibly fast to me, they are flying!! The slower bits are just a jog though. They're probably not too far off 800m for each 2 minute section on a dirt road that's very hilly. That video alone demonstrates Kenya's prowess, one of the best runners in the world, Kipsang, is in the middle of the group with a few no-names matching him. The vast majority fall off and die but the numbers are staggering!

These guys really are born to run.

I read the article from the link you posted and I have wondered about the philosophy of polarized training (ie huge volume of very easy running and a small volume of intense running) and whether this is the best way to train.

This is because, as you say, it seems to fly completely in the face of what Canova is proposing (ie continued improvement in well trained distance runners comes from running a higher proportion of running at higher intensities), what Lydiard and Ron Clarke proposed (ie run a lot at moderate intensities and keep pushing the speed up as you get fitter), and what Lagat is reported as doing (lower volume but allmost everything at moderate to high intensity), just to cite a few examples.

First thing, I've quoted only one review article by Seiler already from 5 years ago, but there has been several more studies by Seiler and others since then pointing in the same direction.

Quite a nice synthesis of all these studies may also be grasped from this conference video:

http://www.canal-insep.fr/fr/training-periodization-deep-root-cultural-heritage-and-innovative-paradigms-2013/ei_13_10_va_pr_stephen_seiler-mov

I should also mention Matt Fitzgerald latest book around this topic:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/80-20-running-matt-fitzgerald/1118663024?ean=9780451470881

Second thing, there is two different conclusions/models that came out from all these studies.

The first is the "80/20 rule", which states that most (~80%) of running should be done at "low intensity", i.e. below VT1/LT1.

The second conclusion which emerged, which is different (or complementary), is the "polarized training model", which states that you should avoid the "moderate intensity" zone, i.e. the zone between VT1/LT1, and VT2/MLSS.

If you combines the two rules, it means that the 20% which is not "low intensity" should be done at intensity than VT2 (into zone 3).

Now, I have two comments on that.

First comment, although there seems to be plenty of evidence now to support the "80/20 rule", I have some doubt that the "polarized training" model would be as general.

First, this model arose first from studies done mostly on events of short duration (a few minutes), like the ones reported on the 2009 revue I've mentioned (like track cycling, cross-country skying, rowing, mile racing, etc.). So, while it is very plausible that the polarized model is valid for short event, I have some doubt that it is a general rule for all events and all athletes.

And there is actually a disprove of it in Seiler conference (the video I mention above). Seiler mentioned at some point Ingrid Kristiansen training, and you can see that it is not at all polarized zone 1 - zone 3. She indeed did most running in zone 1, but in second in terms of % of total training time came zone 2 training, and she did only very little training in zone 3. But in the conference, you can see Seiler somehow "twisting" his model by stating that Kristiansen's training becomes MORE polarized when we approach competition, which is correct, however it never becomes REALLY zone1 - zone3 polarized...

Now, as I will comment below, the cases of the best African marathoners might not be the same, on the contrary of what we may think at first sight...

Second comment, as for the compatibility of the "80/20 rule" with the training of some of the very best current African runners, including Renato's champions.

This is precisely the question I'm wondering in my previous post: is this "80/20 rule" as general as all the studies have seems to show so far, or did the scientists miss some important datas, in particular the current best Kenyans marathoners (including Renato Canova's athletes) which may not be following this rule?

I do not have enough information on the physiology of these athletes to answer, thus my question to Renato. I hope than one day Seiler or somebody else will have the good idea to contact Renato and do the same kind of analysis on his best athlete, and honestly I would be surprised if it were not already ongoing...

In the mean time, we might have a clue from another exceptional athlete, Paula Radcliffe, on which we have much quite useful physiological datas thanks to Dr. Andrew Jones:

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/internationalexeter/documents/iss/paula_ijssc_paper.pdf

Before digging into the paper, let me mention that usually the following correspondance for the three physiological zones in terms of threshold and in terms of %HR is typically assumed, and observed for most runners:

- Zone 1 ("easy") | below VT1/LT1 | `` ~80 %HRM ;

- Zone 2 ("moderate) | between VT1/LT1 and VT2(RTC)/MLSS | between ~80 and 90% HRM ;

- Zone 3 ("high") | above VT2/MLSS | %%~90 %HRM

From Jone's paper on Paula, we can see:

1- from figure 8 that Paula's LT1 (the point at which her blood lactate rises above resting value) was extremely high in 2003, at ~18.5 km/h, i.e. at or very close to her marathon record pace, and I'll assume (but not being sure) that her VT1 is also at about the same speed ;

2- in the discussion (bottom of p111) Jones mention that she did a large amount of steady running (we know from her schedule that it could amount to ~35-40% of her total training time) between 16-18 km/h (3'40-3'20/km), which is just below her LT1 ;

3- In figure 7, we see that this precise range of speed (16-18 km/h) corresponds to already quite high Heart Rates, between ~170-180 bpm, so taken a HRM that we can estimate at ~200 bpm that it corresponds to ~85-90% of HRM.

So, as you can see, there is some mismatch when we try to attribute Radcliffe's "steady" training to one of the three defined zones:

- if we use the physiological definition based on VT1/LT1, this 16-18 km/h running should be classified to zone 1 (even if it is at the high end of it), and then as she only did very little training at higher speeds (~10-15% of her total training time faster than 18 km/h) then we can conclude that her training follow the "80/20 rule" ;

- however, if we use the %HR to qualify her training, then her "steady" training should be now classified into zone 2...

I haven't seen this mismatch in any other athletes, but I havent't seen such datas for other athletes as exceptional as Paula was in 2003.

My guess is that it might be the same for the very best current male Kenyans marathoners 100% specialized in this event, particularly someone like Wilson Kipsang or Kimetto, that they might have the particularity to show a very high LT1/VT1, which makes their training at paces just below marathon pace enter into zone 1, while at the same time being of high intensity if judge it through %HR levels attained at those speeds.

So if this is correct, looking back to Wilson Kipsang schedule, and assuming that his long and semi-long runs below 3'30/km (saturday and monday) are in this particular zone (right below VT1 for them = high end of zone 1), then the total amount of time spend in zone 1, if you add also all recovery runs, would be rather close to 85% of total training time, so his training might formally follow the "80/20 rule". And, if at the same time the remaining of the training is all above VT2/MLSS (which is the sense of another question I've asked Renato Canova in my previous post), then Wilson Kipsang training may also be qualified as fully polarized.

So, at the end, Seiler may be right, but the particularity of these champions compare to more "casual" runners would then be that a significant part of their zone 1 training is actually done at already fairly high intensity, if intensity qualified through %HR.

One more thing: a side conclusion (if I'm correct) is that the composition of Paula's training in term of weakly intensity distribution, i.e.:

- ~50% in low zone 1 (really slow),

- ~35-40% in high-end zone 1 (steady),

- ~10-15% in zone 3 (high),

...was basically the same as what Wilson Kipsang (and, I guess, Renato Canova's marathon runners) are doing. The difference being perhaps in the fine distribution of these intensities inside the week (as far as I know, but not being sure of, Paula did not seemed to modulate her training as strongly as what Renato do with his athletes in the last part of their marathon preparation).

Renato Canova,

I have to apologize, digging better into the forum I've found this detailed schedule and intensity distribution analysis of Moses Mosop 2011 preparation here:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4021862&page=2

There you clearly show that Mosop training (and, I guess, all your other plans) follow the "80/20 rule" not the way Paula did (with a significant amount of training right below a very high LT1), but with most of the 80% zone 1 training being true recovery runs (low end of zone 1).

Mosop plan depart also from Kipsang reported schedule.

However, in another thread you say:

“d) Physiologically speaking, this type of athletes are able running a HM near 6 mml of lactate, and their marathon is near 4 mml. In other words, if till 5 years ago the best marathon runners were DIESEL ENGINES, now are TURBO DIESEL (whar already happened with Paula Radcliffe).

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4011478#ixzz3F9XKQTfz

"

I'm afraid to say this is incorrect for Paula. As you can see from Jone's paper I mention above, Paula's marathon race pace is very close to her LT1 and correspond to lactate levels close to resting values (very far from 4mmol/l).

So it seems:

1- either that Paula was not a "TURBO DIESEL", but rather a "SUPER DIESEL" ;

2- or Paula pushed her ability to reuse lactate as fuel so high that her blood lactate was still close to resting value at her Marathon record pace (which may means that a LOT of lactate was reuse in the working muscles, making her a SUPER TURBO DIESEL then).

I tend to think the second option is probably the correct one (though we cannot tell from Jones' datas), as her LT1 was very high in intensity, ~88% HRM, and at this intensity it is difficult to believe that lactate production in muscles remains very low (option 1- might be correct if Paula's fibers type is almost 100% type I though...).

So in any case it seems that both training and physiology of Paula is different from yours and your marathon runner's.

Bump

bump

bump

I fatigue a little bit to understand the "zones" of physiologists. For example, the LT1 (which can be also defined as Aerobic Threshold in the common methodology)

is not something at "low intensity", but something we call "regeneration speed", since we don't find in this speed any goal to build-up a better endurance (we speak about very strong runners, of course, not about very Young runners, or amateurs).

About the Max LASS (or MLSS), I completely don't agree if we speak about top runners, since the MLSS is totally different in different athletes, depending on different individual qualities, and can be very much different in the same athlete, depending on his training in different periods.

Some year ago, I presented a study in the European Clinic for European Coaches about relation between the development of Strength Endurance and MLSS, showing as top athletes (the athletes followed in training for a period of about 3-4 months, during the development of their shape, were Shaheen in 2004, Nicholas Kemboi between his PB of 28'19" and 26'30" in 10000m, and James Kwalia between 7'38" and 7'28" in 3000m), where it's possible to see how the athletes build DIFFERENT MLSS, as level of lactate and duration. For example, for specialists of 10000m at their top shape, we can have the ability to remain at a level between 9 and 11 mml, without increasing in short time their lactate, for period of about 18 - 20 minutes, and this is a SPECIFIC MLSS (nothing to do with the MLSS of a Marathon runner).

My approach doesn't start from physiology, but from MATHEMATICS. With a type of training based on mathematic

level of speed, we go to change the ability of runners, in order to become able to run at higher speed WITH THE SAME INTERNAL LOAD.

I can give some example, since, also for problems of Language, can be for me difficult to explain my principles using a correct physiological terminology (my terminology is often different from the classic one used by physiologists).

I have an athlete able running 28'20" in 10 km, and I want to move him to HM and, after 6 months, to full Marathon.

I go to control his lactate, using 5 times 2000m at even pace (the pace of his PB, in this case 2'50" per km = 5'40") with 3' recovery, when he is the shape of his PB, and I see his lactate levels every time (for example,

6.5 for the first, then 7.6 - 8.8 - 10.2 - 13.0).

It's clear, with the continue increase of the level, that this pace is, at the moment, well faster than his MLSS.

I give him an objective goal of running, in 3 months time, a HM at 3% of speed SLOWER than his PB in 10000m at the moment (2'50" means 17" every 100m, 3% means about 5.0 per km slower = 2'55"), which is a PRACTICAL equivalence if the training is correct (61'32").

The development of training needs to look at more "zones" than the 3 zones of physiologists. We can't speak about zones having the same goal when the difference in speed is more than 5%, approaching the speed of the race.

In this case, which are the "zones" we can use ?

1. REGENERATION SPEED (or Speed 1 = S1)

every speed slower than 60% of the PB in 10000m (in this case : if 2'50" = 17" per 100m is 100%, 30% slower is [2'50" + (17" x 4)] 3'58").

Reasons / Effects :

Running at that speed (about 4' per km or slower) we don't build any specific ability, but put the athlete in a better situation for the next workout. If the athlete starts his training with a level of BASIC LACTATE of 1.3 mml, for example, at the end of his easy run his level decreases under 1.0. For that reason, we speak of REGENERATION.

In the training of ALL kenyan, the amount of regeneration mileage is between 50% and 60% of the total training mileage.

2. GENERAL / BASIC AEROBIC RESISTANCE SPEED (S2)

Every speed between 60% and 75% of the PB of 10000m (in this case, between 4' and 3'35").

Reasons / Effects :

This is the first step of real training, and of course concerns runs of long extension and duration (between 1 hr 20' and 2 hrs).

This is a kind of training ALL kenyan do once per week (normally on Monday), for every event (apart 800m), including specialists of 1500m (till 1 hr 30').

3. SPECIAL AEROBIC RESISTANCE SPEED (S3)

Every speed between 75% and 85% of the PB of 10000m (in this case, between 3'35" and 3'20" about).

Reasons / Effects :

this is the speed supporting the workouts of Aerobic Power under physiological and mechanical point of view. It's a training in total Steady State (SS), and increases the ability to remove lactate from muscle fibers.

4. GENERAL AEROBIC POWER SPEED (S4)

Every speed between 85% and 90% of the PB of 10000m (in this case, between 3'20" and 3'10" about).

Reasons / Effects :

this training (with continuous run of long duration) train muscle fibers to better substain lactate accumulation, and helps athletes to raise the LT).

This is a normal training for the best African runners, often made in progressive way (starting from S3 with final part of training faster)

5. SPECIFIC AEROBIC POWER SPEED (S5)

Speed between 90% and 94% of the PB of 10000m (in this case, between 3'10" and 3' about).

Reasons / Effects :

To build the MLSS for HM, increasing the velocity to remove lactate from muscle fibers.

About African runners, this is a training used about once every 10 days (increasing the distance), but several times they go for 20' / 30' at this speed at the end of progressive runs, specially when in big groups.

6. SPECIFIC AEROBIC POWER / LACTIC RESISTANCE SPEED (S6)

Speed between 94% and 98% of the PB of 10000m (in this case, between 3' and 2'53" about), including the SPECIFC HM SPEED.

Reasons / Effects :

To increase the ability of DURATION at targetted HM Speed.

This training lasts between 1/2 and 3/4 of the race duretion (30' - 45') , often is progressive, and trains fibers to increase the ability to work with accumulation of lactate.

7. LACTIC RESISTANCE/SPECIFIC LACTIC ENDURANCE SPEED (S7)

Speed between 98% and 102% of the PB of 10000m (in this case, between 2'53" and 2'46" about), including the SPECIFIC 10000m SPEED.

Reasons / Effects :

To increase the ability to PRODUCE lactate, since if the Lactic System is not used enough, the body loses the ability to produce lactate. Don't forget a part of lactate can be used as energy, and, if athletes are inhibited to produce it, they have at their disposal less source of energy.

8. SPEED (S8)

Speed faster than 102% of the PB of 10000m.

Reasons / Effects :

We use fast speed essentially for BIOMECHANICAL reasons :

short sprint uphill (for ability to recruit the highest percentage of fast fibers), medium and fast tests uphill of duration between 20" and 2' (for increasing muscle strength endurance), short intervals on track (200 - 400m) for creating feeling with high speed and easier technical action.

Sometimes we can use one session at that speed for stimulating the lactic system (for example, 2 sets of 10 times 300m in 44" / 42" with very short recovery), but this happens rarely, and only when we are FAR from the race.

How you can see, the big "zones" of physiologists are too general for considering as basis for building an advanced training plan for top athletes.

What happens following, with right combinations, a training including of the different speeds ?

Happens that, WITH THE SAME INTERNAL LOAD, athletes become able running faster. The level of lactate that at the beginning of the preparation the athlete reached during his 10000m is now lower (for example, repeating the test of 5 x 2000m in 5'40", with the same recovery, now we can have levels of mml as 4.5 - 5.4 - 6.6 - 7.8 - 9.4) and, if the athlete is able to reach THE SAME PEAK OF LACTATE AS BEFORE (for example, 14 mml), THIS MEANS HE CAN RUN AT THE SAME SPEED WITH LESS FATIGUE, SO CAN LAST LONGER AT THE SAME SPEED AND FASTER FOR THE SAME DURATION.

African athletes, following their feeling of fatigue (and, of course, correct ideas of training), go to build their ability changing their physiology, while athletes prepared with "scientific knowledge" depends on the CURRENT PHYSIOLOGICAL DATA for their training. This means a very slow way of improvement, while the room of improvement of an athlete is very much bigger than what normal people think, is we are able to stimulate the body with correct mix of high intensity, big extension, right recovery and right modulation.

As they say in chess...

!!

Thank you very much Renato for this answer. Your've made your 8 zones definition very clear to me.

So if I come back to Wilson Kipsang schedule which was at the origin of this thread (http://www.wilson-kipsang.com/news/training-schedule-of-wilson-for-this-week-4450), I would say that:

- his Monday run (below 3:30) corresponds to a run in high-end of your zone 2 ;

- Tuesday (10*1000 below 2'50) => in your zone 6 ;

- Wednesday => zone 1

- Thursday (fartlek) => zone 8?

- Friday => zone 1

- Saturday (35k in 1h54) => zone 3 - zone 4 (maybe 3 at the beginning, up to 4 at the end?)

Am I correct?

Last, the "steady runs" between 3'40-3'20 that Paula Radcliffe did on a regular basis at her best belongs to your zone 3 I guess (maybe finishing in low-end zone 4 at the end)?

Pretty cool stuf!!

Are you using the same definitions for marathons runners? I mean in terms of %PB marathon time?

These are the same zones for marathon preparation, but you can rather express them in terms of % of marathon race pace (MRP):

1. Slower than 70% of MRP

2. Between 70 and 85% of MRP

3. Between 85 and 92% of MRP

4. Between 92 and 97% of MRP

5. Between 100 and 103% of MRP

6. Between 103 and 107% of MRP

7. Between 107 and 111% % of MRP

8. Faster

Renata Canovo wrote:

These are the same zones for marathon preparation, but you can rather express them in terms of % of marathon race pace (MRP):

1. Slower than 70% of MRP

2. Between 70 and 85% of MRP

3. Between 85 and 92% of MRP

4. Between 92 and 97% of MRP

5. Between 100 and 103% of MRP

6. Between 103 and 107% of MRP

7. Between 107 and 111% % of MRP

8. Faster

This is interesting but these zones do look very difficult to apply accurately in reality. Unless you are doing your training around a track or a relatively flat perfectly measured road course.

For a "normal" amateur runner (not Renato's super élite runners), I would tend to propose them to train using the following heart-rate zones équivalents of Renato's zones :

- Zone 1 : 60-70% HRM

- Zone 2 : 70-77% HRM

- Zone 3 : 77-82% HRM

- Zone 4 : 82-86% HRM

- Zone 5 : 86-90% HRM

- Zone 6 : 90-93% HRM

- Zone 7 : 93-95% HRM

- Zone 8 : no HR control, use speed control (on track)

Polar ized wrote:

Renata Canovo wrote:

These are the same zones for marathon preparation, but you can rather express them in terms of % of marathon race pace (MRP):

1. Slower than 70% of MRP

2. Between 70 and 85% of MRP

3. Between 85 and 92% of MRP

4. Between 92 and 97% of MRP

5. Between 100 and 103% of MRP

6. Between 103 and 107% of MRP

7. Between 107 and 111% % of MRP

8. Faster

This is interesting but these zones do look very difficult to apply accurately in reality. Unless you are doing your training around a track or a relatively flat perfectly measured road course.

Yes exactly, this is why I asked the question to coach Canova: as he takes personal bests on races done on ideal conditions (flat course, sea level, asphalt roads or track) to use them for training is not-at-all-ideal conditions (more or less hilly, altitude, dirt tracks with holes), he must apply some coefficient of some kind to the paces.