A new way to train

xc56788 wrote:

I keep getting beaten by the same old local douchebags.

So does that make you the local Choad?

Down and out

why 6:30s? Why not slower or faster? Don't set a pace for your easy days.

Also, you'll get stale if you only work out at one pace. At least do strides or something.

I say 6:30's because it's what feels "reasonably easy." I I let myself go, I'd probably just jog 8 minute miles which is why 5 minute pace feels like a sprint come race day.

The thing is, I'm trying to train so that 5 min. pace feels easy, atleast for 3/4 of the race. 8 min. pace for 60-70% of my weekly mileage isn't going to cut it I'm afraid. Well, it hasn't quite frankly

xc56788 wrote:

8 min. pace for 60-70% of my weekly mileage isn't going to cut it I'm afraid. Well, it hasn't quite frankly

Are you a female?

8min miles, and you discuss that you're training for 5 & 10k's. Thats extremely slow i have to say.

Ah we have another one looking for the shortcut.

No I'm a male.

If we're going to talk about what feels really easy then it's 8:00 pace. Anything lower than that requires some sort of concerted effort for me even if it's not all that much.

Maybe its because you don't listen to me and go flying off the line like a jack@$$.

Congratulations you have made the correct decision to change things up because you mush believe in what you are doing for it to work. Now the question is are you smart enough to do it right? Your comments indicate that you are trying to use your brain to assimilate a variety of ideas into a new training plan.

Why? Over 10 or 20 years, you might get lucky and stumble onto the best training for you. But, 1000s of runners do ideal training by listening to coaches or faster runners who already know how to train. It is much easier to find a coach or mentor than to learn enough to coach yourself reading the internet and experimenting. If your goal is to get faster finding someone to help you is the only sensible plan.

All due respect, your idea is nothing new; most athletes and coaches tried that in the 1950s or even pre WWII. We found out, however, that athletes who had built aerobic base by doing lots of slower running, such as Elliot and Snell, beat them. And today we are seeing athletes from Africa who had been running lots of mileages when they were growing up meat those who are just as fast but without good aerobic base.

Your idea sounds fine but very much backward thinking if you haven't noticed. If you've been doing lots of running for the last 5 years, you may actually produce some decent results by switching to all-fast repeat type of training program simply because that had given you good base. But that would be short-lived.

If all those "same old local douchebags" always beat you, perhaps it may pay you to ask them what they do in their training. You may learn a thing or two from them. Otherwise, good luck to you. Let us know how your "new" training idea is working. Maybe if it works out so great, you can write a book about it though we highly doubt it. You heard it from the rest of us; it ain't nothing new. It didn't work and it wouldn't work.

xc5689,

the plan looks good, but two hard sessions per week is too compressed.

Keep the progression you've mapped out, but give your body time to adapt to the hard sessions. Place them every 7 -10 days. Keep the long run and base mileage. Just add one high end aerobic run each week and I think you'll like the results.

Canova, Hudson and others have used similar specific endurance progressions successfully.

I've also used them with the highschool cc and track kids I coach and they work very well--especially with kids who stagnate with lots of threshold and VO2 max work.

Good luck (and screw all of the flippant pricks on the board)

1) you say you "need to to do more race-specific and pace-specific training. 5:00 pace for a 5K and 5:20 pace for a 10K needs to feel comfortable." ...

so I assume you are focusing on 5k/10k road racing? So how is 63-sec 400s race-specific or pace-specific?

Also, if you COULD do 8x800 at 2:20 you are in way better shape than 15:30. The workouts you have are good, but I am not sure you have the goal times right.

400s at 63 are worth about 2:14-16 for 800 and even 2:20-level for 800s is more like 4:48-50 for 1600s.

GET A COMPETENT COACH and PERIODISE your training.The essence of Lydiard system.

Aerobic training merely gets you to a state that allows you to take the more specific 5-10K race training without breaking down.

You probably have a reasonable aerobic base judging by the work outs you quote,so should be able to move to a more specific race distance training regime for a period prior to your particular race(s) aim.

Your decision to introduce the shorter intervals into your schedule is wise as you sound as if you need to get some improved lactic tolerance.Be careful though as you do not need many weeks of such work to bring you on.Good luck.

I agree with the concept of doing specific race-paced training, but I'm having trouble following where the 63 second 400's and 2:20 800's fit into that. Twenty or so years ago, when I was YoungXCguy, I used to race at just about the paces you mention; but I could never have done either of those workouts. On the other hand, I would often do workouts like 5-6 x 1600/400 in around 5:15; or 6 x 800 in the high 2:20's, with 1000's and 1200's somewhere in between. In addition, I did weekly tempo runs of 4-10 miles at sub-6:00 pace.

I would suggest you check out Brain Training for Runners by Matt Fitzgerald. While I must admit to not having made it all the way through, he talks a lot about race-paced training. In fact, I believe it is the cornerstone of his training priniciples.

I wish you the best of luck.

Many of you have replied in helpful fashion. Thank you.

To those who are asking why I've chosen those workout paces: Although I'm geared more towards the 5K because there's more of those for a local road warrior like myself,

I also want to be able to run around 4:20 in the mile. This, I've always believed would make me a stronger 5000 meter runner anyway. Most guys that I know which are sub-15 or even sub 15:20 can run close to a 4:20 mile. My time right now is 4:36.

I've thought about getting a coach but it would have to be someone who could be present at my workouts and where I live that's just not available at my level. I would hate just getting online schedules. For that I can go read a book!

Someone mentioned that my kind of training has already been employed pre-War II. I did read about the likes of Zatopek and always found his methods quite intriguing.

I'm not denying the importance of building a strong aerobic base. I just feel that my "workouts" should follow a systematic progression. Anyone else agree with a previous poster that 2 400m sessions in one week plus a long run might be too much? The rest could be recovery runs at around 6:30 pace.

Every word you write shows that you are confused about training and trying to reinvent the wheel. You don't have to have a coach that is one on one or is even present at your workouts. There should be a group near you with a coach that would help/ let you run at the back of their pack. If not, look for someone local that you can bring the results of your workouts to and talk to about what to do next.

Just from the little you have written, I can tell and I can not stress this enough, YOU can not read books and get there any time soon. I don't mean this as an insult. It has been said that training is not rocket science and that is the point. Everything that is known about rocket science has been written down. If you wanted to fly rockets, I would say knock yourself out reading a couple of years from now you will be flying rockets.

Lots of people have written good books about training. Just reading half of them carefully will take years. Trying to put together the parts will take more years. Once you get that far you will find that very few words have been written about how to determine which training works for which runner. Even less has been written about how to listen to your body to determine if you can do more or should do less in any specific circumstance.

Eventually you might figure it out reading books and Letsrun, but, the point is a coach can get you beyond the trial and error stuff and help you improve quickly.

I've been coached before, but it didn't work out because the coach didn't take me seriously.

Bad experience, I guess.

But I stand by the conviction that a coach needs to know all the ins-and-outs about your training, way of life, outside stressors, diet, etc.

I don't think it's as simple as running at the back of a pack.

Your choice would seem to be a coach who knows less about your life or you who knows much less about training. If your only goal is to get faster, you must keep trying coaches. Finding a good coach may be hard but learning to coach is harder. The point of the suggestion to run at the back of a pack was not to become a minor part of the pack but to get you to consider talking to coaches you wouldn't consider otherwise.

I used to have similar problems to you. Your problem sounds like an underdeveloped aerobic system. I'll suggest what worked for me. I COMPLETELY binned the intervals workouts for a few months, upped my mileage and ran a lot of high-end aerobic runs (e.g. 10miles at 5:50-6:10 min/mile for a 31-32 10k guy). Not only did my staying power in longer races improve, I actually got significantly faster over shorter distances without doing any workouts at all. Doesn't make sense, but it worked.