5K training vs. marathon training

I am a Daniels guy, so what you will hear from me will be very similar to what you would read in Daniels' book.

When I am 5k training, I like a bit of speed work (200s/400s at mile race pace) early in a training cycle. I like a big block of vo2max work (longer intervals at 5k pace) right in the middle. Tempo efforts are incorporated throughout, usually once a week. I usually close out a training cycle with a combination of 200s/400s and race simulation workouts. A training cycle might be as long as 18 weeks, but can be as short as 10-12 weeks.

When marathon training, 200s/400s go out the window. I do one vo2max block early on (from 18 weeks out from the marathon through 13 weeks out), then it is all tempo, all the time. The point of that is to improve my anaerobic threshold so that I can run at a faster pace and stay aerobic - which is the key to the marathon. For elites, getting in some faster stuff during marathon training would still be important as they will want to be well positioned to throw in and respond to surges; but for age groupers shooting to run their best possible time with a steady and consistent effort, vo2max intervals late in a marathon cycle don't give you nearly as much bang for the buck as long tempo sessions.

You could imitate what guys in the 60s and 70s, guys like Shorter, Moore, Virgin, Ron Hill, etc., did and train yourself as a distance runner rather than for a specific event. People raced all across the spectrum then and did fine.

So, is your argument that there is no difference in training and skill set required for a 5k and a marathon? Or is it that specialization for a specific distance is the wimpy coward’s way out? You know “that’s how we used to do it” isn’t always the best way to do it…right? Did it produce better football when players played both offense and defense? Clearly no, that’s why they don’t do it anymore.

If a 5k is 90% Aerobic and a Marathon 99% Aerobic someone could train very similarly except for a few differences and be in shape to do fairly well in both. Not to mention everything in between.

Sure. You guys are using adjectives like "fairly well" and "fine." I'll agree their close enough to the same event for those descriptors. I'm sure the OP and the rest of us all strive for "decent". I know being my most "acceptable" is what gets me out of bed at 5:00 to go for a run.

The OP is asking about training for a wide range of races simultaneously. People used to do that and did pretty well. I said nothing about anything being better, about wimpy cowards or anything along those lines. I answered a question and even if I didn't have a perfect answer it's probably more helpful than your reply. Do you have any suggestions for the OP?

And I think football was a MUCH better game when players played offers and defense. There's no way you'd have 300 pound plus guys in the game.

Ah, now your response makes more sense, but the OP asked for the exact opposite of that...

Midwestern Runner wrote:

I feel like I have two more marathons left in me, a BQ race and Boston itself. I'm at 65-70 mpw, with mile repeats and a race pace run as workouts each week. After those races, I want to dedicate myself to 5Ks. (I'm a 40-year-old male, FWIW.)

I know there are programs like Daniel's, but I'm interested in people's personal experiences. How do you successfully train for 5Ks as compared to marathons?

...and by "better football" I mean "more successful football" as in - if you're looking to win or have the best possible team is it better to have specialized players or all-around players. Objectively it's better to have specialized players. The argument over what's more enjoyable to watch is obviously way more subjective.

BTW, I haven't bothered answering OP's question because I think Smoove sufficiently answered it.

I didn't read the original post this way at all. OP just asked how people trained differently for different events.

HRE wrote:

The OP is asking about training for a wide range of races simultaneously.

Upon further review, I think you read it more accurately than I did. Never mind.

But I still think football was a much better game when guys played both ways.

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

Sure. You guys are using adjectives like "fairly well" and "fine." I'll agree their close enough to the same event for those descriptors. I'm sure the OP and the rest of us all strive for "decent". I know being my most "acceptable" is what gets me out of bed at 5:00 to go for a run.

Are Shorter and Ron Hill's results not "acceptable" enough for you?

70s Style wrote:

If a 5k is 90% Aerobic and a Marathon 99% Aerobic someone could train very similarly except for a few differences and be in shape to do fairly well in both. Not to mention everything in between.

True. Most hobbyists are in better 5K shape when training for a marathon than what they would call "5K training." For some, "5K training" is just an excuse to do less miles.

Speaker of hard truths wrote:

Most hobbyists are in better 5K shape when training for a marathon than what they would call "5K training." For some, "5K training" is just an excuse to do less miles.

I would also agree with this, but would take it to it's logical conclusion and say that this means they're training non-ideally, not that there's no opportunities available for optimization in 5k vs marathon training.

more rhetorical questions wrote:

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

Sure. You guys are using adjectives like "fairly well" and "fine." I'll agree their close enough to the same event for those descriptors. I'm sure the OP and the rest of us all strive for "decent". I know being my most "acceptable" is what gets me out of bed at 5:00 to go for a run.

Are Shorter and Ron Hill's results not "acceptable" enough for you?

Salazar ran 13:11 and 27:25 (when WRs were 13:00 and 27:22) in 1982 between marathon wins in Boston and New York. And he was very slow-footed (57 seconds for 400).

Speaker of hard truths wrote:

70s Style wrote:

If a 5k is 90% Aerobic and a Marathon 99% Aerobic someone could train very similarly except for a few differences and be in shape to do fairly well in both. Not to mention everything in between.

True. Most hobbyists are in better 5K shape when training for a marathon than what they would call "5K training." For some, "5K training" is just an excuse to do less miles.

Absolutely. My track times got much faster when I began training for marathons. Do your "marathon" training but do some shorter, faster, reps in place of longer ones.

Just as an interesting aside: under the VDOT tables, those 5000m and 10,000m performances are almost exact equivalents. The equivalent marathon would be 2:06:28. AlSal ran 2:08 mid to high in his Boston and NYC marathons which would suggest that maybe he wasn't optimally trained for both the shorter track distances and the marathon distance.

I know that's a bit flawed as the Boston race was the Duel in the Sun and weather very likely played more of a role in the relatively slow times than preparedness did, but it is still interesting, especially since none of his other marathons were any faster than 2:08:13 (which was apparently runnin a short course, and "should've" been 2:08:40).

Speaker of hard truths wrote:

70s Style wrote:

If a 5k is 90% Aerobic and a Marathon 99% Aerobic someone could train very similarly except for a few differences and be in shape to do fairly well in both. Not to mention everything in between.

True. Most hobbyists are in better 5K shape when training for a marathon than what they would call "5K training." For some, "5K training" is just an excuse to do less miles.

I figured someone would pipe up with this.

Look, if the answer is, "Keep running 70 miles," I'll keep running 70 miles. I have no problem with it.

But if it's better to do, say, a second speed workout than a long run, if it optimizes my training, I'd like to know that.

Sometimes this site thinks nobody else wants to work hard.

Midwestern Runner wrote:

I feel like I have two more marathons left in me, a BQ race and Boston itself. I'm at 65-70 mpw, with mile repeats and a race pace run as workouts each week. After those races, I want to dedicate myself to 5Ks. (I'm a 40-year-old male, FWIW.)

I know there are programs like Daniel's, but I'm interested in people's personal experiences. How do you successfully train for 5Ks as compared to marathons?

Long runs don't need to be so long. Quite a few hard 4-6 mile runs. Some hard hill repeats.

Lurker wrote:

Just as an interesting aside: under the VDOT tables, those 5000m and 10,000m performances are almost exact equivalents. The equivalent marathon would be 2:06:28. AlSal ran 2:08 mid to high in his Boston and NYC marathons which would suggest that maybe he wasn't optimally trained for both the shorter track distances and the marathon distance.

I know that's a bit flawed as the Boston race was the Duel in the Sun and weather very likely played more of a role in the relatively slow times than preparedness did, but it is still interesting, especially since none of his other marathons were any faster than 2:08:13 (which was apparently runnin a short course, and "should've" been 2:08:40).

Also AlSal was just a mental beast. He could will himself wayyyyy past what most guys could handle. He almost killed himself running a few times, and ruined his body in the process.