How to approach training in 2018?

would I be better off having an 8-9 week specific training block for the 10k in August, and then another specific block for the half in November? Or should I just start base building after the 5k for the half training and then start Pfitz's 11 week plan after that?

honest answer: you're not fit enough for it to make any difference.

just start base building and progress towards the half marathon, your goal, and incorporate the 5km and 10km races into your build up. I haven't read Pfitz's book but I imagine that he has you do races at shorter distances as you progress towards your goal. do that. and don't read too much into the times you run in those races. they are not scrolls of wisdom handed down though the ages, they are races, that you are supposed to enjoy. because racing is fun.

cheers.

Cottonshirt wrote:

honest answer: you're not fit enough for it to make any difference.

just start base building and progress towards the half marathon, your goal, and incorporate the 5km and 10km races into your build up. I haven't read Pfitz's book but I imagine that he has you do races at shorter distances as you progress towards your goal. do that.

Honesty is appreciated - you're not going to hurt my feelings.

In Pfitz's base building schedules, there aren't too many workouts incorporated, even when considering the gradual increase in mileage. What input would you give for that time period, given that I've been through marathon training before where I went up to 65 mpw with workouts and didn't experience any trouble?

Anybody else have any input?

I like Cottonshirt's responses and usually agree with him, although this time I differ just slightly. In terms of fitness, maybe it doesn't matter. But if it were me, I'd do a serious 10K buildup and then a serious HM buildup with the time you have to work with. The weather's nice, and November's a long ways to go with just one main racing goal. Mentally, I think you'll do better focusing first on one, then the other. 10K and HM training aren't all that different, but you'll get do more work at a slightly faster pace for a while before shifting into HM training. If the 10K is big enough to warrant a serious buildup, I'd guess it will be more fun for you if you focus your training on it. (But if it's just 30 guys from work, none of whom run, there's nothing wrong with just training through it, either.)

So maybe it's more about how you respond best mentally rather than physically.

It's the city of Indianapolis' corporate challenge, so it's a big thing. Last year the 10k winner ran 30:40 (and then ran a 15:40 a half hour later), so I'm definitely not looking for bragging rights about winning a small race. I just thought training for it seriously might provide a good chance for a solid 10k with strong competition.

I also kind of agree with the length of time you reference, too - I'm not sure I want to go 5 months until my goal race if I can fit something in between that's not drastically different.

there aren't too many workouts incorporated, even when considering the gradual increase in mileage.

like I said, I haven't read Pfitz's book, but a very common piece of training wisdom is that you should alter only one of the variables at a time; volume, intensity, or frequency. therefore, when building mileage, there won't be too many workouts in anybody's program. once you've built your base, and can hold that mileage whilst recovering well and remaining injury free, then is the time to start layering in the other training intensities. I think that's why it's called base.

I didn't give any more specific advice because:

a. your specific question was "would I be better off having an 8-9 week specific training block..." etc, and that was the question I tried to answer. I tend to think that folks would prefer you to answer the question they asked.

b. you said you were going to follow Pfitz's plan and wanted to, "get the most out of a Nov. 3rd half marathon." in my opinion, the way to get the most out of the half is to train specifically for it and treat this "corporate challenge" 10k as an opportunity to have a hard indicator workout 8 weeks out. you could, for example, usefully use it to refine/revise your taper so that it works for you at your current fitness level.

in contrast to my 2c, I personally find it easier to focus on one goal at a time, and training for a long period with only a distant goal to aim for suits me just fine because I feel that I am homing in on something from a long way out, somewhat like a guided missile. whereas switching from one short-term aim to another every 6 - 8 weeks feels like a series of disconnected steps that only ended up at my current destination by mistake.

my goal race this year, for example, is in September. and I started focusing on that on 11 July last year. folks who think they can do a 9-week "special block" and set a pb amuse me no end, training doesn't work like that, and I generally do not reply to those kind of threads for that reason.

cheers.

That was kind of the gist of my original question. Granted, I'm not a seasoned runner, but I've never gone through a 2-3 month time period only running general aerobic runs with only one workout every 10 days or so. I'm not sure that would be very mentally engaging for me. I was more so leaning towards "building a base" by maintain the intensity and frequency I have now, while conservatively introducing more miles, which seems in line with what you said above.

That sounds like a good way to approach it and hence my question. I wasn't sure how much training difference there would be in an 8 week "specific block" leading up to a 10k, compared to increasing my base while maintaining workouts. My gut told me not a lot and that's why I wanted to see what others would say.

Not sure if you intended it this way, but no need to get a little snarky. I was curious for other viewpoints based on a decision I haven't made yet. Certainly wasn't trying to post one of those "just ran 4 mile tempo in XX:XX on a hilly route in 110 degrees. What can I run in a 5k?" where there's no context and someone's just looking to confirm what they already think.

Appreciate the input from you both! Anybody else?

I think you're getting good advice from both Cottonshirt and 2c. If you find 2c's answer more to your taste, then by all means go with it, but try to appreciate the insight that Cottonshirt is offering you, too.

Just to add another perspective: In general, I think you should do what you want to do. This is supposed to be fun, right? That being said, it's important to be clear with yourself about what it is that you really want to do. Given the question you're asking, it seems like that's something you might want to push yourself on a bit more. At the start of your initial post, you say that you want to train to get the most out of your performance in the early November half. Totally legitimate goal. But then you go on to say that you want to put in a specific training cycle geared to a 10k in late August. Also a totally legitimate goal, but as you seem to recognize, a goal that would impact your base buildup for the half. That's a significant consideration, given that you find longer races more challenging. But the bigger point that I'm trying to make is that you seem somewhat undecided between whether you want to train for a peak performance or for a longer and more versatile racing season. Again, both are totally legitimate goals, and there are a variety of ways to strike a balance between them. But be clear with yourself about what it is you really want to do.

This kind of leads into another question. You say that you're targeting a half, and that you have a lifetime goal of breaking 3:00 in the marathon. (Something that should be entirely achievable with smart, consistent training.) But at the same time, you describe yourself as being comparatively strong at shorter distances and comparatively weak at longer ones. This brings up two thoughts for me. First, I question whether you have enough evidence to conclude that you have a greater aptitude for the shorter races than you do for the long ones. If you've only been running seriously since 2015, and your training apart from your more recent marathon cycle has been relatively low mileage, then I would suggest that you've simply lacked the training for the longer distances, which doesn't necessarily mean that you lack the aptitude. Maybe you just prefer racing and training the shorter distances? If that's the case, that's totally cool, but then why are you talking about making a half marathon your goal race for the fall? Why not go for a peak 10k, if that's really your thing? And - getting to my second thought - if you are really serious about doing your best in the marathon, or even the half marathon, then stop telling yourself that you are weaker in longer distances! Build a mental path toward achieving your goal, not a barrier in the way of it!

Speaking here as someone who has spent plenty of time noodling around with his own running and has lost more than one race to the nattering nabobs of negativity...

I think you got me. I thought about this a little bit more and after reading yours and Cottonshirt's responses again, I think I was trying to have my cake and eat it too. I will be totally content taking the time I would have used to train for the 10k and instead base build for a higher-mileage (for me, 60-70 mpw) half training plan, which will probably better serve me both in the short term for the fall and for the long term.

As for the aptitude in shorter vs. longer distances, you're probably right. However, I do know there are specific things I'll need to work into the half build-up and whenever my next marathon is to combat cramps, not just a smaller aerobic base. I had issues with them playing basketball and tennis in school and I think I'm just a little more predisposed to it than others.

But that's a topic for another thread. Thanks to all for your helpful input.

never got why "hobby joggers" (and I use that term in a non-derogatory sense here) focused on longer distances. Sub 3 is super basic: all the hobby joggers shoot for it. But with your 5k time, you could go mid-low 16s in a few years maybe. What 3 hour guy you see at local races can do that? you'll be mixing it up at local 5ks. Honestly, if you could break 16, that would be many, many, many times more impressive than running 6:50 pace for 26 miles.

but if that's your goal, which I totally respect running the distance you love and not necesarilly the one you are good at, - seeing as you are worse at long distances, you just need more aerobic base. just run long for now and like you said, get more specific when you get towards your race. you could probably improve your half and full if you did some 60-70 mile weeks.

Very fair point. If I'm being perfectly honest, when I first started I saw a decent marathon time as more impressive than a relatively faster 5k time because of the time/dedication I assumed it typically takes to nail a marathon. Even though most experienced runners would simply just say to look at the equivalent times from a mid 16 5K against a sub3 and it's clear which one's more impressive. I just know that there are people who come from a running background and could put down a 16:XX 5k without much training or effort. However, at this point it's probably more of a personal challenge since my first two bouts didn't go very well. The hope would be that between now and (hopefully) when that goal is reached, I'll be able to see my times drop in shorter distances and I'll have chances to lock more in on that over time.

fair enough. You are right about the dedication and the time. My 4:59 mile is equivalent to a sub 2:50 but obviously it would take me a long time to get the aerobic ability to run that (if I tried to run a marathon right this instant, i'd be looking at 3:30+).

Happy to be helpful, and hope you have a great half! Just picking up on your conversation with epic, I wanted to point out that your training for the half could certainly set you up well to run some fast times in shorter distances a little further down the road. And that, again, could set you up well to take on something longer again in the future. In short, it doesn't need to be an either/or, at least not in the big picture, and in fact the shift of emphasis between speed and endurance can be helpful to your overall progress.