Road Racing and Training Thread Week Ending 08/05/2018

Thanks very much, guys. The achilles felt better this morning. It did a little squawking in the first mile, and then nothing after that. Better temps today, but the wind on the way back kicked my can...6.5 at 6:48 overall. The new shoes and insoles should arrive today.

Tdr - The new shoes are only 4mm drop (not high offset), as are my Kinvaras (also 4mm). There is something I just do not like about running in high offset shoes. My Speed Rivals (10mm) are okay, but they tend to break down on the medial side on me. Perhaps a combination of the upper and my pronation.

I found this.

I was reading an article on the guy who came up w doing heel drops for Achilles problems. It was interesting.. basically - Clif Notes - he was a runner and kept having Achilles problems. His ortho or whatever wouldnt do the surgery on it so he thought Eff this I will just work it until it snaps and then he will fix it.. So he started doing weighted heel drops but instead of breaking it got better.

RRR I could be wrong but midportion responds better to eccentric heel drops than the insertional kind. It’s still better than nothing though

Coach Jeff ROC wrote:

I kept waiting for your race report... so much so that I went back and searched through the thread! Turns out I missed it way back on page 1, right after I posted!

Congrats on the PR and the victory! It's a good omen for a great autumn!

Thanks, Coach Jeff!

Yesterday was very encouraging, as well. Did 3xmile with 600m jog in 5:57, 5:56, 5:53. First time I've had three consecutive sub-6 miles. I was anticipating 6:0x. I'm feeling the progress!

Breakthroughs are really satisfying, whether in training or racing. Nice work!

RunGuy Midwest wrote:

Yesterday was very encouraging, as well. Did 3xmile with 600m jog in 5:57, 5:56, 5:53. First time I've had three consecutive sub-6 miles. I was anticipating 6:0x. I'm feeling the progress!

Very nice, RunGuy! That's what I was looking for a couple weeks ago, but couldn't manage it. This is what I like about this thread - others with similar goals and at near-identical fitness levels. Nice to be able to make 1-to-1 comparisons.

There's the 3-hour marathon group (and fantasy land wannabes like me), several 16:45 5K guys, the 2:38-2:45 marathoners ... and, of course the really fast fellas, too.

Allen1959 wrote:

RunGuy Midwest wrote:

Yesterday was very encouraging, as well. Did 3xmile with 600m jog in 5:57, 5:56, 5:53. First time I've had three consecutive sub-6 miles. I was anticipating 6:0x. I'm feeling the progress!

Very nice, RunGuy! That's what I was looking for a couple weeks ago, but couldn't manage it. This is what I like about this thread - others with similar goals and at near-identical fitness levels. Nice to be able to make 1-to-1 comparisons.

There's the 3-hour marathon group (and fantasy land wannabes like me), several 16:45 5K guys, the 2:38-2:45 marathoners ... and, of course the really fast fellas, too.

Thanks, Allen! And OR!

Having a group to compare notes to is extremely helpful. This, of course, is only one data point among many on a beautiful morning. Need to keep that in mind for both the good days and the clunkers. I was happy to slog out 5 at a near 9 minute pace this morning - sometimes I'll literally talk out loud on my solo runs to make sure my breathing is as comfortable as I think it is. Amazing to hear OR bang out sub-7 paced runs days after day. And now he's showing off the delicious beers that welcome him home!

Thanks, RGM. Doubled again...6.5 at 6:48 this morning and then 4.5 at 6:38 before dinner. Achilles stung in the first mile of the second run, and then calmed down. Having a WR Red Ale right now.

OR. I am def the opposite of you and a tried and true early more empty gut runner. When I double like today I never feel as good the second run. Always feel fat and heavy. I like that early morning light feeling.

Lunch runs are good for me in winter but even then it’s a super light breakfast and nothing else until after I run

Had Insertional Achilles Tendonosis for twenty years before finally seeking help. Found out I had almost zero dorsflexion . You can easily test for dorsflexion by standing against a wall with toes about 5 inches away from wall. Bend at knee with out lifting your heal off ground. If you cant easily touch wall with knee, you have poor dorsflexion. Google "Improving Dorsflexion Exercises. I cant begin to tell you how much this has helped. I went from only being able to stand 1" from wall to over 8 inches.

Interesting. I just tried that test without any preliminary stretching. 2.5" and I can barely scrape the paint. Any exercises you found particularly helpful?

Do you guys feel like this is a good sub-3 predictor? Or just a good workout?

My question above refers to this 3x1mile discussion.

It is just a good workout. It is a better measure of 5k fitness, which is far less aerobically slanted than the marathon. In Daniels terms, it is a good measure of vo2max, but vo2max is only indirectly related to marathon performance.

That being said, it indicates roughly 18:30 5k shape, and using the tables, that converts to 2:57. So assuming that you can convert your present fitness to marathon fitness via training oriented for that distance, increased mileage, etc., I would think it would make sub 3:00 a very good starting place for a goal.

100% agree with Smoove. That is a very nice workout but lower in volume (18:00 of quality running), which speaks well of 5k fitness but is a far cry from running 3:00:00 at a set pace.

There are speed-oriented runners and strength-oriented runners and neutral runners...you could take that workout ability and get 3 vastly different marathon outputs depending on the rest of a given runner’s training schedule and ability.

One way I like to look at it is this...you need at least 3 reliable data points to tell you that you are ready to run a marathon at a given pace.

1) A data point like the one mentioned (3 x 1mi at ~6:00/mi off 3:00-3:30 recovery jogs). This tells you that you have the basic speed and leg turnover to run sub 3.

2) A medium data point - something like 7 mile continuous tempo at 6:30-6:35/mi, or 2 x 5mi at 6:35-6:40/mi off a 5:00 jog recovery. This tells you that you have the basic strength to run a sub 3.

3) A long moderately hard run, like 17-18mi @ 7:15-7:30/mi. This tells you that you have the strength endurance to run sub 3.

Obviously the more data points in between you have, the more reliable the prediction. Which is why I favor the spectrum of paces approach by Canova. It is like having 12-15 different data points from the basic speed side of the spectrum to the strength endurance side of the spectrum.

Is there one single indicator workout that is a guarantee sub 3 predictor? Yes...1 x 26.2mi at 6:52/mi off zero recovery jogs. :)

But seriously, a single speed workout indicates nothing by itself. A single long endurance workout indicates nothing by itself. 10 workouts along the spectrum that, when plotted like an X/Y graph, line up like a soldier of data points all pointing to sub 3? Much more reliable.

But at the heart of it, 3 solid data points in the speed/strength/endurance zones is much more reliable than one data point, though not as reliable as 10 or more data points, obviously...

Smoove&Stone Cutter: I understand the concept of race time "translation;" there's always the "if properly trained for the given race" caveat. Stone Cutter's point about having different speed, strength, and endurance data is a good point for trying to translate up from 5k to a marathon pace. I'm a data hound and it's really easy for me to compare my current self to my previous self. The tech makes it easy to accumulate, but it takes careful analysis to make sense of it and I think I've become pretty good at that aspect.

I've been playing around in this monthly 5k series without training for maximizing my performance at the 5k distance. So when I see my 5k result, I don't regard it as my best 5k. It's my "5k result off of base training." So it's all a kind of fuzzy. Would you guys agree with the following?

If I run 5k in 18:30 without doing 5k specific training (say, during marathon training), it's a stronger indication of a 2:57 marathon than the same time run by someone who was working specifically on the 5k.

Does that question make sense?

I appreciate the feedback.

Again, I would be hesitant to say that any 5K time is a predictor of any kind of marathon time without knowing more about that particular runner's overall training plan.

But to your particular question...I think what you are really asking is this: Is an 18:30 5k achieved by a more strength-oriented runner a better harbinger for a sub-3 marathon than an 18:30 5k achieved by a speed-oriented runner? I would say yes. In fact, that is why it is important to have as many data points to go by, because typically a strength-based runner is going to have slower shorter-distance ability and a speed-based runner is going to have slower longer-distance ability. There used to be a poster on this thread (I think his name was Des) who, at the time was a 1:13 mid-high HM guy, but he could run 2:30 low for the marathon. A classic strength guy. Which is why it wasn't crazy for him to chase sub-230 without the faster data points. All of the data points for his longer workouts fell on that sub-230 track, while all of the data points for his shorter workouts were way off the sub-230 track.

So assuming all of the other training an athlete is doing is geared toward the marathon, and there are data points at medium and long distances to support sub-3, and he/she has done little to no 5k-specific training but can manage an 18:30 5K...yes, I would say that is a good sign for sub-3.

My gut reaction was the same as Stone's, with maybe a slightly different take.

First, all other things being equal, I think the answer to your question is a simple "yes."

An untrained 5k time run off of base training would rely less on the-relatively-low-applicability-to-the-marathon vo2max improvements that come from 5k training specific training, and thus be a better indicator of generalized running fitness.

But here is where I get to the point Stone raises: it is a somewhat better indicator, but how much is too individualized to make it a home run indicator. Saying it with a different slant than Stone, and, of course, looking at it through a Daniels lens, I would use myself as an example. We each have different untrained baselines for vo2max and lactate threshold. We also differ in the degree to which those features are trainable. Based on my running history - in my first serious organized race, I ran the last 3 miles of a 5 mile cross country race in about 16:00-16:20 untrained (I had walked on to my college team with no running experience a week or two before that race) wearing trainers, and in my first college 5k 4 months after that, I ran 16:20, and then at the end of that year I ran 15:12, I then went on to run no faster than 14:55 or so for two years, before dropping down another :35 to my PR my senior year - I would say that I have a high natural vo2max relative, that it is trainable, and that it trains pretty quickly, then levels off with marginal incremental gains. So for me, a 5k run off of base training is still going to overstate my fitness potential because I think I constantly reside relatively close to my naturally high vo2max ceiling. In short, I am just a natural 5k runner and I can crank out a 5k when untrained that comes a lot closer to my upside potential than most. But that also make the applicability of that untrained 5k time less useful when looking at it and considering what I could do at the marathon distance.

The Stone Cutter wrote:

One way I like to look at it is this...you need at least 3 reliable data points to tell you that you are ready to run a marathon at a given pace.

1) A data point like the one mentioned (3 x 1mi at ~6:00/mi off 3:00-3:30 recovery jogs). This tells you that you have the basic speed and leg turnover to run sub 3.

.

This is not entirely correct. You do not need at least 3 data points. The poorest indicator of marathon potential is basic speed and leg turnover. There are plenty of runners who cannot pull off 6:00 mile repeats and can still run sub-3