As a miler, am I just not built for 5k?

Wow both of these posts above are so useful, I’m going to save them. I recognize myself doing the same things that you describe Runner3000, I get excited for interval days even if it’s mile intervals, and I like to go hard on them, typically getting competitive with teammates like I do for track workouts. But that may be the wrong approach over the period of a season, I’m seeing that now.

And @ uuuUU(etc), I like your ‘fresh legs’ philosophy, because that really did seem to work during track. I never tracked my paces on my runs, just went by what felt like aerobic mode but comfortable. It’s funny how working harder can just make you ‘worse’ sometimes.

I can advise not only as a coach, but as a former 800/1500 runner myself. I tried high mileage (up to 90-100 miles) and/or lots of intense aerobic work, and saw either no improvement, or an overall decline in my 5K-10K times. Once I went back to "pure" miler training, the PRs returned...at all distances. Now I might train higher mileage for a month/6 weeks pre-season, but not while racing as well.

Don't forget to try the sprinter angle! I learned so much from working with sprinters that gave me a real kick in almost every race. You may even be pleasantly surprised by your 800 come Springtime. Plus if you can get on a low-key 4x4 that is always a real gas.

College miler wrote:

Thank you for that advice! I’m going to check out that book and that section.

Person asking about times: 400: 57 mid, 800: 2:04, 5k approx 16:30.

You are a miler until your 5K times tell you different!

Similar boat on the male side when I was in college. Realize that your bread and butter is on the oval and that this time of year is merely tolerated to get to Spring. Understand that most , if not all, of the runners on the CC team would kill for your speed. Most importantly, don't change who you are (a bada$$ mid-distance goddess) trying to be someone your not (a distance :-( runner). 5K? Really? 9+ laps of boredom before you wake up and have to race?

We can't and should not hide from who we are.

UUUUuuuuu wrote:

I can advise not only as a coach, but as a former 800/1500 runner myself. I tried high mileage (up to 90-100 miles) and/or lots of intense aerobic work, and saw either no improvement, or an overall decline in my 5K-10K times. Once I went back to "pure" miler training, the PRs returned...at all distances. Now I might train higher mileage for a month/6 weeks pre-season, but not while racing as well.

Don't forget to try the sprinter angle! I learned so much from working with sprinters that gave me a real kick in almost every race. You may even be pleasantly surprised by your 800 come Springtime. Plus if you can get on a low-key 4x4 that is always a real gas.

^^agreed! I will say it depends on what kind of runner you want to be 800 1500 or 1500/ 5k. I think either way pure speed will benefit you. If you look at most top girls that dominant collegiately and internationally it is the 1500/5k girls. 800 girls can't hang and the 5k 10k girls can't kick with the milers. The 5k is a balance of speed and strength. If you spend to much time on speed you won't be strong enough to hang with the top girls to stay in the mix, and if you don't work on pure speed you'll get dropped quick the last 600. Be a student of the sport, and communication with you coach you'll figure it out. You have the talent if you're top 20 in the mile to be a top 5k girl. It is just getting the training and getting into the right race.

Ca$hclay wrote:

Similar boat on the male side when I was in college. Realize that your bread and butter is on the oval and that this time of year is merely tolerated to get to Spring. Understand that most , if not all, of the runners on the CC team would kill for your speed. Most importantly, don't change who you are (a bada$$ mid-distance goddess) trying to be someone your not (a distance :-( runner). 5K? Really? 9+ laps of boredom before you wake up and have to race?

We can't and should not hide from who we are.

Ha, well for me it’s more like 9 laps of ‘maybe I’m doing alright..’ and 3 laps of ‘oh sh*t..fast running is not happening from here for sure’ haha.

So I’m NOT running the mile off of aerobic monster abilities, or off of blistering speed. Usually I see these two types, like..hm, Schweizer as the first type, Kaela Edwards as the 2nd. Was trying to improve from the strength side, but I like the advice I’m getting that speed could be the way to go. Really appreciate everyone’s advice!

Keep in touch with your speed during xc, which means sometimes replacing some of the workout with shorter speed and hills, but you noted the biggest problem, that you've been racing the longer intervals, etc. Dial it back on the quality of the tempos and long intervals to the point where you can recover well. Consider taking a day off every other week or even every week, and get a lot more sleep.

i would say stick to the type of interval training that works but just increase the overall volume of the repeats and increase the overall weekly mileage.

If you want to geek out on this a little, read these two threads about training for fast-twitch vs slow-twitch runners. On the first one, you can skim through the first few pages where Cabral waxes on about some historical stuff. But, fundamentally, this is directly on point and it's really interesting how two great Portuguese runners -- Mamede and Lopes -- ran very similar times over 5,000 and 10,000 but Mamede was originally a 400m runner and Lopes was an aerobic monster and they trained very differently. A similar comparison is made to Webb vs Ritz. The short of it is that a FT runner training for longer distances is better off doing controlled, long intervals instead of hard tempos and with short, jogging recoveries (if too long and/or walking, your anaerobic engine will recover too much). As an FT, you rely heavily on your anaerobic system when you race and even in the really hard tempos, so are getting the wrong stimulus from the latter which will degrade your racing over the season. Here are the links and below them are an excerpt that is on point:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2375989

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2666852

"From a friend of mine…

I just read the last few posts on the LRC thread, and I agree 100% with your final post (that FT runners are more irregular in their performance). I think the reason for this is that it is very easy to get the intensity 'wrong' when training these runners, as great control is required in all training sessions to ensure that sessions that are supposed to be aerobic in nature do not end up being just a little too fast and therefore anaerobic. In particular, an FT type in good shape can easily go a little too fast on a tempo/ LT/LTP session because the pace feels so slow.

I think it is easier to train an ST type because there is more margin for error (I think Hadd touches on this point in the thread). An ST type is able to run short reps quite hard and get away with it, because they produce so little lactate as a result of having so few FT fibres. An FT runner though needs to be very careful as going too quick will soon result in large increases in blood and muscle lactate. You think that FT types benefit from intermittent workout sessions instead of traditional continuous threshold runs, and my experience also suggests this is true. I think the reason for this is simply that it is a safer way for an FT type to do this type of intermittent training as the short recovery periods allow enough recovery to clear any muscle lactate that may have been produced as a result of running too quickly. The FT type could probably still benefit from the LT/LTP session in a continuous format, but they would need to be extremely accurate in pace control in order to prevent the session becoming 'dangerous'. "

College miler, you are close to being able to negotiate a XC exemption. You are already in a position to negotiate a modified XC program. I like your 800m PB. You are an 800m specialist, a thoroughbred. Being thrown in with the 5000/10000 clydesdales is not in your best interest. Regular XC training is not always best for 800m specialists.

exemption wrote:

College miler, you are close to being able to negotiate a XC exemption. You are already in a position to negotiate a modified XC program. I like your 800m PB. You are an 800m specialist, a thoroughbred. Being thrown in with the 5000/10000 clydesdales is not in your best interest. Regular XC training is not always best for 800m specialists.

Wow such a generous compliment, thank you! My coach says we’ll talk about what would be best going forward. He’s starting to see the pattern of my fading mid-end of xc but rebounding in track.

I tanked a workout this week. It was meant to be mile, 1k, 800, 1k, 800, 400 with 1000m jog recovery between each. Did the mile in 5:02 off autopilot, but had no ‘snap’ in my legs at all. The 1k and 800 got worse and worse, and we called it in. I know bad workouts happen, but it was deja vu from last year around this time when suddenly 2:35 800 repeats felt like a slog. Probably time to switch things up.

@The Floyd: this is great information. I may not have understood everything right, but I’m getting that needing actual rest (not jog rest, or slower running rest) to rebound between fast efforts means one is a FT type?

Well, yes, but you're a "FT type" based on your incredible speed in the 400/800/1500 as opposed to the longer distances. Of course, "FT" is referring to fast-twitch and the relative make-up of the fiber types of your muscles, but the times tell you what you need to know and no biopsy is necessary. :-) Those threads aren't saying anything too different than what some of the other posters have said. Most important, your ideal training, even for the same event, is not the same as your classic endurance specialist who lacks your natural speed. Though an oversimplification, you have -- and will heavily rely on, even in longer races -- a super powerful anaerobic system. When you're doing "aerobic" training, if you stop and walk, your powerful anaerobic system will recover quickly. But if the goal is aerobic development, you don't want to permit that recovery so it's better to have a short, jogging rest sufficient to clear some of the lactate but not so much that your anaerobic system is well recovered. The problem with the hard tempos or hard, mile-repeats is that, when too hard, you (not everybody, but a FT like you) end up over-stressing your anaerobic system and don't get the aerobic development that you're looking for. And in fact, due to shifting lactate curves, etc, it can undermine your longer-distance results. To be clear, I'm trying to write this in somewhat plain English and some of the more technical types on LRC will quibble with and/or hate the above description, but I think there is a lot of agreement on the training methodology regardless of the terminology and "scientific" explanation.

College miler wrote:

@The Floyd: this is great information. I may not have understood everything right, but I’m getting that needing actual rest (not jog rest, or slower running rest) to rebound between fast efforts means one is a FT type?

Ah okay, I understand. Basically, a FT type needs to slow down when looking for aerobic benefits compared to a ST person, or they will tax the wrong system.

This might explain why the 10k girl on my team does her runs so FAST compared to her race paces, to the point I cringe at the idea of doing what she does. This girl might be pretty much entirely slow twitch. I see that this is its own type of talent, different from being a natural speedster but useful in other ways.

Sounds like you have a smart head on your shoulders. To minimize information overload, I'd just offer the following: "train, don't strain" (especially for college athletes racing often and year round). Good luck.

I totally understand where you were coming from. I was exactly the same way. Typical XC training was tiring but the necessary evil to a good track season. While, I always felt stronger from the training, oftentimes it was not reflected in my xc races.

I unwittingly discovered the key to feeling "race fit" in 5k-8k xc races in my post collegiate years.

For me ( and a lot of middle distance runners that I have observed and/or coached in high school/college), the formula for race ready xc racing was to simply be in solid 1500m race shape for the big xc races. Although it sounds like a cop out, it doesn't mean that it's easier training by any means. It's just different. A third place finish at USA Nationals over 8k xc ( top 2 were world beater American record holder types) confirmed that my training and coaches philosophy that season was spot on. It was 50% speed ( 1500m workouts) and 25% strength and 25% easy days.

Talk to your coach about this. Hopefully he/she will care enough to figure it out. Nonetheless, It sounds like you know your body and what works for you. While everyone is different, pure middle distance runners sometimes have it tough because they genetically are not slow twitch runners, but can do fairly well over distances due to their natural and trained speed over 1500m type races. If you are most efficient at faster shorter races, then you probably should incorporate some of that into your current training regimen. Good Luck!

Yes, you're getting it. Your ST teammate can handle that kind of work more readily and more frequently. It's one of the benefits of the ST runner. But, take heart, with properly tailored training, the FT has the higher upside! But it will crush an FT runner to train like a ST runner. The reverse is somewhat less true because an ST can typically "survive" too much fast stuff, though it's definitely not optimal training for an ST to do what an FT should do. Thank you, your post has brought me back to that thread about Mamede vs Lopes, which I hadn't read in some years! It's great stuff. I'm old enough to remember Mamede and Lopes in their primes. They're probably meaningless names to someone your age, but Mamede was the WR holder at 10,000 at one point (27:15 or so) despite being on the Olympic 4 x 400m relay team for Portugal early in his career and Lopes ran maybe 27:21 and won the Olympic gold in the marathon in 1984. So they're great examples (and hence that thread) of being about the same speed but totally different types of runners and using different types of training. Here are a few more excerpts that are relevant to you in skimming back through it. To your point about your teammate, I loved the line (which I remembered) from Cabral about how no one could keep up with Lopes (the ST guy) on his tempo training runs and then Cabral says, well, ok, Mamede COULD have kept up but wouldn't have wanted to because it would have crushed him (in so many words). This is similar to you and your teammate. One: "But what I can note right now are some fundamental differences between the training of Lopes and Mamede: Lopes ran long outdoor tempo runs several times per week: MaxLaSS runs almost daily. He used interval training like cruise “soft” training. Mamede was the opposite: very easy runs on a daily basis, but then he regularly performed very strong track workouts and most of them as intervals with short recovery. Lopes would take a longer recovery for the same interval workouts that Mamede did, and he would not be able to run the intervals as fast as Mamede did. This difference is fundamental to the training of both types. ST’s do not need to (and indeed, cannot) run the reps as fast as FT types, plus they need more recovery." Two: "No Portuguese runner of that period, including Fernando Mamede (13:09 and 27:17 WR) could live with him [Lopes] when he decided to run his 20-30-40 mins tempo runs. Okay, Mamede could, but he chose not to, because he knew he would not be able to handle his planned training for the day after !"

College miler wrote:

Ah okay, I understand. Basically, a FT type needs to slow down when looking for aerobic benefits compared to a ST person, or they will tax the wrong system.

This might explain why the 10k girl on my team does her runs so FAST compared to her race paces, to the point I cringe at the idea of doing what she does. This girl might be pretty much entirely slow twitch. I see that this is its own type of talent, different from being a natural speedster but useful in other ways.

No one has asked for pics yet? Geez. A top collegiate woman who runs around 4:30 is on letsrun and nobody makes the move? Oh how the mighty have fallen

Bob Washington wrote:

No one has asked for pics yet? ...

Ninth post in.

Thank you The Floyd for these examples, this thread was totally worth starting. It’s really encouraging to hear that it may be possible to also improve in the longer distances, with patience for the right kind of work.