Training Discussion Thread - outsiderunner

Why is his 5k time so slow compared to his daily runs?

OR - We agree that your current 5k potential is 17 low. We also agree that, at least theoretically, your race equivalency times should improve the more you extend the race distance, as you have more strength than speed.

Which means your current 10k potential is really in the 35 low range. Not 36 minutes.

Which means your 10k pace is really closer 5:35-5:40/mi, not 5:50.

So I would contend your recent progression run where you closed with a 5:55, 5:46, and .25mi of 5:42 pace, did not really quite get down to 10k pace. I would contend you closed closer to HM pace, dipping down to about 15k pace.

The difference in running a true CV-style workout like 6 x 1 mile at 5:35-5:40/mi with 2:00 recoveries and running continuously for 2.25 miles at 10k pace is:

A) The total volume of time at 10k pace is about 34 minutes in scenario one versus 13 minutes in scenario two.

B) Because you are breaking the workout into manageable chunks you can actually hit your 10k pace potential for the workout.

C) Learning to and being able to run that workout will take the fear out of racing at the pace because you will have successfully covered the distance at that pace in practice.

D) I venture that it would be quite some effort for most runners to cover 2.25 miles continuous at real 10k pace on a regular training run, no matter how warmed up you are. Which further illustrates that what you did was not real 10k effort, but the 10k pace you limit yourself to with your style of training - and the fear you carry of not having practiced real 10k running.

Great discussion here. +1. Hope to hear from Outside Runner. Maybe he can recommend some various training methods for the rest of us?

I’m curious, was it a conscious, calculated decision to switch to the daily progression run?

The man is a maverick and PRs don’t lie.

Stone,

would you say the CV intervals have a 3:1 work:rest ratio?

Interesting analysis, Stone. For the last year or so I've encountered a lot of Tinman's stuff, but like so many, it's exploded in the last couple weeks. And one other thing he talks about made me wonder about the difference between more time broken up v. shorter time all done at once. Muscle fibers.

I'm certainly no physiologist, so there is a ton of guess work on my part here. But Tinman does talk about working the intermediate fibers during the classic CV workouts and that targeting such muscles is one of the primary goals of the workout.

Speaking from my own experience, when I run a CV type workout that includes, let's say, 26 minutes of fast pace work and takes maybe 40 total minutes, I'm able to cruise in that 26 minute zone somewhat comfortably. It's still quite hard, for sure. But each rep I can slide back into that zone and everything feels productive.

But 30 minute race pace straight through is tough. Even at just 13 minutes of it, I feel like I get to a very fine line where I'm struggling, pushing a bit, then pulling back to resettle. You know, kind of how races go. And my guess is that in this time by body is pretty much firing on almost all cylinders. Which makes me wonder, is this work targeting the muscle fibers in the same way? My gut says no and that I'm pulling in the fast twitch fibers, and pretty much all my energy systems as well. Which would make the 13 minute chunk a big strain on my system, but maybe not allow the intermediate muscle fibers to change towards the aerobic side of things.

So, obviously still a good workout, but maybe it does not achieve the same goal as a classic CV session.

Daily progression runs can be effective, if the runner doing them has a solid base of anaerobic fitness and speed underneath them. Most runners do; our high school and college system prioritizes that sort of training and shorter races (think racing the 800-5k in high school and mile-10k in college. You develop a powerful anaerobic engine and high VO2 max). I ran a mile PR this summer after doing a lot of brutal intervals cross training and hard track sessions before bumping up my mileage, getting off the track, and running somewhat hilly progression runs most days. To be specific, I ran 4:29 in June off of about 10 weeks of running 30 mpw average and a ton of cross training. A month later, I ran 4:21 with only one or two more track workouts, and around 45-50 mpw, most of that mileage at steady/progressive efforts.

It's kind of like reverse Lydiardism.

However, I rarely averaged a pace as fast as OR does most days, and I was coming off a 15:44 5k PR in June. So I think my progression runs were more manageable relative to my fitness. Even with that, I burnt out pretty badly at the end of the summer, and have since been converted to very slow easy days (7:30-8:00 pace). I've been running better since I started slowing down. I'm back hammering track workouts and recovering well between them.

OR is running way too fast most days and cooking himself. He is also doing a great disservice to his training by not running intervals. Speed kills. 200s and/or 400s (with ample rest) should be a weekly staple, especially for someone who never developed speed by racing shorter distances in high school or college. Fartleks or track repeats 1k-mile, at true VO2 max effort are important too. OR is missing out on developing his leg speed and anaerobic engine. But these workouts can't be done in the midst of hard progression runs every day. You gotta slow down to recover from these workouts, man.

I believe an abrupt change in stimulus is often what produces breakthroughs. Think wejo (slowed down his easy runs), and Mo Farah (sped up his easy runs and started lifting). Sure, everybody is different and would benefit from individualized training. But the breakthrough doesn't necessarily mean that one form of training is better than the other. It means that the base fitness accumulated after years of doing the same thing finally showed through when something changed. People forget wejo was a 3:50 1,500 runner in college. He clearly had speed and a high VO2 max. He needed to recover better between workouts and get in more easy aerobic miles. Dong so got him to 28:06. I put OR in the wejo category as somebody would benefit from slowing down. But wejo already had nearly a decade of intervals under his belt; OR does not. That's why I believe OR would benefit greatly from adding in some true VO2 max/CV intervals and Daniels R pace reps once a week, or strides at the least.

I'm interested to see how this discussion progresses.

Jeremy R wrote:

Stone,

would you say the CV intervals have a 3:1 work:rest ratio?

Faster runners are probably going to be closer to a 2.5:1 work:rest ratio. Slower runners are probably going to be closer to a 3.5:1 work:rest ratio. But your instincts are good...most of us Average Joe's are going to fall in that 3:1 work:rest ratio range. So other possible forms of CV-style workouts could be:

a) 20-25 x 400m at 10k pace with :30 recoveries

b) 8-12 x 800m at 10k pace with 1:00 recoveries

c) 7-10 x 1000m at 10k pace with :75-:90 recoveries

Etc.

Totally agree with almost all of your points. A well thought-out, well articulated post.

An anonymous contributor posted these calculations last week. Really astounding outsiderunner stats:

14 weeks leading to 2017 fall marathon:

Averaged 60 mpw.

Average pace 7:02.

Race pace 6:35.

14 weeks leading to 2018 spring marathon:

averaged 63 mpw.

Average pace 6:36.

Race pace 6:27.

14 weeks leading to 2018 fall marathon:

Averaged 67 mpw.

Average pace 6:39.

Race pace 6:20.

An interesting concept here in doing this, Stone Cutter, and some interesting comments already. I say “interesting” because I am not quite sure how things will go here. Your intentions seem genuine and in a vein of helpfulness, but I do feel as if I have been forced off of the other thread...just being honest here. But, I do not want to dwell on that, as excellence in running is my aim (always has been...that and a little fun, too).

As long as things proceed here in a spirit of decency and “running fellowship” (and dare I say love...I am a Christian, after all), I will be happy to hear what you have to say and discuss things. I say this only becuase I am tired of being harassed over things such as a decimal point. I do not mind you guys being frank or direct with me, but some things are downright disrespectful. I mean, what is wrong with being precise? I tend to be a precise guy anyway, but after being badgered the way I have been on occasion, I have learned to be precise. For instance, I view my neighborhood runs (and one or two other routes) as being flat, and my other runs, “out in the hills,” to be hilly, and so I make this distinction not to get on anyone’s nerves, but to cite the difference, as there is a notbale training difference in the routes...they run differently.

So, with that out of the way I have some inital thoughts.

When I look at what others around me are doing (here on this forum, in my local area, etc.), I see a lot of guys and gals doing what has been popularized over the last couple of decades...in a nutshell, polarized training with lots of easy pace running and a then workouts mixed in, maybe 1-2 times per week. There is structure and periodization, too. I also see a lot of people not even coming close to their goals, especially in the marathon, and so I say to myself: why should I change? Here in my local area, I see most people doing much the same, and yet I am beating virtually all of them at races—people who used to beat me. In fact, when I see them, they smile and congratulate me, and some of them even shake their heards in amazement in how I have improved as a runner. They are very kind, and I appreciate their kindness very much. So, again, what gives here? Why aren’t they improving, doing the this x that track workout, and the easy-paced jogging for recovery, etc.? In fact, and I am being very honest here, some of these peole have *regressed* in their race performance, AND nearly all of them are younger than I am. So, what gives?

As I have said already, Stone, you have great mind for running, and I would pick you as a coach or advisor over anyone I know. But, I admit that I have a certain trepidation when I see people doing what I see as being similar training, and not improving. What is going on here? Am I missing something? Please inform me. If I can be the sub-2:40 guy you think I am, I would follow your suggestions without and issue. Seeing that recent synopsis of my last three marathon builds (avg. pace), I have started to think I can do what you say I can, or at least perhaps get 2:40:29 (Hi, Allen!), but these other people failing in their efforts gives me pause, esp. since I have had good success in the last two years. Am I just different than they are? Is that what you are suggesting, Stone? Again, please inform me,

All the best to you guys (and gals?) posting here...

We are all aware of your trepidation to change. We are also aware that you had initial disappointment with your 2:46:XX at Richmond as it did not meet your bare minimum requirement (2:45:xx) for success. You were also disappointed with your mile time that you ran in July (5:1X if I recall correctly?). You have yet to approach your current 5k potential of 17 low, perhaps even sub 17 - clearly evident based on your big negative split 5K (17:30ish) where you finished feeling like you had a lot left in the tank. Which means you have also yet to approach your 10k potential of 35 low, your HM potential of 1:16:00-1:17:00, and also your long-term marathon potential of 2:40 low, sub 2:40. You are grasping at straws to point to other runners' training as a means to stick with your own system. If you want to look at other runners' training, actually look at the other runners on the RRTT. How many marathon PRs did our group run this year? By working much less hard and more intelligently than the "hammer away" system you employ. I am not nearly as talented as you are, but my marathon PR is practically the same as yours even though I run 4-5 days a week in the 7:30-9:00/mi range. Why do you think that is? Can you imagine how fast you would be if ran 6 x 1 miles at 5:30-5:35/mi in one session a week, versus periodically progressing to one mile at the pace every so often at the end of a progression?... I can't help a student that has no interest in learning. Stick with what you know. But don't keep putting pizza in an oven day after day and wondering why a roast duck isn't coming out when you open up the oven. God, what I would give to have talent like yours... By the way, everything I wrote about you at the beginning of last year still holds true.

You haven't yet hit the south side of 2:45. I did outperform you in a spring marathon off lesser total miles and with a way slower overall average pace on less talent. And you are now, whether you know it yet or not, starting to hit that plateau I warned you about.

I wasn't psychic a year ago. I am just a coach. And I know a thing or two about running.

Please also know, though, that I have always wished you the best. We want you to see you get the best out of yourself since you love running so much. It just doesn't have to be as hard as you make it to be. Literally...

OR - just a couple questions...

Based on the data Allen posted from prior cycles, and your stated goal to catch Allen's marathon PR, using your same training approach:

Do you think you would be able to run 67 mpw at 6:26 or faster pace (the same ~5% difference between daily avg and race avg) to reach 6:07.5 race pace?

Do you think you would be able to run more than 75 mpw at the sort of daily effort levels you put in now (the only other lever I see available to you)?

Obviously neither of these benchmarks would guarantee that you'd hit the goals you have in your head, but the way I see it, something needs to change to turn anyone's current PR into a new PR. A sort of build on the work done before it. If you have no interest in changing the approach as you've laid out above, do you have any other options than to run harder or faster? Unfortunately, after your fall marathon you said you had run further and faster than ever before, and you questioned whether you could work any harder.

Stone's suggestion is that there is a 3rd thing you can change that isn't just about working harder, that many people in the RR&T thread have demonstrated works. I would think that the concept would sound appealing, if you feel like you don't have much "working harder" rope left.

Obviously there's still a lot of nuance in a more modulated approach, so the fact that you know many people stagnating using "traditional techniques" is interesting, but not definitive - because they could still be doing plenty of things wrong and calling it modern day standard training practices by their own account (off the top of my head: running easy runs too hard AND trying to do structured workouts together, not enough volume, too much volume, wrong blend of hard/easy work, poor mechanics or strength imbalances, lack of talent, nutrition issues, recovery issues, improper workout progression, etc...).

As a counterpoint to all I've said so far, with your sights set on Boston I wouldn't necessarily suggest that you change too much before then. You'll be nervous enough as it is the way you put pressure on yourself, and radical changes won't help you. You'd be miserable. My only suggestion is that you consider and think about what Stone has said, and if you're feeling dissatisfied again in the spring - maybe leave the summer open to being bold.

I think he may have some more room for improvement doing what he is doing, as a result of the gradual accumulation of lifetime miles. Will it be enough to offset the natural downtown of the improvement curve associated with his age? My guess is that it will for a little longer, but that drastic improvement will require a change of some sort if it is going to offset age based degradation in performance.

The Stone Cutter wrote:

It is your stubbornness that gets in the way, because you believe your style of training has gotten you this far, why can't it just keep getting you farther? But you seem to not understand a very basic physiological limiting factor when it comes to training. In order to improve your marathon time, you have to extend your ability to maintain a set pace over an increasingly farther distance. And your training will stop doing that, because your training does nothing to extend your ability to run 6:20/mi or 6:15/mi or 6:10/mi.

Yes, you have improved up to this point. And yes, you may take another minute or two off your PR. ...

Stone Cutter: I have a huge amount of respect for you, and I, too, have long suggested that the inclusion of easy/recovery runs, and dedicated faster-paced efforts would yield great benefits for OR.

But since you wrote the above quote, OR has PR'd in the marathon twice, dropping six minutes off his time. MP went from 6:35/mi to 6:20/mi. And he raced a 20-miler at 6:11/mi.!

If he had changed up his training based on our suggestions, and realized exactly the same improvement, you and I would be heaping on the praise, and would absolutely be crediting the "smarter" training.

And I don't think it's fair to retort: "Yeah, but he would have been even faster if he had just followed our advice!" If he had stagnated or saw minimal improvement, maybe. But his progress has not been minimal.

I believe OR achieved those new PR's, to a large degree, by progressing his training: a 10% increase in mileage, placing a greater emphasis on hills, and extending the really hard closing efforts from 1-2 miles to 2-3 miles.

Now, do I still believe that he is potentially a sub-2:40 50-year-old marathoner?Absolutely! And do I believe that injecting new stimuli into his training would greatly aid that quest? Certainly! But repeating the "stubborn" comment and the pizza analogy do nothing to bend OR towards making those modifications.

Yes, I know for less talented runners like you and I, it can be especially frustrating to believe a huge talent like OR may be leaving a lot on the table ...

Sure - to be clear I'm not saying he can't shave a little more off without a change just from the same block being placed on top of the the last block's fitness. It's why I didn't say "if you don't PR at Boston", but instead "if you aren't satisified."

I'm speaking more to his long term stated goal of adding Allen's PR to his trophy collection. If he sticks with the same approach, I don't see 6 minutes left on the table from another mid 60s mpw, 6:3x paced cycle. Do you?

outsiderunner: Gordon's observations are excellent. Also, I agree that you shouldn't shake things up much between now and Boston.

Smoove: Valid point about lifetime mileage also contributing to OR's continued improvement. I would also include his added experience at the distance, and his rising confidence level (besides the 10+% increase in weekly mileage, greater emphasis on hills, and extending the hard closing phase of his progressions that I cited previously).

No. I see incremental improvements. And that's a compliment. The marathon is tricky and he had great conditions at his last race, so even incremental improvement over ideal conditions and going from age 49 to 50 is a pretty big compliment.

Allen, you are a good friend and good diplomat. You are also pointing out facts that are indisputable. He has PR'd twice since I first posted that quote.

But was I wrong? Did I miss something? Did he break 2:45 when he finally went to the well? Keep in mind, he never went to the well when he ran 2:52. And I get it, he had a bad experience that has put the fear of god in him with respect to racing. So why not practice in training at paces that will remove the "fear" from the performance you covet? What not improve that 5k time to 17 and that 10k time to 35 to make 2:40 a possibility?

In case it's not clear, I am absolutely rooting for him. If I didn't care, I would have stopped giving my two cents a long time ago. I do care. I want to see a guy that passionate about running succeed.

But we now have an even better sense of where his plateau is. And it's right where I expected it would be a year ago.

I am not out to win him over with rainbows and sunshine. I am out to give honest CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. The pizza analogy is fair. He still wants "Roast Duck" (2:40). He keeps putting in "pizza" training (2:45).

GT is absolutely right. Do you really think he has 6:00 left in him in improvement with his current style of training, especially when he went to the well twice? Wouldn't it be desirable to get to the end goal faster on relatively "easier" training?!

If he wants to get there, he's going to need to modify his approach. My opinion. He is welcome to disagree. And he is welcome to stick to his guns.

But honestly, stop asking for opinions then. Just go out and run and do your thing. It brings you joy. Let it keep bringing you joy.

The Stone Cutter wrote:

GT is absolutely right. Do you really think he has 6:00 left in him in improvement with his current style of training, especially when he went to the well twice? Wouldn't it be desirable to get to the end goal faster on relatively "easier" training?!

If he wants to get there, he's going to need to modify his approach. My opinion. He is welcome to disagree. And he is welcome to stick to his guns.

But honestly, stop asking for opinions then. Just go out and run and do your thing. It brings you joy.

Yes, I think he could see another five- or six-minute improvement by continuing his current training progression, and incorporating one minor change. That is, continue to work the hills and crank those closing few miles, BUT include at least two easy recovery days each week.

Now, ideally, you would be his on-site coach, and he would have a supportive training group of similarly-talented runners to work with every day. He would be dedicating work at specific efforts. I, too, look at those AVERAGE training paces, and can't imagine the true level of his talent and potential.

Like most of us, I think outsiderunner appreciates recognition for his accomplishments, and validation of his methods. And with his current successes, I can appreciate his reluctance to experiment with other training. Yet, I'm sure he recognizes the limitations of staying the course, hence his solicitation for advice. Gentle nudging, perhaps, gentle nudging.