best "lack indicators" for longer distances

cool thread. bump

Tldr

Based on the title I'm going to go with this answer: race several distances, then compare times on an equivalence table. Slope up to the right: work on endurance. Slope down to the right: work on speed. Flat line: balanced runner who should work on everything.

Then, try to see where the best event is. Look at % of world record to determine best performance. For me, I was 81% in the 800, 84% in the 1500, 82% in the 3k, and 80% in the 5k. 10k dropped to 76%. I was definitely a fast guy who needed to work on my endurance. But I was too slow for the 800.

Comparing performances at different distances is probably the way to go, but I’d add the caveat that this is probably only helpful once you’re already training at a fairly high level. For the 40 minute 10K runner you reference, simply running more mileage is going to be the way to get faster at the 10K regardless of whether they run a 47 or 74 second 400m. So I’d only start making individualized tweets to training once a solid base period has been completed.

Also, this discussion brings up the question of whether you tailor training to the runner’s weaknesses, or tailor their race distance to their abilities. If my mile time is way better than my 10K time, I could conclude that I need to do more easy mileage and tempo running Or I could conclude that I should just race the mile instead of the 10K.

Yepper Depper wrote:

Tldr

Based on the title I'm going to go with this answer: race several distances, then compare times on an equivalence table. Slope up to the right: work on endurance. Slope down to the right: work on speed. Flat line: balanced runner who should work on everything.

Then, try to see where the best event is. Look at % of world record to determine best performance. For me, I was 81% in the 800, 84% in the 1500, 82% in the 3k, and 80% in the 5k. 10k dropped to 76%. I was definitely a fast guy who needed to work on my endurance. But I was too slow for the 800.

I like this answer! Simple, and seems like being a good system.

But for the rest of us here: write your opinions too! The more the better in this topic!

But it's not "simply"... One can run more milage by adding a single 15-20 mile longrun and also can reach more milage by a 40x400 @ 1 mile pace, 5 min rest.

Men cannot be world class Marathoners unless a man can race sub-3:50 1500m; women cannot be world class Marathoners unless a woman can race sub-4:10 1500m. Other can figure out what 200/400 times are necessary for the above 1500m times. At peak fitness, most will race Marathon (33 to 35) times 1500m PB. Some rare individuals will race Marathon 32.5 x 1500m PB. When 1500m runners like Rod Dixon and Mohammed Farah move up to Marathon they race Marathon 36 times 1500m personal best.

No easy answer to that.

Most runners benefit from more miles but a lot of non club or college runners have never really pushed themselves. Introducing intervals etc will really improve them.

I coach a 800m. In theory he should train lower mileage as he us speed based. However, if I could ever get him to do 40+ mpw regularly he could pb off increased fitness with no speed work.

I think you need to work all bases and see what works for the individual.

You are over complicating things. If you are a 40 minute 10 K runner, you will get faster by spending significantly more time putting one foot in front of the other.

I said that you should focus on building a solid base before tweaking your training, and that’s what should be done...in the normal way that people build a solid base.

worry about base first wrote:

You are over complicating things. If you are a 40 minute 10 K runner, you will get faster by spending significantly more time putting one foot in front of the other.

I said that you should focus on building a solid base before tweaking your training, and that’s what should be done...in the normal way that people build a solid base.

What do you think is the mileage of a 40 min 10k runner with a 74 400m speed? And what is a "solid" base to you?

If someone is currently running 40 mpw, then going up to 50 mpw would be helpful. But if someone is running 70 mpw, I don't think going up to 80 mpw makes a big difference.

Keep in mind that running 70 mpw takes much more time if you are slower.

namethelack wrote:

But it's not "simply"... One can run more milage by adding a single 15-20 mile longrun and also can reach more milage by a 40x400 @ 1 mile pace, 5 min rest.

I think you can take the opportunity to balance different training components. I'm new to running and didn't follow any program in my first 2 years. I thought it was good to run fast. So I ran each run as fast as I could, but logged very little distance, around 20-30 mpw. I ran short distances (up to 5k) much better than longer race but I plan to run a marathon in respectable time.

This year, I learned to make time for tempo runs and easy runs. I've also adjusted my pacing for interval runs to increase repetition. I averaged around 30-35 mpw and is already seeing a big improvement in speed and endurance in 4 months.

But the same adjustment cannot be applied to my other running friends. We each have different weaknesses. So back to your problem, I think its good to evaluate with an equivalent time table. I'd say try first to improve overall fitness, and then to work on the weaknesses. If the response is not well, improve on the strength and adjust your target race distance / race strategy.