To Hadd (or others with good input)

Van,

I really do not believe you need to go 22 miles (or even 20 miles) to break 2.40. What I would suggest is working on the economy more (learn to burn more fat, less glycogen). Women are great at this, men less so.

Instead of 60 am and 60 pm, I would suggest 45-60 am and 90 pm, twice per week but go (even much) slower in the evening. Even 7.30-7.45 m/m is ok.

Yr 2 hr run is way too fast. Slow it up and again go longer, try weekly Sundays of 2hr, 2:15, 2:30 (and repeat), but all at 7.15-7.30 (or slower).

If you read back, you see that I recommended the 5 x 2000m or 3 x 3000m at 10k pace to give you some "pep" for your Nats. Recovery as you like: jog 400m or jog 800m by which time you definitely should be able to go again.

Get the feeling you're training all the time just a little too fast. This will make you feel great for 18-20 miles but come back on you in the last 5 miles when you run out of gas. Slow down and work the economy more. Try once a week 12 miler at dead steady 6.40 (with no HR climb, HR maybe 15 bpm below M-pace), and another 10-12 mile total (can be 2 x 30-40 mins) at 6.20m/m. Again, this should be with no HR climb and be approx 10 bpm lower than marathon HR. (You don't give an age, so I cannot give you advice on what this might be). You must always finish knowing that if you had to, you'd go round again.

Right now, these paces (6.20 and 6.40m/m) are more important to you than M-pace. These must become "peanuts". Just hit M-pace once per 10-14 days, but go long (12-15 miles) on those days. I don't believe you need to go longer than 15 miles to go sub-2.40. You are not going to forget how to run at 6.00m/m.

Runna,

I don't think anyone on here would call weeks of "19,23,28,33,42,42,49" "steady mileage". Ok, so you are now up to 60mpw+. You can begin counting your steady mileage from now.

There is no need to do doubles to run 60mpw. If you read everything I have said above, you should understand that one longer run is better than two short runs. So some days can be 90 mins and other just 45 mins.

For an 18-year old, I am pretty certain that 6.00m/m is wayyy too fast. I am not saying you cannot DO it, just that the effort to do it is (much) higher than you believe. Run it with a HRM and watch those numbers climb...

So just jog easy (somewhere around 150-155 HR) and try and get in 4-6-8 weeks of 60mpw+. The longer, the better. Don't go aiming for 100mpw on this your first year of higher mileage. But really run easy (you can think of it as "very slow"), somewhere around 7.30m/m (or slower) is fast enough. Get the MP3 player on and just jog.

Do this for a number of weeks. Try and build up to 90 min runs three times per week, with shorter jogs on the days in between. Do some 100m strides after the runs on the shorter days if you like. You can probably even manage one day per week off (do you good, make sure you don't get injured and slip backwards again).

In 8 weeks you will be a whole different runner. Not fast, but able to start thinking about how to put together some decent training to become fast.

Hadd,

Thanks for the generous and detailed advice. I\'ll certainly re-adjust my approach. Age? I\'m 44, turning 45 in March. 6\'2 and 145-150 lbs. No natural leg speed (60/400 when I was in my 30s) and started serious running late (29) after soccer in college. At age 30-31 ran my PRs of 8:54 (3000), 15:24(indoors) and 31:57. Should have picked up 42k much earlier, I guess.

I think I might start to feel much fresher at your suggested paces. I do occasionally run 1:30-1:45 slowly with a friend and the go solo sub-6 for 30 minutes to finish run at or a tad over 2hrs.

Van,

I am sure right now that you can hit the 6.20 and 6.40m/m runs without too much discomfort. And the 7.30-pace long runs. But what is it costing you in effort, that's the vital question here. If the HR at 6.20 is rising, even slowly, then you are not as economical as you think.

When I talk of economy, I want you to think in terms of miles per gallon... the Holy Grail for marathon runners.

Keep working away at both of these paces and the mpg will improve at those paces and also at M-pace. As evidence, HR should first get stable throughout the whole run(s) then the average HR required to run these paces should get lower. Just hammering away at M-pace will not improve the economy at that pace unless you have done this step first.

Your shorter PR's are very good, so there's a good chunk to come off the marathon in the next couple of years.

Remember, if you are not (relatively) "fresh" when you do the training, it will not result in the adaptation you want. It's not "miles at any cost".

Hadd, I just learned A LOT from reading this thread. I'd really, really appreciate any advice that you could offer me...

I'm an 18 year old female and I just started running less than a year ago. My best 5k time is 19:48 yet I find it hard to get through a 10 mile run at 8:00 pace. Is this a sure sign that my aerobic conditioning sucks?

I decided I liked running well enough to join my university's xc team this fall, which seemed a decent idea until I found myself suffering through bi-weekly "speed workouts" and running with a team that only does short, fast 3-5 mile runs on all the days they're not doing killer intervals. One of the typical workouts is 3xmile @5k-25seconds pace with 1:20 standing rest (and believe me after running these intervals standing or walking is all anyone on the team can handle). I actually think I run MUCH harder in these workouts than I do in a race. I've been sore since the season began. Until recently I thought this was what you had to go through to get faster... but my times haven't even improved so I've pretty much scratched that theory...

Would you advise me to skip track all together to spare myself the agony of more useless speed torture and to give myself a good 9 months to work only on base/LT training? From what I've read this sounds like it would be ideal in the long term. Or would 10 weeks of base before outdoor track be adequate for my purposes? lol Maybe I should just be asking what school I should transfer to.

I'm pretty discouraged at this point after seeing very little improvment throughout the season. Thank you in advance for any and all info/advice!!

ooops ignore the link... I'm also new to message boards :(

Hadd,

I was wondering if you knew of a good book on the hemodynamics of distance running or endurance sports. I am having trouble getting some research on the topic. I mean very specific biochemical stuff... but the basic stuff is good too. thanks a bunch.

Hadd, I see your logic in running 90 min + three times per week, but I do not agree with the recommended 7:30 pace.

I will be the first to admit that my times are nothing special, but even for someone like myself, I feel that 7:30 is incredibly slow. That is 2:10 slower per mile than my 5 mile race pace (5:20/mile).

So you are saying that a competative NCAA distance runner, say one who can run 24:00 for 5 miles, (4:48 pace) should be running all of his base milage at 6:58 pace, or 2:10 slower?

I doubt he would agree with you. In fact I would bet that when he runs his base miles he does them alot closer to 6:00 pace.

by the way 2 summers ago I ran 60 mile weeks for 3 months during the summer and into the xc season of my senior year in HS. I did 6 days a week 10 miles a day.

I ran most (I'd say 80%) of these miles at an estimated 6:20 pace. The reason I say estimated is because we have kilometer markers on our trails, not miles. My kilometers were usually under 4:00.

Hi NewRunner,

You have already figured things out quite well for yourself. Yes, up front the first thing that comes to mind is you need to work your aerobic system a lot to improve on that 19.48 / 5k time.

Don't run so fast on the 10 mile runs, slow down until it even feels like jogging pace. Ten miles might even be a bit long at first.

Try alternating days of 60mins and 45mins, then slowly increase them (but still keep the slow pace) to 75 mins and 60 mins, and then eventually to 90 mins two or three times per week with easy 45-60 mins on the other days. Difficult to tell you the right pace: but even 8.30m/m would be fine. Don't worry on pace too much, just get in the miles and the pace will slowly improve while still remaining comfortable.

As young as you are, HR's can be funny things to advise without knowing more about you. Let me take a stab at it, but be careful with this advice, if it does not suit you, let me know quickly.

If you are used to seeing numbers like 190-195 on the HR monitor (even if you have to run flat out to see such numbers), then do most of your easy aerobic running at 150-155, maybe up to 160. After a number of weeks, you can add in one or two faster paced runs (but still comfy) of say 30 mins at 170 HR. Do not run higher than 170 ever on this build-up period.

If you have NEVER seen 190 on the HRM, then run at something like 145 for easy running. Remember, if this feels uncomfortable, or you are huffing and puffing, back off right away and let me know.

Was that right that you run 3 x 1 mile at 5k pace minus 25 secs mile? That is an incredibly stupid session. I cannot believe anyone would give out such a session. For many (most?) well-trained runners, that pace would be within a couple of seconds of their all-time mile PR. And you only get 1.20 recovery? I am surprised you can DO a second one, let alone a third.

I would suggest you seriously consider "retiring" from this team and just get in some solid months of aerobic distance. You might choose to come back to them later.

For maximum benefit, give yourself the longest possible time and 9 months sounds like a good idea. You are young, if you get this right and come to love the sport as most on here do, you will have lots of opportunities to get into other teams.

Hi runna,

Good of you to come back and question what I advised.

Let me explain it a bit, and then I'll offer an example.

The reason I would (initially) slow down your easy running is to get it under control. If we tested you today at your normal "easy" pace, we can be pretty sure that it will not be as aerobic as it should be. We could lactate test this and prove it in 30 mins.

So, I would get you to run at a more fully aerobic pace (the 7.30m/m) to start, and then, once your body adapted to that pace, I would slowly increase this pace (while still keeping it fully aerobic). In time you would get back to your 6.20m/m, but you would THEN be running it differently, using your aerobic energy system entirely, and not a mix of aerobic/anaerobic as at present. This is the whole foundation of Lydiard-based training and would not take too long to achieve.

Let's look at the example:

I had a young guy come to me with a 8.50 / 3000m PR. He came because his improvement had stalled. Ran about 50-60mpw, with all his "easy" running something like yours, 6.00-6.30m/m. As with you, I told him this was too fast, but unlike with you, I could prove it to him with a HRM (at 150 HR he was WALKING, he had to push it to 170 just to MOVE at any kind of pace?his 6.00m/m was 180 and climbing...). I also gave him a lactate test and a lecture on sport science (basically the gist of all my recent posts, all this over the first few weeks together).

He absolutely HATED running at 7.30m/m and a steady 150-155 HR (he even ran in the evening in back country roads so none of his buddies would see him), but stuck with it because he had seen my success with other runners, and was able to talk to them and get the reassurance that they had gone through much the same process. In a few months we got his "easy" pace up to 6.40 and he relaxed a bit as he saw that it was working and it was no longer so embarrassing.

Within nine months he moved his 3,000m PR from 8.50 to under 8.30.

Now, about your competitive NCAA runner. I hope you can now understand that (if he has been trained well over a number of years) he might be very comfortable at 6.00m/m. Basically just well-trained aerobic running. Paula runs this pace a lot too. But do you believe it is as hard for her as it is for you? I would expect to find that her HR would be around 155bpm or so.

But obviously your NCAA runner and Paula run at that pace NOW. Neither of them started out at that pace but, with steady work over the years they improved their aerobic ability to where they can run this pace with low HR and low (under 1.5mM) lactate (showing the anaerobic system is "quiet").

I have absolutely no doubt you can run 80% of your 60 mile weeks at 6.20m/m. But is it the right thing for you to do? Both now, and for your longterm development.

Here's a quick test to see if it is the right thing to do: if your HR at this pace is higher than a STEADY 155 bpm the whole way, it isn't.

Hadd more good stuff. My question about the above post is then what is the definition of aerobic development progress. It sounds like you find the pace per mile at which your HR is 150-155 (for example), and you train at that pace, lets say 7.30/m, as you do this you aerobic system becomes more efficient and allows you to increase your pace per mile, but at the same time keep the same HR (150-155), hence staying aerobic at a faster pace?

Hadd, do you have any work that is published?

Thanks again for all of your feedback on this post.

Hi x-man,

You've got the idea.

In this example, training at an aerobic 7.30m/m at 155 HR will soon cause the runner to find the pace at 155 HR improves (he is running faster), and the HR required to run at 7.30m/m drops (maybe to 150... then 145...)

He can keep this up to improve the pace at 155 HR even more, and may eventually find that his "easy running" training becomes more like 140-145 HR (and it is STILL faster than 7.30m/m).

Not in a bookwriting frame of might yet, thanks!

Hadd,

I think you might have some good advice for me. I have been running for 2 years and am now a sophmore in college. I have run 16:19 and 34:19 for 5k and 10k, but I have a strange situation with my heart rate on distance runs. When I run at any pace faster than 8:00-8:30 minutes a mile, my heartrate is well over 160 and often times skies into the 180's.

I have decided to take your advice and build up my aerobic conditioning. But, this means than all of my running, at least for a while, will be over 8 minutes a mile. I'm not quite sure why my heart rate is so high on easy runs, probably beacause I always ran my distance too hard and was always into my lactate threshold.

When I am running at 155 now, I am basically walking/shuffling and breathing as if I am walking. I realize improvig this will come with patience and I am willing to give it a shot. averaged 70 miles a week last year, but I now see that most/all of it was way too hard for my current level. If you have any advice, I would really appreciate it. Thanks.

Hadd,

Again, thanx for the guidance. I'll try and re-boot an old HRM I have in a drawer or even get one of the new strapless HRMs.

When you advice relative freshness, should I go by morning resting HR ? My max Hr used to be pretty low even when I was younger, and my resting HR has always been low (36 when I was racing well in 88,89 in UK) and now hovers around 44. However, I have noticed I'm up at 48-50 with the last 4 wks at 100m/wk. I DO usually take one day per week completely off to top up glycogen and return "fresh." It especially works well the day before a long run. Am I on the right track here? Or would I teach my body to improve MPG by NOT taking a day off?

I'll slow my pace down on runs as you suggest and let you know if the resting HR improves in the process.

I will be racing a 5 miler this Thursday: plan to go out at 5:30 and stay out of O-debt trouble. Perhaps the performance will give me some idea where to start my 2k and 3k work. I may end up running the 10k xc Nats off of pure mileage b/c the event is coming up soon on Dec 14th.

I'm sure many on the board feel as appreciative as I do for you taking the time to share your knowledge and suggestions with us !!!

Hey Hadd,

I just finished running my Sat. long run (16 miles) with run long run partner. He's in his 50's and a former 2:39 marathoner at close to 40 years of age. he's still putting in a ton of miles and is a big help to me on my long runs. He made an observation of me today about my stride length. He said for my height (5'10") that I had a really short stride. Could stride length affect one's running? I have read in Jack Daniels Running Formula that a shorter quicker stride length is better (ie having a leg turnover of about 180 foot strikes per min. or 90 for one foot per min.) Should I incorporate into the training suggestions that you gave me the other day strides of some sort to go along with the 10 miler @5K + 30-40 secs and the 5X2000m at 10K pace. If so, when would be the ideal time to perform these strides and what distance should I be running. Also, I see you've recommended on this thread 2 runs of 90 mins per week and one long run of more than 2 hours. With my usually long run of 14-16 miles, that would put me running a couple of 12 milers too. Is that too long for middle of the week runs or is that OK? Also should one of my 90 min runs be part of the 10 mile tempo run that I'm doing, and the other on be the 5X2000m day? If so I think I could manage the 2 90 min runs, if not I think for where I'm at it would be tough to throw in 2 90 min runs on top of a 16 mile long run, a 10 mile tempo run, and a 5 X 2000m, and get the proper recovery days I need also. Because I'm not sure a 90 min run could be considered a recovery day for someone like myself.

By the way, I'm a 32 yr old male who started running just over a yr ago. You probably don't remember, but in a post I made to you quite a few months ago I had mentioned that I ran a 38:50 10K and a 3:15 marathon after my first 9 months of running. I haven't raced since the marathon since it took more out of me than I figured since I had not trained for a marathon. I just jumped into to run with some friends. SO not having run longer than 14 miles prior to the marathon I was prety sore for the next few weeks and had some achilles/calf problems from May til around Aug. I finally got back on track in late July early Aug with some good training. So that basically where I'm at. My mileage over the last 6 weeks looks like this: 54, 56, 60, 56, 62, 68(this week). I know that's not alot of mileage, but I'm working on that. Just trying to build up slowly. Anyway, sorry for such a long post but that's where I'm at. I'm going to continue over the next four weeks to do what you reccomended and the jump into a 10K to see where Im at. Thanks for all of your advice and help, and I'll certainly appreciate any help you can give me on my questions I've just aske in this long drawn out post.

Runna, the difference between 5:20 and 7:30 is not as big as 4:50 and 7:00, for a couple of obvious reasons. My new 5k PR (from this morning!) is 15:44, which is I'm guessing around where you are. I in fact do the majority of my mileage at 7:30 pace; while it feels easy, it certainly does not feel sluggish. I have only started doing speedwork the past couple months, and I've never gone over 55 miles in a week. In 5 months I've gone from a non-runner to a 15:44 5k--not impressive against all these fast old guys but it's a start. How did I get there? Running at 7:30 mile pace. Could I have done it at 7:00, even 6:30? Probably. I don't think I'd be any faster though. And it has kept me feeling rested for the speed sessions which I've been doing once to twice a week. Until I break 15:00, I don't think I'll consider anything under 7:00/mile "easy."

Hi Mike,

Those are good PR's after two years' training.

You sound like you have a very high HRmax (say, 195+), not unusual in a teenager. In your case it is not necessary to begin at 155HR since this is so slow.

For now just begin at a STEADY 160 HR, but watch the pace, because it might increase quite quickly at the same HR. (meaning it might move from 8.00m/m to 7.45 to 7.30 all at 160HR in a few short weeks or a month or two).

If you find that this is happening, drop the "easy" HR to just running at 155, and continue to get the miles in. (The pace at 155 HR will continue to improve)

If you start at 160 HR, then it is okay to run twice per week at 170 HR. Something like 60 mins steady 170 on a Tues and 2 x 30-40 mins at 170 on a Fri.

Once the pace at 155 becomes more reasonable (sub-8.00m/m) then drop the easy training HR to 150-155 and the steady 170 runs to 160-165 and continue. You should feel the miles becoming easier very quickly.

Hi Van,

For us older dudes, the training HR's obviously have to be lower. I coach one 41 year old with a 2.27 marathon PR (he's in about 2.35 shape right now and improving). His easy run HR is 120-125, with a marathon HR of 160-165. Your's is probably similar. I also coach another couple of 2.40-2.45 runners with similar HR's (in the late 30s).

I usually advise a day off the day AFTER the long run (to reload the tank to get ready for the next week). But the day before is ok. You always need to tweak things a bit to see what works best for you. Try both and see what works best.

Your resting HR may/should drop with the better-paced easy running. It will also allow you to run better "speedy" sessions. Too many runners make the "easy" into "medium" and don't realise that this forces the "hard" days to become "medium" also.

If your fit resting HR was once 36, it should become so again. I have many runners with HR's of 34-36 (male and female, ages 24 and up) in the morning. Even a 31 HR with one guy in this 30s.

It should drop quickly, and if it ever rises 8 beats one morning, schedule a couple of days of easy distance till it drops back again.

The improvement in MPG comes thru your body becoming more able to burn fat as a fuel and spare the glycogen for longer. When the glycogen runs too low, the race is over. Running at the optimal aerobic pace will improve this fat-burning ability. Running just a little bit too fast will not.

Good luck on the 5-miler.