You should transition gradually into speed work to get best results and avoid injury.
You can go faster than 32 with this approach. 12 x 200 in 35 would be a much better workout. That's just one example though.
You should transition gradually into speed work to get best results and avoid injury.
You can go faster than 32 with this approach. 12 x 200 in 35 would be a much better workout. That's just one example though.
a much better workout for what purpose? If OP is looking to develop basic sprinter speed, 12 X 200 is not a good workout to accomplish that..
@OP, if it helps with confidence, my pr 5k pr is 16:53 and my 1500m pr is only 4:48, 800m 2:20, and the fastest I've ever done a 200 in a workout at the end of track season is 29.5, but usually I can only run 31-32. So if I can do it now, you probably can too lol.
XC Runner Girl wrote:
So, my question is, is this typical 200m speed for a long-distance type 5k runner with good endurance, or is it a limiting factor holding me back performance-wise?
You have typical 200 speed for a long distance type 18:30 5K female runner.
Definitely focus on hills to begin with. Do sprints where you're hitting max effort for 6-8 seconds, but take 4 seconds or so to gradually get up to that effort. Literally start with just 2 reps (I'm really not kidding!), but build up to the point at which you can do 10 reps, 2x/week.
It's good to have two different kinds of hills for these workouts. A very steep hill is good because makes it easy to apply maximum force at a slow speed. A gentler hill allows you to have a stride that's closer to what a flat sprint would look like, and it also allows you to practice faster turnover.
After you've gotten to doing these 10 times per workout, twice per week, take out one of the hill sessions and replace it with track sprints. These should be the same 6-8 seconds at high end, with a rolling start to get up to speed.
Continue with the bounding and plyos throughout.
Don't bother with hard 200s. They're not very relevant to your needs. By increasing your absolute maximum speed, you will increase your stride efficiency at lower speeds, which is what really matters.
Larry Sinclair wrote:
a much better workout for what purpose? If OP is looking to develop basic sprinter speed, 12 X 200 is not a good workout to accomplish that..
Read my post again. She needs to transition gradually into speed work, not rush into it. Anyway if she does 12x200 at the right pace for speed endurance, the last effort can be flat out and maybe sub 32?
how is 12 x 200 a gradual transition workout, assuming the point is to develop sprinter speed?
OP isn't asking about speed 'endurance'..
It's a basic training priciple. You won't get anywhere following these ideas constantly posted on these type of threads by young runners trying to re-invent the wheel with their false concepts of speed training.
ConfusedHSer wrote:
Lol. She can't break 30. So she needs to work on it.
She is also nowhere near 17:00.
NotAustin18 wrote:
you probably can too lol
This is how you sound with that lol:
http://imgur.com/a/7IVQlHill sprints? Sure.
Working on 200 speed? Pointless. You're trying to run the 5k at what, 86 seconds per lap? In what universe does that require sub-30 200 speed? If you have good endurance you can run the 5k at 80% of your all-out 400 speed, for some people even more than 80%.
I agree with killarney. You don't need better than 32.0 200m speed to break 18:00 for 5k even on a XC course.
Does that mean you shouldn't run a handful of hills (fast not hard lots of rest) and/or sub 40 200s (say 38, 38, 36, 34) every week? Of course not, just because you have enough speed now doesn't mean you can't lose it.
both of you sound like you've had your fingers in your ears & hands over your eyes the last 15 years.. Using your logic, why ever train at faster than race pace? Why do 400s faster than 85 seconds?
Heck, why even go for runs longer than 3.1 miles?
Do you also not believe in core work or lifting weights & also recommend not doing plyos?
killarney wrote:
NotAustin18 wrote:you probably can too lol
This is how you sound with that lol:
http://imgur.com/a/7IVQl
WELL DONE
Jeffrey D. Boomhauer wrote:
both of you sound like you've had your fingers in your ears & hands over your eyes the last 15 years.. Using your logic, why ever train at faster than race pace? Why do 400s faster than 85 seconds?
Heck, why even go for runs longer than 3.1 miles?
Do you also not believe in core work or lifting weights & also recommend not doing plyos?
That's a slippery slope. It is clear to me, especially for a girl, that 32-second 200 speed is more than sufficient to break 18 or whatever for a 5K.
Your slippery slope works the other way too: what if she were going on 20-mile long runs and wanted to increase to 22-24? Would it be wrong to suggest that's not necessary?
It's certainly possible to run a 5k at 80% of 400 speed, but it requires a very high level of endurance that most people don't have and that takes many years of high mileage to achieve. Take your average HS/college distance runner and most will be able to maintain significantly less than 80% of their top 400 speed for 12.5 laps around a track, probably more like 70-75%. Now if the OP really wanted, she could spend several years of intense aerobic training to work up to 80+% of 400m speed for a 5k but improvement would come a lot faster if some speed development was done for a few months. If she is able to drop her 200m time by a significant amount to around 28s, her 5k times will become better as well.
Dropping 200m times will also improve maximum potential for longer distances. Aerobic power can only get you so far and eventually you become limited by raw speed. If you can't break 32 in a 200, it's going to be very hard to run much better than 68 in a 400. If 68s feels like an all out sprint, anything close to that is going to kill you in a longer race. Sub 75s becomes 800 pace territory. Realistically, most people with this kind of speed will never come close to a 5 minute mile, so 5k time can't really become much better than mid-high 17s and a runner with average aerobic strength would probably do low-mid 18s.