OK MP, I'll only play your game a little longer.
Please offer up your infinite wisdom now...
OK MP, I'll only play your game a little longer.
Please offer up your infinite wisdom now...
More at work, I really like the workout ideas you posted earlier. One question for you, though. Are the A group workouts designed to be more intense than the B group? (sorry if it should be an obvious yes.) Some of the B group workouts look pretty easy to me, whereas the A group workouts look tough. As an example, I recently raced a 10K at 5:50 pace, so I can do the group A workouts, but they do look challenging. Whereas running 6:30 pace for an hour sounds pretty easy to me. (I averaged 6:42 for my last 20 miler, probably too fast, but I do like to push it a little the last six miles or so). I'm probably in 1:19 shape for the half right now, and am hoping for a 2:45 marathon on Oct 13th (I'm pretty certain I'm in better marathon shape than I am in half or shorter shape).
Thanks for your thoughts on this thread.
napper, yes. The "group a" work is targeting paces that are slightly faster than your current AnT (LT).
The goal is to develop your anaerobic (glycolytic) system by pulling it up. You do this, primarily, by working at paces both faster than LT and under LT. Group b workouts are meant to work your AeT (aerobic threshold) and limit the damage done by the group a workouts.
Remember, this is a short course and a fix for the OP, not a complete system. This does nothing to take into account whether he is a fast twitch or slow twitch type runner.
(ie, I know nothing about him other than his current HM time and his marathon goal)
You sound like you are better at the shorter (FT type). FT types are bad at managing fuel. meaning they burn thru their glycogen at a faster rate than a slow twitch (ST) type.
So the bulk of your focus should be at improving your fuel consumption. You can do this by running more workouts in the group b section. In fact, overdose on thos for awhile. This is what lydiard taught us.
But you can't do that forever, without eventually adding in some ANaerobic work. otherwise you will stall with your progress.
Link wrote:
What I'm going to say is both encouraging and, perhaps, discouraging. When I first started running, I was about where you are. And I could go out and run 10 at 6:30 pace pretty regularly. And I did. Admittedly, I was 20 years old, then, so that might have been a factor. Too, I could barely break 6 for my mile repeats. I eventually (by slowing down on most runs, but ramping up my speed work) broke 2:30. On the other hand, when I was running 2:30 there would have been now way in H-E-double toothpicks that I could have run even 4 or 5 miles at 5:40 most days. So, maybe what you're describing is more common for people who are running close to their potential in the marathon. Who knows, though?
I think I remember reading an interiew with shorter during his peak in which he said something like he couldn't just put on his shoes and run 5 minute pace for 5-7 miles. He had to be in a race. If that's true about Shorter, then you're in good company.
For the most part, this almost describes my running to a T. PR is 2:30 as well and a typical training week is 5 days of miles (one is a long run) and two workouts. One non-workout days, I usually stick to 7 min/mile and I highly doubt I run faster than 6:20-30 pace any a point. Some days it's much, much slower. I save the hard efforts for workouts and use the regular days for base building and recovery. If run any harder, I feel it usually hurts more than it helps.
My suggestion is to only focus on pace WHEN IT MATTERS, ie, workouts and races. For me at least, focusing on pace and time on most runs only leads to burnout, injuries, and physical/mental fatigue. You don't need to hard every day and running at different paces serves different, but necessary purposes for the same goal.
more work at,
I like your ideas and tend to follow a similar approach in my training. Can you briefly comment how this would change if the runner was periodizing for a 5K/10K?
Usually I will progress from AeT to AnT to V02 max pace and then enter a period of specificity where the focus is 5K race pace for the last few weeks.
But does that mean that by focusing on intervals the last few weeks before a goal 5K that AeT and LT are negatively effected and performance compromised? Are you suggesting that we keep AeT and LT throughout all phases of training and limit the V02 max stuff to a few weeks late in the cycle?
bdfbdb, If your ultimate goal is working towards the optimum marathon, then the answer is yes, "AeT and LT are negatively effected and performance compromised"
Think about this...if you are standing on the line of a 5k and you look over at the fit dude standing next to you and, ultimately, he beats you in the 5k that day, all things being equal, by about 15-20 seconds...what can you say about him?
Is his V02 max better, his LT, his AeT, his vVo2Max (in Daniels parlance)/running economy?
bdfbdb wrote:
more work at,
I like your ideas and tend to follow a similar approach in my training. Can you briefly comment how this would change if the runner was periodizing for a 5K/10K?
Usually I will progress from AeT to AnT to V02 max pace and then enter a period of specificity where the focus is 5K race pace for the last few weeks.
But does that mean that by focusing on intervals the last few weeks before a goal 5K that AeT and LT are negatively effected and performance compromised? Are you suggesting that we keep AeT and LT throughout all phases of training and limit the V02 max stuff to a few weeks late in the cycle?
I like most of the workouts but not the 20 - 22 milers so much. And personally, I like to spend some time at my goal pace so on race day it just 'comes to me' without having to think about it. That's why I would rather do a 16 miler with 8 - 14 miles, starting short and progressing longer, at MP.
You can go longer than 16 depending on weekly mileage but I like to keep long runs at 20% of weekly mileage.