Tinman's training

I apologize. I also did not know who HHH was until you posted.

To HHH, thanks for posting all kinds of my previous posts for others to read. After reading my numerous posts, I realize that I spend way too much time on this website. I could write a book with all of that stuff. I just love to help others and help them understand the sport they enjoy so much but find mysterious and perplexing. Tinman

No need to apologize, I am someone you have probably never heard of. I am just a good runner who loves to read and learn about training. I hope you don't mind me posting your advice. I am going to sort through it to put into some kind of logical order. This will undoubtibly (sp?) take some time as you have posted an aweful lot! I can send you what I come up with if you'd like to check it and then perhaps put into a book of some sort? At any rate, thanks for your postings. Mstt

18 weeks of max VO2 workouts is a bit too long, in most cases. Two max VO2 per week (whether a 5k race or workout of similar quality) done for 8-12 weeks will get the most out of your ability. Then, you have to go back to base building and strength workouts. Figure, as a general rule, that no more than 20 workouts is needed to reach your peak. This is my general rule.

Remember though, you maitain VO2 max with just one workout per week for about 6 weeks, but if you keep doing 2-3 workouts per week at that intensity, you will hit a wall at some point and then slide down. The human body needs variety and new stimuli, so adjusting the workloads, the frequencies, and the intensities will affect the variances of evolution or involution of functional capacity. Tinman

Sir, you honor me.

Sure send the info to me in book form if you want to. Jon Orange asked me one time if I would like that done for me. I passed on it, thinking I really hadn't said that much. Now, I am wondering if a compilation would be a good thing to have. Indeed, I could probably learn from myself. By reading one's thoughts written coherently, it is possible to realize further the ideas proposed. Questioning one self and seeking growth is an endeavor worth the time and effort. Thank you. Tinman at

runfastcoach@hotmail.com

We didn't have a system in place during our best years, so I'm probably in the minority thinking it's not the system per se that's flawed, it's the expectations of many athletes that can use a lift. I get the feeling that many of the current American kids don't think they can beat the foreigners or at the very least make significant improvements in their race times to get competitive so they quit. They need to believe they can get better and sincerely want to do it, that's job #1. Is that USATF's job or a coach's job? In my opinion no, it's starts with the athlete.

The majority of the guys who made up the large numbers of athletes at a very competitive level in the 70's and 80's from this country, the guys who used to go from 29:00 in college to 2:12 marathoners, the 3:48 1500 guys who went on to break 3:40 as post collegiates chasing their dream, the current athletes at the same college level now do not sincerely believe they can get it done and many don't care to get it done so they go to work instead or if they continue to run, they focus exclusively on dinky road races and set their expectations low content to win $100 here and there instead of really challenging themselves against top level comp to find out how good they can be. It seems to me the guys quit before they give themselves a real chance. Not all of course, but many more than 30 years ago.

We need many of our athletes to move beyond worrying about race times and concern themselves instead with winning races. Yes times are important in many respects but at some point you gotta make the jump and realize sports at an elite level is about winning. Unfortunately, I see very few people in our country actually concerned about winning distance races. No way you're gonna be a player if one of your goals isn't to be as a tough SOB as you can be and that necessarily means you absolutely are unwilling to back down to anyone. Doesn't matter the event - XC, roads, indoors, outdoors, whatever. That's why people liked Pre, that's why people liked Salazar and that's why people liked Decker until she fell down in LA. Lots of armchair fans watched them race because they raced to win and had an ingredient you rarely see today - they had heart. Fans like to see athletes with heart, kids aspire to be like them, competitors fear them. It seems like getting 5th and running a decent time is adequate for many post collegiates. I pull my hair out watching guys jog in content with their time, they don't care about diving at the line to get 3rd. They got their time, they're happy with 6th or 8th not realizing that the thing that will drive them to their ultimate successes in running is the drive to win. From a fan's standpoint, it's just not very fun to watch guys time trial. In fact I find it boring as heck and I'm a huge fan of the sport. Imagine what people who aren't fans of our sport think about the significance of race times when what Larry Rawson says about running around your local track for X distance in Y time makes about as much sense to them as low carb beer. Everyone can enjoy watching people race though, which is why the fans will pack Cal State Sacramento in 2 months. 3 go, the rest stay home. My parent understand that, they have no clue what a 3:31 1500 means. Our sport on its most basic level is about me beating you, when we loose sight of that we falter.

The impression among many young athletes is that there are few opportunities for post collegiates today. In California at least, the reality is that there are a ton of opportunities. Training camps, training groups, many open track and XC meets, more tours (Can Am, Pacificanada) everything needed to have success. We just need guys to believe they can improve and compete, the rest exists. We need fired up athletes to take advantage of it.

So that's it from me. The first step is athletes having the drive to succeed, the will to win and a dream. Without that, it doesn't matter if there are training groups or travel funds or races or equipment and it really doesn't matter who's coaching them or what USATF is doing. There will be little to no development without driven athletes who want to succeed regardless of what's available for them. A coach, a program or group is worth maybe 5% or less of an atlete's success at the post collegiate level. Success comes down to the will and drive of the athlete. The young guns need to learn the history of our sports and honestly believe that it's possible for a kid born and bred in an average American public education system who didn't walk 20 miles to school every day and was raised at sea level, a kid who ate a few too many Big Macs growing up and watched Sesame Street can succeed on a world class level in distance running if they sincerely want to succeed, they are patient and they are smart. I know it can be done because it was done by a lot of guys, a whole slew of 'em from this very same country not too long ago.

Joe

Joe Rubio has a great point: competing is the answer. The problem is that few believe they can be at the world level. I am hoping for young guys like Ritz and Webb to kick some keister and compete hard, really hard with the big boys in big competitions so that others will believe they can too.

Recall all the heros that the 70s guys had to emulate: Mills, Schul, Dellinger, Ryun, Lindgren, Liquori, Batcheler, etc.? They competed with the best and backed down from nobody. We need heros for kids. They need get their minds believing that it is possible to contend. I agree that focusing on competing is better than focusing on the times one can run in races. Times take care of themselves. Train right, train for a long time, compete often enough, get rid of the stupid rabbit idea, and pysch up a few kids to take on the challenges of athetics.

Tinman

Excellent point: YOU gotta be fit to use all the tactics out there. Otherwise, you might as well just run a steady pace and then kick as hard as you can for as long as you can. Get really, really fit and then be competitive in races by using surges, short or long, and and various means of exploiting your strengths. If you aren't really fit, then you are an the mercy of everybody else's tactics. Tinman

Joe:

Once again a sage speaks the truth. I support your contention that most runners simply need to give it a full-commitment for 3-4 years post-collegiately to see what they can do. I have told people who want to be great distance runners to run until they hit thier 28th birthday, and if they haven't seen the results they thought would be possible, despite full-commitment, then they should hang up the racing shoes and just run 20-30 minutes per day for their health. Perhaps my suggestion is extended too long. Tinman

Tinman (and HHH):

Thanks for all of the great information in these posts. I can't WAIT to pour through it over the coming few days..and to actually digest it and figure out how to apply it to my training. This is GREAT freaking stuff that, Tinman, should find its way into a book. If interested, I offer free editing services and will help with the organizaiton and getting it in front of publishers...

Thanks again.

Hoovis

have said for many years that tempo pace shoud be a range of paces from just slower than marathon pace down to 10km pace, depending upon the purpose of your workouts, what works for you, and the time of year. Think of tempo running as building your ability to clear and buffer lactic acid so that you can continue running a fast pace for a long time. Intensity and Time and inversely proportional. Hence, if intensity rises, then you must run for less time, and vice versa is true also. By denuement we derive that faster tempo runs should be run for less time to be optimally effective and slower tempo runs must be run for more time to be optimally effective. I suggest that 20-25 minutes of running at your 60-minue LT tempo pace is roughly equal to running at 40-50 minutes at your half marathon pace and 60-80 minutes at your marathon pace or close there abouts. Tinman

Since we are talking about Lactate threshold, I have found (at least for me) that I have gotten more benefit from 20:00 tempos (@ 10mi effort) at the end of my long runs (90-120:00). It is easier and I seem to get more out of it than 60:00 runs at 20K effort.

Your personal experience relates well to my typical marathon prep workouts. Two such workouts are as follows:

1) Long Progressive run in 1/3rds. Your pick a time or distance and run each third faster than the previous, ending at either half-marathon pace or LT, depending upon your fitness, how many times you have done this workout, and your primary race distance.

2) Closer run (this what I think you are doing) wich is nothing but a steady run with the last 15-20 minutes at LT pace or close there abouts. I often suggest to really fit runners to run the last mile or two at 10k-8km pace. One good marathoner/ultramarathoner did a combination of the two workouts, running progressively faster and then closing at close to 5km pace on the last mile.

I will write a book on the subject this year so that some of these workouts are available to other than the nice folks I help who email to me.

To summarize, I think you are dead-on right about your approach. Keep doing it and way to go!! Tinman

As you know, I have previously defined a CV which works both threshold and max VO2. About the long slow vs. short fast approach, it is important to keep in mind that primarily slow twitch muscle fibers are used at slow paces while fast oxidative glycolytic (pink-red stained) fibers are used as you pass around 70% of Max VO2. At around 80% of max VO2 you initiate fast glycolytic (white) fibers which normally generate force via anaerobic processes and pervade the sprinter type's makeup. However, though naturally used for explosive sprinting, fast glycolytic (white) fibers can be stimulated to improve their aerobic capcities, especially if one trains in the 80-100% of max VO2 range.

If you are what I call a natural slow twitcher, meaning you lack sprint speed, then you are going to benefit greatly from workouts that are 70% of max VO2 or slower. If you have a lot of intermediate, fast oxidative glycolytic fibers, then you will benefit greatly from tempo training at marathon pace or faster. If you have a lot of explosive, glycotic fibers then you will benefit greatly from running close to max VO2 pace. Most people have a mixture of the three and must be conscious of mixing the proportions of slow, intermediate, and fast training needed to enhance performance capacity.

I, for example, have a high proportion of fast oxidative, intermediate fibers, so if I do just slow distance running, then I feel horrible in within a week and suffer losses of performance capacity. I can not go out and just put in a bunch of long slow miles and do it for weeks. No matter how many miles I run, I will race slowly. Of course, the more racing I do the better I get. Why? It is because I have a lot of intermediate fibers. I call them intermediate for the sake of simplicity, but they really do contract at nearly the same rate so fast, white fibers that are used for sprinting. Tinman

Tinman,

I printed out this complete thread and it is nearly the size of a book. Could you re-articulate your critical velocity thesis? Do you have more examples of it being successfully implemented? Thanks in advance.

During all the years that Carlos Lopes trained for the 10km, he ran 10-20km in all his runs, twice per day. His longest run ever, except in the marathon, lasted just 90 minutes. So, don't worry about it much. Oh, by the way, Rosa Mota ran longer than 90 minutes only once in training (an hour and 45 minutes because Rob De Castella convinced her to run that far with him and the boys in Boulder, CO). Tinman

This is a debatable topic. The key is to factor in velocity, intensity, and duration. Carlos said that he would rather run a hard 90 minutes than a slow 3 hour run. Someone who run 7:00 per mile for 90 minutes may have the same aerobic capacity benefits as if they run 60 minutes at 6:30 pace. Make sense. Quality and Quantity create density of training.

Why do many very good runners at the elit level do double day running? First, it beats up the body less and it gives you the same improvements in aerobic capacity. Also, you simply can run faster if you run shorter. Intensity is increased, therefore, and improved fitness and performance result. Tinman

True, there is a big difference between 5k training and marathon training when it comes to use of long runs. 5k runners simply don't need anything over 90 minutes, in my opinion. Marathoners might benefit greatly from long runs because it creates an ability to handle the pounding of step after step for miles. However, running a hard 90 minutes is more beneficial than a slow 3 hours from the standpoint of improved LT, aerobic threshold, and max VO2 (though this is not a primary benefit of running a hard 90 minute run, it is too long). Tinman

Some great 5k runners have never exceeded 60 miles per week in training (like Said Aouita). Many fall into the 70-90 per week category including David Moorcroft. Tinman

10k runners can race great on 90 minute runs too. Running slower and longer is no more necessary for 10k runners than 5k runners. Tergat, Lopes, and Ngugi didn't run more than 90 minutes in training, nor Aouita or Pre. All ran great 10k times (though Aouita only ran it once, I think, in 27:23). Better to run 90-110 miles per week with doubles and quality aerobic runs, long intervals, hills, and other usual methods than go crazy with long slow runs. Do those if you want to be a mararthoner. Once you hit 90 minutes, work it faster, unless you are using it as a maintenance distance run. Tinman

Unless a runner is hitting 60 miles per week already, generally, increasing mileage is the best strategy. You improve your maximum aerobic capacity by increasing mileage until you are in the 60-75 miles per week range (without hammering intervals). Once you are up to 60 per week, then you can add some more quality to your weekly or bi-weekly plan to reach the next level. Your distance running pace should vary from around 2 minutes per mile slower than 5k pace for about 75% of your mileage, 1:00 per mile slower than 5k pace for 15% of your mileage, and 30 seconds per mile slower than 5k pace for 10% of your mileage, give or take a few seconds. Be consistent!

I suggest that you add 4 miles per week until you are get fairly tired (but not exhausted), then back off a little for a week. Then raise the volume again. By fall, you should be quite a bit faster over the 5k distance, as long as you use common sense. Fitness is not built in a day. Tinman

Ah, but there is another reason that a higher RBC count and higher hematocrit count are important for athletes, other than oxygen carriage: buffering of lactic acid. Think about it for a second, if you can buffer more lactic acid because your hematocrit is higher, then you can run at a faster speed before fatigue hits you hard. Tinman ... Tom

Unless your miles are relatively high, doing anerobic - lactic acid type reps will erode your running efficiency in a little over a month, in my opinion. I have tested athletes in the human performance lab after they ran 400 repeats for 3 weeks (twice per week at about mile pace) and found that there fractional utilization had eroded by about 7%. Therefore, they were building up lactic acid at slower paces than before that type of training. Milers wanted more power but they compromised aerobic efficiency to get it. If a miler would run some fast aerobic mileage and a bunch more slow aerobic mileage, they would have the best of both worlds: higher power and a maintained threshold. This can be observed in the training logs of great milers such as Herb Elliott, Snell, Walker, Ovett, Cram, Scott, and now Webb, who runs regual fast 10 milers too.

It is my opinion that the key is getting in plenty of aerobic running to counteract the negative effects of lactic acid training. As a general rule, however, I think only 3-4 x 200m at the end of long interval workouts is far more effective for cross-country runners than short, fast reps in volume; say 400s. Do mile reps, some at LT and some at just faster than 5km (minus about 8 seconds) plus 3-4 x 200m at mile pace and you have a good workout. The stamina you develop from mile reps, in addition to higher aerobic capacity, will drop your overall race time steadily, provided you are reasonable and don't beat your body up with too many quality workouts per week or per month. Tinman

Higher mileage while doing fast reps will prevent erosion of fractional utilizaton, what I term generically as aerobic efficiency. Jan Olbrecht, European super physiologist and coach of many of the world's best swimmers writes about this topic a little at the end of his book called the Science of Winning.

Long ago, before I had the privelege of using fancy lab equipment, I noticed that my heart rate at common distance paces always was higher by a few beats and my effort seemed to be higher too. I then started coaching athletes and I noticed that when I had them do shorter reps at mile pace or faster, especially with short recoveries, that they became unable to run long intervals 2 or 3 days later at the normal pace. There time slowed and so did their race performances above a mile.

In support of my observations, Lydiard has commented numerous times that anaerobic work destroys aerobic ability. In one small book published by runners world in the 1970s, name eludes me, Lydiard describes a scenario that seems relevant to this discussion. He mentioned that upon a visit to someplace in OK area, he was invited to help a struggling miler at a JC who had run about 4:12 early in the season and was running over 4:20, struggling severl though running workouts like 20 x 440 in the low 60s. Lydiard intuitively knew the problem: erosion of aerobic ability. He told the kid and coach to stop doing 20 x 440 and start jogging long distances for a couple weeks. Then, he had the kid do short rep workouts such as 3 x 330 at a fast speed and with full recovery. In a month, upon doing a lot more aerobic running and a lot less lactic acid training set a p.r. for the season. Lydiard main point of the prose was simple: too much anaerobic work for too long will leave you flat, slow, and discouraged.

My take on the use of shorter, fast intervals is simple. Go ahead and use them for a month but not near the main event. Dr. Costill reported awhile ago that anaerobic ennzymes and anerobic capacity were retained in trained athtletes for a month after cessation of fast interval work, though no training was done in the interim. It seems obvious then that even doing a small amount of faster reps will retain the benefits of fast interval reps for several weeks after high volume sessions have been done. All one needs to do then is return to aerobic work to improve what was eroded during the period of anaerobic, high volume emphasis. For distance runners, I believe that very little work in the high volume short interval arena needs to be done, if at all. Rather, doing longer intervals at plus or minus or distance race pace and up to 4 reps of 150-200m at a fast pace is more beneficial in terms of overall performance.

I have coached runners who had done lots of 400s in previous seasons. I changed their workouts from sessions such as 15 x 400m at about 3k to 1500m pace to 4-5 x 1 mile at LT to goal 5k pace with 3 x 200 or 4 x 150 fast, and the results were dramatic. Usually though mileage hasn't changed, athletes run about 10 seconds per mile faster, at least.

Athletes who have emailed to me that they do a lot of speedwork, i.e. lot of 400s, 300, 200, often find my suggestion of just upping their easy mileage by 10-20 miles per week to counteract the effects of lactic acid work interesting and odd. Sure enough, upon its use, athletes email back in a couple weeks and say they are doing much better in races; about 20 seconds in the 5k is the normal improvement in 2-3 weeks of doing this. They report feeling better during the day and night, away from the track too. They sleep better, feel less agitated, and have fewer stomach, g.i. problems. Simply put, lactic acid is not good for the human body in large quantities. Worse yet is extended use of training that induces high values of lactic acid.

My suggestion to those who have no say in the design of workouts is this: run more easy to moderate miles.

Tinman

First, I think your coach included some very good workouts in your schedule. Long intervals, long fast hill runs that stretched for miles, shorter hill reps, and a longer run all fit into what I consider essential training for x-country runners, along with moderately high mileage with double day running as often as possible.

In specific, I think your schedule was too dense to create optimal results. Spreading the harder workouts out a bit would provide more growth. Also, it is more likely that peaking at the end of the season, when it really counts, would have happened for everyone or nearly everyone on the team. Schedules that are too dense often round runners into form too quickly and leave them flat or on the downslide near the end of the season.

Overall, however, at least you weren't doing a huge amount of less usefull 400 repeats. The longer intervals and long hills give stamina for a x-country running that short intervals never can.

Tinman,

Something I stole from Jeff Johnson and have used for a while during the XC season are weekly shorter reps such as 200's, 300's and 400's at from 3k pace down to 1-2 sec/400 slower than 1500 race pace. So something like 2 x 6 x 200 at 3k pace w/ 100 jog btw each, 400 jog btw sets in August and Sept. Not a heroic quanity of work, but say 2400m worth once a week with roughly a 1:1 recovery. This and 1-2 longer steady state runs such as 8-10 milers at 15-20 sec/mile slower than MP or 30-40 sec/mile slower than 1/2 marathon pace (approx 80% VO2max) seems to get athletes very strong and allows them to maintain their turnover without killing them off.

What's your experience with this concept? Good or bad is fine, just curious.

Joe

Joe:

I agree with the workout suggested by Jeff Johnson and used by you. Because the intensity of the short reps is modest (3k pace)(or even barely slower than 1500m pace), the rep distance is not too long, and the quantity is low (for the entire workout), I have found similar postive benefits by having runners do what I term short speed aerobic fartleks. This is nearly identical as the workout you suggested. The design I created is nothing fancy but it does work good on two points. First, it reduces injuries that slow distance running creates. Too much mileage of just slow running increases injuries, both personal experience and research shows. Second, it does provide and excellent transition to longer interval work which is more specialized and specific to distance racing performance. My workout is simple: run 30 seconds faster, 1:30 slower x 8-12 times. The effort is about mile pace to 3k pace, no faster. If the volume is not too great and the reps are short enough, not much lactic acid will be generated, but the power benefits are realized, just as in the workout you suggested.

The longer slower tempo runs you suggested also fit nicely into the plan. I call them aerobic threshold workouts which is about 1:00 per mile slower than current 5k pace, nearly identical to your idea of running +20 seconds over MP. We are on the same page, Joe. Tinman

tinman,

inregard to the hills. are you saying that you have had more success with just a few(2-4) short (100-200m) hills at a very fast pace with full recovery following a tempo or long vo2 interval session, as opposed to a wkout like 8-12 x 300-400 meter hills at around 5k(or whatever the distance to be racing is pace) with a recovery of say 1:1.5 or 2...?

Yes, you are right. Foremost, the success of a cross-country runner is derived from a combination of a high aerobic capacity (Max VO2) and high Lactate Threshold. Long intervals develop both of these at the same time, short intervals don't help the threshold very much. Also, the sustained nature of long intervals simulates the sustained demands of distance racing far better than short intervals.

Short, fast reps in small quantity after a long interval session is the best way to go, in my opinion if you want to add speed to a cross-country runner's program. You can run 4 x 150 fast uphill or 4 x 200m fast on the flats, both with full recovery. For a well-conditioned runner, a simple jog back to the start is all that is needed.

Since the total of the speed reps is low, excessive lactic acid is not developed, yet power is improved enough to make surges and sprints at the end of races quite easy. In fact, if you measure a person's running economy at their normal distance race pace, I think you will find an improvement occuring more so with the short but fast reps than with longer 400s at about mile pace or slightly slower. The 400s are too short to maximuze Max VO2 and LT improvents and not fast enough, explosive enough to develop easy power, the ability to generate force without strain; a key to avoiding lactic acid toxicity. Tinman

Interesting connection to what you are saying and what John McDonnell does at Ark. Still does the 16-20x400 workouts, but get's away from that towards the end because he feels it trashes their legs...and replaces it with steady state work .

What are your thoughts about 6-12x400 (400 jog) at 3k pace? I see that theme workout infrequently in the BYU women's program. In your lab experience, does the longer rest (and the even longer 4-5 minutes rest Daniels advocates in XC) and more moderate 3k pace negate some of the long term aerobic erosion acidosis produces?

First, McDonnell uses 200s in the early part of cross-country season before switching to repeat miles, usually 6 of them. He holds the long repeats for nearly the rest of the season and then goes to steady state runs to let the legs recover before the big meets, just as he does during the track season. Smart, very smart. For 15 years, I have advised using LT and just 3 x 200m as part of the peaking process during the last two weeks. This is just what John M. does, it seems.

About the longer rests between shorter reps, such as 300s or 400s, indeed the benefit is the avoidance of accumulating lactic acidosis that short rests would cause. Also, by running at 3k pace instead mile race pace, high lactic acid levels are not as likely, rather moderate levels in the 6-8 mmols, perhaps less if the rests are long enough.

It is my belief that extremes in rep length are the best method to employ. Run longer reps for aerobic capacity, LT, and stamina that carries over to successful maintenance of a fast race pace. Run short, fast reps, uphill and on the flats, at a high speed with nearly complete rest in order to increase power output and reduce oxygen demands for normal racing speeds. You bascially increase the snap in the stride without increase the energy requirement. Add two to your stride while keeping the stride frequency the same and you become an new runner in a hurry (about 10 seconds per mile).

Work the long reps to hold the power you gain from the short fast reps. Simple. Tinman

Thanks for posting the above info. I have said this on letsrun.com for a year and half. I was saying this back in the 19080s and then along came Perronet and Thiebault of Canado who wrote an article in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, I think, about their study which showed that aerobic energy contributes one heck of a lot more to the demands of sport than previously stated. They showed that at the by 30 seconds or there abouts already 50% of energy demands were being met aerobically. This is not to say the total ATP generated for the whole 30 seconds was generated by aerobic processes at the rate of 50%, but at the exact moment of 30 seconds it was 50%. By a minute 83% was aerobic. By 90 seconds it was over 90% aerobic.

There is no wonder that people like Michael Johnson, a great finisher in the 200 and 400m was superior to his contemporaries. He ran a lot of longer repetitions at less than full effort. His coach, Clyde Hart, is a smart man. He makes his sprinters build aerobic power and aerobic endurance, not just anaerobic power. Tinman

If I were training milers, after months of mileage with quality tempo runs, hill sprints, long uphill runs in a continuous fashion, I would emphasize workouts of repeat 5 minute runs. The first 2 minutes would be run at LT pace, getting the aerobic system up to full speed, then run hard for 3 minutes, about 90-95% effort. The latter part of the 5 minute rep would work max aerobic capacity. I would jog for as long as needed to return blood acidity to around 2 mmols, then hit it again. Afterward, sprint reps upill or on the flat would be done. Example: 4 x 150m at 400m race velocity. Sometimes I would have them run uphill reps.

Other times I would advise 4 miles of LT work, then hill reps of 300m full-out, then downhill sprintsat 90% effort.

Other times, I might have them run 1000-1200m reps alternating 3k pace and 800m pace. Change of pace in this fashion is good for learning neural coordination while running a little faster than or slower than race pace. I have no phyiological basis for this workout, just opinion.

All along, no matter the time of the year, I would have the runners put in 8-10 mile run at 5k pace plus 1:00 per mile. This is vital to successs in the long term, I think. Tinman

Backward first, Seb ran a hundred of Max VO2 reps that were in the half-mile to mile range, so no I would not have changed his training. He had aerobic power as well as explosive speed.

About running the mile reps. During the competitive season for the collegiate runner (Sept to late November) I would have runners doing long reps (mile to 1.5 mile) every week. The reps are progressive in pace. Since research shows the 25 minutes is the mininum amount of LT training needed for runner to achieve optimal resuls from training, I would make sure at least 3 miles of LT are run in the early part of each interval workout. Then, I would have the runner run faster than 5k pace for 2-3 x 1 mile. Betweeen the LT reps, I use one minute of jogging. Between the fast mile reps which promote Max VO2 improvement in power at Max VO2 (the abilit to run faster while at Max VO2) the recovery is a full 5 minute jog. Better to run faster mile reps with longer jog recoveries than slower mile reps with shorter recover. It is all about power!

Example - 24:50 8km runner (5:00 per mile) -

workout - 2 mile warm-up run, 3 x 150 progressive

3 x 1 mile at LT (5:15)(8k pace + 10%), jog 1'

plus

3 x 1 mile at 8k pace minus 10%(4:45), jog 5'

3 x 200m at mile to 800m pace, jog 200m

2 mile cooldown run, stretch lightly

In the early season, more LT reps and fewer Max VO2 reps should be done. No sense in rushing. By the 5th week, the above workout can be done weekly or at least bi-weekly. If one needs more recovery, then on alternate weeks more LT reps and fewer Max VO2 reps can be done. Example recovery week: 5-6 x 1 mile in which 4-5 are at LT and only one rep at Max VO2.

If you do the mile reps every Wednesday or Tuesday, you will be very fit for racing by the end of the season and capable of placing higher than ever at Nationals. tinman

Bump

Actually, you can jump mileage very quickly if you have a strong background in running. To go from 40 to 80 in a hurry, you have to slow down your pace by about 40-60 seconds per mile. Once you hit your mileage (which you can get in 3-4 weeks, I think), you can gradaully pick up the pace. So, by the end of the second month you should be running around 80 per week at a pace similar to what you are doing now at 40 per week.

Buy one of Arthur Lydiard's books. It will be money well spent.

In the peaking phase, you either time trial, do sharpening speedwork, coordination training, or distance runs. Yes, you still get in distance, especially a long run each week, per Lydiard.

Time trials relate to your race distance. If you are a 10k runner, then 3k and 5k time trials or even 10k time trials may be your key. The pace is about 10 seconds pe mile over race pace for the distance or in Mr. Lydiard's words "7/8th" effort. A miler might do an 800m or 1500m time trial. Sharpening workouts could be something like 3 x 300m at high speed but with long recoveries. You might do 6-8 laps on a track of alternating either 50s or 100s at sprint speed with easy running of same distance between as a means of bringing together speed and endurance. The whole key is to do the necessary foundation prior to all the fast running. Then do the anaerobic work in high volume and high frequency for just one month. Then, over the last 4-6 weeks, reduced the quantity of anaerobic workouts. Instead of doing workouts such as 12-20 x 200-400m at mile pace, you might do just 3-4 x 300 or 400 at 800-mile pace with longer recoveries, all with short sprints with long recoveries and the previously stated time trials, surge training, and long run. The above is pure Lydiard, the master.

Bump

My Formulas to calculate the training paces (others are good too, so keep that in mind):

Aerobic Recovery Pace (after really hard races or training should be run around 60% of Max VO2 which is about 66.6% velocity of 5k pace, I figure. So, at 5:30 pace for the 5k or 330 seconds per mile, your aerobic recovery pace (ARP) would be calculated like this: 330" / .666 = 495.5" or 8:15.5 / mile.

Your Normal Distance Pace (I once called it SAP or Slow Aerobic Pace)(now I just call it NDP) can be up to 70% of max VO2. I tend to favor shooting for 67.5% of max VO2 because it occurred to me long ago that aerobic capacity can vary a little from day to day and especially during times of fatigue. So, setting your NDP at 70% could prove too fast and tiring on some days and leave you depleted for fast workouts or long runs (true keys to improving your race fitness). So, I suggest shooting for 67.5% of max VO2 as a measure of control. You caculate it like this: 5k pace = 5:30 or 330" / .75 = 440" or 7:20 / mile.

Your one hour race pace can be calculated by using my T60 (time = 60 minutes) formula: 5k pace = 5:30 or 330 seconds / .93 = 354.87" or 5:54.8 / mile.

You want a tempo pace for less than 15 minutes, so let's assume you want to do a quick but solid run that gets results but does not wipe you out. Perhaps you might go for a 15 minute run at 10k pace. 10k pace is a really good pace because it begins to develop max VO2 (especially as a runner gets down closer to 30 minutes for the 10k) and improves lactate threshold/turnpoint/stamina, shifting lactate curves to the right (towards faster velocities). So, take your 5k pace (330") and multiply it by 1.04 to get your 10k pace. (330" x 1.04 = 343.2" or 5:43.2 / mile). So, in your case you might run 4km at 10km pace. A 14 minute 5km runner might run 5km at their 10km pace to reach the 15 minute mark for the fast tempo run.

For tempo runs in the 20 to 30 minute range, I would run the same pace as the T60 that you calculated two paragraphs ago.

For 30 to 40 minute tempo runs, I would use the following formula: 5k pace (330") / .90 = 366.66" or 6:06.66 / mile. This is your approximate half-marathon race pace (HMP).

You asked about adjusting training paces as the weeks pass when you are not racing. I have a couple possibilities for you. First, you can gauge your efforts as you run the standard workouts listed above and rate them on your own scale. My AES (Aerobic Effort Scale) scale is 1 to 10. See the following:

AES

--------------------------

10 = 3k race effort

9 = 5k race effort

8 = 10k race effort

7 = 15k race effort

6 = Half marathon race effort

5 = Marathon race effort

4 = No Man's Zone

3 = NDP...Normal Distance Pace

2 = ARP...Aerobic Recovery Pace

1 = Jogging

0 = shuffling along or walking at a moderate pace.

------------------------------

The next method is to use heart rate as a means of determining if your body has adapted to the workload/ training paces you have been doing. It is not foolproof since glycogen depletion, dehydration, and lack of sleep may change heart rate a little. If you measure your measure your heart rate on a tempo run and it drops at the same pace, then it is possible that your body has adapted. Since more permanent adaptations take in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 weeks, you can expect that if your training has been within the ZOA (zone of adaptation) (not too hard, not to much; just right, within 5% plus or minus), then your pace at the same heart rate might be about 3-6 seconds faster per mile. I generally figure 1-2 seconds per mile per week is normal when you are training correctly. So, if your heart was 170 beats per minute in the latter half of your tempo run when you started training at a given pace (let's say 5:54 pace) and now at the same pace you find that your heart rate is just 165, then you probably can guess that your body is in better shape.

For the gentleman who has run 4:03 for the mile and 14:10 for the 5k, I am glad to help you with training paces. I can give you more details than this if you need them.

First, let me comment on your mile to 5k ratio; not bad. Here are some paralellel eqivalents:

800m: 1:50.45

1500m: 3:45.02

1 mile: 4:03.00

3000m: 8:01.54

2 miles: 8:40.02

5000m: 13:57.23

10000m: 29:01.44

So, your mile and 5k time are fairly close to equal. I am guessing that you race the mile or 1500m more often and try to peak for it, so your 5k time is a bit slower than its equal in the mile.

In my opinion, when training aerobically (3k pace and slower) it is better to use a 3k or slower benchmark to determine training paces. It is hard to estimate how much of your 4:03 mile is attributed to anaerobic capacity/ speed. Let's assume that you could run 14:03.2 for the 5k now; 4:32 pace per mile. The following are your training paces according to my charts:

ARP (aerobic recovery pace)... 6:48.4 / mile

NDP (normal distance pace).... 6:02.6/ mile

SP (sprint pace) .... 12.66-13.3"/ 100m

SEP (speed endurance pace).... 13.80-14.5"/ 100m

STP (speed transition pace)... 15.0"/ 100m

ACP (aerobic capacity pace)... 64.15-67.35/ 400m

CVP (critical velocity pace).. 70.91/ 400m

T60 (1-hour pace or ~85% of Max VO2) 4:52.47/ mile

T120(2-hour pace or ~80% of Max VO2) 5:02.22/ mile

T180(3-hour pace or ~75% of Max VO2) 5:12.64/ mile

I hope this helps. tinman

80% of max heart rate pace can vary from day to day a bit, so keep that in mind. But, your goal 80% heart rate pace should fall into the range of 5k pace / .75 to .776.

Example:

15:30 for 5k = 5:00 per mile or 300 seconds...

300" / .75 = 6:40/mile (67.5% of Max VO2)

300" / .776 = 6:26.6/mile (70% of Max VO2)

5k to marathon is a leap of faith because conditioning for the two events is often quite different. So, the range I suggest as reasonable in 9.65 to 10.0 x your 5k total time equals your marathon time.

Example: 15 minute 5k run x 9.65 to 10.0 = 2:24:46 to 2:30

Again, for the half marathon, there will be some variance. Simply put, the time generated from a 5k can be partly attributed to anaerobic power. So, for a runner with a bunch of anaerobic power, their marathon performance is probably going to not correlate as closely to longer races as someone who has modest anaerobic power and good aerobic endurance. Here is a formula for the 5k to the half-marathon: 5k time x 4.6 to 4.8

Example: 15 minute 5k x 4.6 to 4.8 = 69 to 72 minutes for the half-marathon.

For the 5k to 15k conversion, I simply use 3.2 as the factor.

Example: 15 minute 5k x 3.2 = 48 minutes for the 15k