This post was removed.
no excuses wrote:
Konfuzi wrote:
LOL, wtf are you talking about? Do you even know? Go get your shine box, boy!
The question you are avoiding. What do the terms Aerobic Capacity and Aerobic Endurance mean to you?
You do seem slow, but if you’re looking for definitions there *IS* this thing called Google…..now go get that shine box, son!
lexel wrote:
Konfuzi wrote:
If you can break 70 for 400 but but 20 for 5k I’d say you fit right in to what I was talking about!
I guess you mean 'but not', instead of 'but but'.
False that statement, and often read here.
A 400m run is only 40% aerobic and 60% anaerobic.
A 5k is over 90% aerobic.
You see any difference?
Try comparing 400m times with 5k times in distance runners.
See any correlation?
Konfuzi wrote:
no excuses wrote:
The question you are avoiding. What do the terms Aerobic Capacity and Aerobic Endurance mean to you?
You do seem slow, but if you’re looking for definitions there *IS* this thing called Google…..now go get that shine box, son!
I want you to explain since you believe you know more.
no excuses wrote:
Konfuzi wrote:
You do seem slow, but if you’re looking for definitions there *IS* this thing called Google…..now go get that shine box, son!
I want you to explain since you believe you know more.
I think I explained unequivocally what you can do.🙄
That assumption is very inaccurate. First, I really do not have a clue about what I run on 400 and I break 19
What is your most current 5k time?
Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:
That assumption is very inaccurate. First, I really do not have a clue about what I run on 400 and I break 19
You said you thought you could break 70 sec, no? You also already said you couldn’t break 19, no? So what’s the real story? And no, the assumption is not inaccurate based on the information you provided.
Konfuzi. wrote:
Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:
That assumption is very inaccurate. First, I really do not have a clue about what I run on 400 and I break 19
You said you thought you could break 70 sec, no? You also already said you couldn’t break 19, no? So what’s the real story? And no, the assumption is not inaccurate based on the information you provided.
Who judges the accuacy of an assumption? The assumer or the one closest to the truth :-)
OK this thread did not go where I wanted. In some strange way it ended up discussing my training which was not really the question or my intention. My fault is I answer questions and give responses.
Originally I wondered about something a Norwegian coach brought up, that he really did not understand what this so called short rep threshold training was. I kindof agree. It is faster than threshold, it has a different activation of muscles and energy pathways than threshold pace.
Then it is not really important what we call things if they anyway can be effective. What is clear is that lactate levels are used as an indicator for intensity and that many use this, especially in Norway. I see lactate measurements all over.
The main thing is that the total training plan must have balance. Balance between different intensities and efforts and recovery. We all know that so it really do not matter too much what you do as long it is a thought through variation and balance in it.
lexel wrote:
Konfuzi wrote:
It’s maybe the most overridingly important one of all and breaking 20min for 5k not rocket science.
Alternate between a 40 min tempo run (at marathon pace), 1k reps at 10k pace with 200m recovery and a 90min long run with the last few miles at tempo pace with a few days of easy running between each and you’ll reach your goal in a couple months more that likely.
It is not so simple if you are 50y. I am 49y, have 70-80k/week and so far i am little abvove 20 min 5k. The cells are sluggish and do not respond so quickly.
Btw. a 20min for 5k for a 50y old is equivalnt to 18min/5k for a 25y old runner.
This is respectable for a amateur runner.
What is a 18;49 for a 59yo worth ..?
Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:
Konfuzi. wrote:
You said you thought you could break 70 sec, no? You also already said you couldn’t break 19, no? So what’s the real story? And no, the assumption is not inaccurate based on the information you provided.
Who judges the accuacy of an assumption? The assumer or the one closest to the truth :-)
It seems that ALL of your training is based on assumption….I guess to some degree you have to have faith in your training, but that’s usually based on seeing results from the training you’re doing. Over your 35 years of training, have you ever seen results? I’m in your age group and run several minutes faster for 5k FYI. I’ve never done double workout days(my legs are typically pretty sore from workout #1) nor have I broken 36 seconds when doing 200’s. I’m sure I’m not particularly talented but I do put the work in….month after month. The right work. I know it’s right because I get faster. Anyway, good luck trying to mimic JI training, seems pretty silly to me but to each his own!
Jzs wrote:
What is a 18;49 for a 59yo worth ..?
Based on
http://www.marathonguide.com/fitnesscalcs/ageequivalent.cfmIt is 00:15:24 for a 25 yo male.
Not too shabby !
Konfuzi.. wrote:
It seems that ALL of your training is based on assumption….I guess to some degree you have to have faith in your training, but that’s usually based on seeing results from the training you’re doing. Over your 35 years of training, have you ever seen results? I’m in your age group and run several minutes faster for 5k FYI. I’ve never done double workout days(my legs are typically pretty sore from workout #1) nor have I broken 36 seconds when doing 200’s. I’m sure I’m not particularly talented but I do put the work in….month after month. The right work. I know it’s right because I get faster. Anyway, good luck trying to mimic JI training, seems pretty silly to me but to each his own!
I referred to assumptions about my 400 and 5k time which I found too inaccurate due to both our estimates to conclude on anything about aerobic or speed ability. I did not touch upon how you or I base our thinking on assumptions.
I believe all runners and coaches base training mostly on assumptions or hypotheses. There are some things that areshowed to work over and over and there are other things we just cannot prove. Training philosophy is one. It is impossible to do full scientific long term studies with crossover designs for 10, 5 or even 1 year for enough runners at a high level. Therefore the studies are on short term like 4-6 weeks, small groups and with not crossover (groups switch training methods). Just isolated things can be checked, like one training method or type of workout over the other.
I try to use a mix of science and what others do. I for sure get very excited when someone succeeds and thinks they have found the holy grail. Your feedback from your training and your advice is also nothing I just turn down. It is something I consider.
Then I get very motivated from stuff and I have a problem in recovering enough. I can basically do workouts 5 days in a row and like it. That is for sure one main thing that can prevent me from imrpoving and I might have had too little recovery and too hard training now for 1.5 year. I am trying to do something about that...
I have incorporated threshold training in some form since 1993 I think. That time I read that moderate running also had its place. Before that the coach gave us 40min "racepace" workouts, which ended up like a steady threshold or tempo. Later I added sub-threshold longer runs, up to 80min and they for sure were more like 2-3h race pace long runs. I also did weekly moderate long runs from 80-100min, but they were more like just faster than easy.
Then 15 years ago I was inspired by Marius Bakken and his training has inspired Ingebrigtsens. He used double workouts and he used threshold efforts a lot.
The last years of course Ingebrigsten's model has inspired many. in the last 2 years I already did a LOT of threshold/tempo/fartleks to get back and this way of thinking fit with Ingebrigsten, but I have become very fit and can run comfortably hard for a long time, like 40-50min before it gets harder to keep the pace. So I assess my aerobic capacity being good, at least good enough to run 5k steady and fast. But running faster than say 10s faster than threshold pace is hard and that is something I want to do something about.
So I have gone away from Ingebrigsten and a lot of thresholds and rather emphasize more speedy reps and easier thresholds like 2h race pace to back it up.
Since I can run steady for a long time, I do not assess I need to work on distance more than I do. I have tried single weeks of easy volume in the spring and it is no problem, it is easy to do, but I get sluggish and slow. Then I need som faster and more intense to get the body going again. i have not noticed any effect from that training either. So now I of course have some longer work a week, but primarily use easy running to fill in volume and recover.
It is also a thing about genetics. Not all that run slower lack training, they might just not be faster genetically. I am not fast genetically, but not overly slow either. I would not know so that is something I will find out over time if I can improve.
Of course I have seen results. When being in the teens and into my first half of the twenties I improved a lot, mainly due to increasing volumes of training. This happens to all. Then every time I had a pause in the training I improved again starting up training, obviously. Now I have had too long of a stillstand, but not on all fields. I have focused on top speed and that improves still (new top speed PB yesterday).
I like double workouts cause it makes my legs juicy. I can be OK on the first session and great on the second and I get less weared down than one longer workout. It is a matter of personal liking I think.
Training is different for different people. I do think that we have missed to see those runners that did NOT respond well to the main training philosophy. The evidence for the training philosophies might be skewed or biased because we measure only those that succeeds. It is kind of a reinforcement of a wrong belief. It is of course not totally like this, but it is not overly wrong to claim this could be the case.
You of course do your thing, I can hear what you think and bring it with me, but one size does not fit all. And there is a reason for my motivation and partly that is training philosophies. I thin it is fun.
I find at least some parts om this discussion interesting.
I never considered my self a long distance runner and started to train for distances for around 400m and for veterans pentathlon which contains 1500m. But since general health was prioritized before speed I started out with some distance training.
When I started training I ran a warm up and then tried to maintain 16km/h for about 2,5 km. 2-3 times a week.
Later, when I got a threadmill I instead ran 1500km runs with 3% incline 18km/h to simulate a real track performance so I knew that I could break 5minutes. At best I reached over a mile. Doing this was almost all distance training I did. I think I might av put in a eight km run once in a while but thats about it.
It was mentally tough but it gave quick results with very little time used.
I think that with more distance and volume behind it could be a good way to increase 5k tempo to put in a 1500km close to race tempo once in a while. With very little volume this training worked pretty good up to about 2k.
4 years and a torn hamstring mostly sitting still later I rather focus on increasing volume and endurance from almost zero but I think you might benefit from a little more intense kamikaze runs since you ave endurance and stamina already. I think increasing tempo is almost as much mental as physical. It hurts alot and takes getting used to. For me it became too much with almost every training session being a race but I will use a modified strategy again if my body allows me too run.
A disclaimer though. I have almost no coaching experience at all. Just making an experiment on myself to see how fast I could run with a very limited amount of training. My advice might very well be a bit mad.
Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:
Konfuzi.. wrote:
It seems that ALL of your training is based on assumption….I guess to some degree you have to have faith in your training, but that’s usually based on seeing results from the training you’re doing. Over your 35 years of training, have you ever seen results? I’m in your age group and run several minutes faster for 5k FYI. I’ve never done double workout days(my legs are typically pretty sore from workout #1) nor have I broken 36 seconds when doing 200’s. I’m sure I’m not particularly talented but I do put the work in….month after month. The right work. I know it’s right because I get faster. Anyway, good luck trying to mimic JI training, seems pretty silly to me but to each his own!
I referred to assumptions about my 400 and 5k time which I found too inaccurate due to both our estimates to conclude on anything about aerobic or speed ability. I did not touch upon how you or I base our thinking on assumptions.
I believe all runners and coaches base training mostly on assumptions or hypotheses. There are some things that areshowed to work over and over and there are other things we just cannot prove. Training philosophy is one. It is impossible to do full scientific long term studies with crossover designs for 10, 5 or even 1 year for enough runners at a high level. Therefore the studies are on short term like 4-6 weeks, small groups and with not crossover (groups switch training methods). Just isolated things can be checked, like one training method or type of workout over the other.
I try to use a mix of science and what others do. I for sure get very excited when someone succeeds and thinks they have found the holy grail. Your feedback from your training and your advice is also nothing I just turn down. It is something I consider.
Then I get very motivated from stuff and I have a problem in recovering enough. I can basically do workouts 5 days in a row and like it. That is for sure one main thing that can prevent me from imrpoving and I might have had too little recovery and too hard training now for 1.5 year. I am trying to do something about that...
I have incorporated threshold training in some form since 1993 I think. That time I read that moderate running also had its place. Before that the coach gave us 40min "racepace" workouts, which ended up like a steady threshold or tempo. Later I added sub-threshold longer runs, up to 80min and they for sure were more like 2-3h race pace long runs. I also did weekly moderate long runs from 80-100min, but they were more like just faster than easy.
Then 15 years ago I was inspired by Marius Bakken and his training has inspired Ingebrigtsens. He used double workouts and he used threshold efforts a lot.
The last years of course Ingebrigsten's model has inspired many. in the last 2 years I already did a LOT of threshold/tempo/fartleks to get back and this way of thinking fit with Ingebrigsten, but I have become very fit and can run comfortably hard for a long time, like 40-50min before it gets harder to keep the pace. So I assess my aerobic capacity being good, at least good enough to run 5k steady and fast. But running faster than say 10s faster than threshold pace is hard and that is something I want to do something about.
So I have gone away from Ingebrigsten and a lot of thresholds and rather emphasize more speedy reps and easier thresholds like 2h race pace to back it up.
Since I can run steady for a long time, I do not assess I need to work on distance more than I do. I have tried single weeks of easy volume in the spring and it is no problem, it is easy to do, but I get sluggish and slow. Then I need som faster and more intense to get the body going again. i have not noticed any effect from that training either. So now I of course have some longer work a week, but primarily use easy running to fill in volume and recover.
It is also a thing about genetics. Not all that run slower lack training, they might just not be faster genetically. I am not fast genetically, but not overly slow either. I would not know so that is something I will find out over time if I can improve.
Of course I have seen results. When being in the teens and into my first half of the twenties I improved a lot, mainly due to increasing volumes of training. This happens to all. Then every time I had a pause in the training I improved again starting up training, obviously. Now I have had too long of a stillstand, but not on all fields. I have focused on top speed and that improves still (new top speed PB yesterday).
I like double workouts cause it makes my legs juicy. I can be OK on the first session and great on the second and I get less weared down than one longer workout. It is a matter of personal liking I think.
Training is different for different people. I do think that we have missed to see those runners that did NOT respond well to the main training philosophy. The evidence for the training philosophies might be skewed or biased because we measure only those that succeeds. It is kind of a reinforcement of a wrong belief. It is of course not totally like this, but it is not overly wrong to claim this could be the case.
You of course do your thing, I can hear what you think and bring it with me, but one size does not fit all. And there is a reason for my motivation and partly that is training philosophies. I thin it is fun.
Hi, I’d say while one size doesn’t fit all, the basics fit most (if not all). Take it for what it’s worth and maybe there is something lost in translation but there are a few red flags I see in your training-
1)I know you back tracked on it,but, being able to run easy for an hour every day without pain is a low benchmark that should probably be reached before you do anything else.
2)A longer run at least every other week will help you improve your 5k time. Even better if there’s some quality in there(a few tempo miles or variations of that).
3)saying you could do “5 workouts in a row” without rest in between means none of them are actually doing much, more than likely. If you’re not doing high enough intensity or volume to make your legs a little sore(or possibly a lot) during a workout I’d question it’s efficacy. As someone who will be 50 in a few years I need 2-3 days easy between almost any hard effort.
4)like I mentioned earlier, and it was certainly true for me, despite not having much leg speed sustained tempo runs on the longer side (40mins or so) at around marathon pace go a long way to helping you sustain high end aerobic paces, fundamental to 5k, as do intervals on the longer side…I like miles personally. No need for “top speed” at this point other than maybe during strides. Your stamina isn’t anywhere close to being developed enough to sustain it so it’s not relevant to your 5k time and injury risk is too great.
5)After you’ve squeezed all the juice out of the basics and your times start to flatten out then, I say, is the time to start introducing more complex/faster stuff.
6)finally - you seem a little unsure where you actually are fitness wise. If youre not really sensitive,and acutely body aware, you should probably run a 5k time trial to get an idea where you actually are. Set your paces from that concrete data.
Keep it fun but that’s my 10 cent take as a hobby jogging internet stranger!
The thread didn't go where you wanted, but it wasn't your fault. This pompous Konfuzi idiot hijacked it and led it astray. I have really enjoyed your posts as a discussion of (1) training theory, (2) what the Ingebrigtsens are doing (which is interesting given their incredible results), and (3) maybe, just maybe, what can be applied to us amateurs. Thank you for that, please ignore Konfuzi, and carry on!
Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:
OK this thread did not go where I wanted. In some strange way it ended up discussing my training which was not really the question or my intention. My fault is I answer questions and give responses.
Originally I wondered about something a Norwegian coach brought up, that he really did not understand what this so called short rep threshold training was. I kindof agree. It is faster than threshold, it has a different activation of muscles and energy pathways than threshold pace.
Then it is not really important what we call things if they anyway can be effective. What is clear is that lactate levels are used as an indicator for intensity and that many use this, especially in Norway. I see lactate measurements all over.
The main thing is that the total training plan must have balance. Balance between different intensities and efforts and recovery. We all know that so it really do not matter too much what you do as long it is a thought through variation and balance in it.
Konfuzi, how about you STFU. Take a look in the mirror and you will see a pompous windbag who hijacked a perfectly good thread. So someone isn't allowed to discuss training theory or experiment with different principles in their own training unless they're relatively fast? I'm plenty fast (but not world class) and I'm extremely interested in training theory and what the Ingebrigtsens are up to. Whether it's ultimately applicable to me isn't important in the discussion. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I think we're allowed to discuss it without yahoos like you saying it's not relevant.
Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:
Konfuzi. wrote:
You said you thought you could break 70 sec, no? You also already said you couldn’t break 19, no? So what’s the real story? And no, the assumption is not inaccurate based on the information you provided.
Who judges the accuacy of an assumption? The assumer or the one closest to the truth :-)
+1
Konfuzi is confused
not your fault... wrote:
Konfuzi, how about you STFU. Take a look in the mirror and you will see a pompous windbag who hijacked a perfectly good thread. So someone isn't allowed to discuss training theory or experiment with different principles in their own training unless they're relatively fast? I'm plenty fast (but not world class) and I'm extremely interested in training theory and what the Ingebrigtsens are up to. Whether it's ultimately applicable to me isn't important in the discussion. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I think we're allowed to discuss it without yahoos like you saying it's not relevant.
You anklebiting dipchits can do as you please. I stand by everything I said. 😇