Why is this kind of training working so well for me?

This is an intersting issue. I tell my teammates all the time that this only works up to a certain point. In order to reach elite times in the 10k+, you NEED to run high mileage as your aerobic capacity has to be very large.

Theres a certain barrier that times won't go below (more or less) on low mileage and high intensity, and you also will lack a certain "kick" at the end of races.

This is why high schoolers can run times like 14:45 5k off of 30-40 mpw but also 60-70 mpw, the difference is how much aerobic development they have and how well theyd perform in a longer distance like 10k.

Because a majority of the super top tier athletes run low mileage and high intensity, the risk of injury is lower, so they got recruited to top college programs, then are thrown into the coach's 80+ mpw program as a freshman and burnout, or get lucky and stay healthy while improving.

Thanks,

Obviously my case is a bit different because I am just a recreational runner. But what is interesting is that 2 years ago I followed the hansons plan to prepare for a marathon. I ran more than twice the distance per week as I do now, but I am pretty sure my base speed is better now.

remco wrote:

The last years I was struggling to run 5k under 25 minutes. My marathon pace was about 5:40

Presumably that is 5:40/km ?

I did not test it yet But I am pretty sure my 5k pace will be 2 minutes faster than it was

So basically your 5K will be about 23-mins?

Don't mean to pee on your party but I know loads of guys who can hit this sort of time off low mileage. I know guys who run 15-20mpw and are hitting 18-19mins.

As first reply says, this will only take you so far before you need to do some decent aerobic development (if you want to get better).

O

remco wrote:

Most trainers will tell me that I should do long runs more and build on an aerobic base. but this seems to be working quite well.

Only if you're paying them. They have to make it look/sound impressive to earn their cash

Who wants to pay a coach who tells them just go out

My question: are there running coaches, books or philosophies who promote this kind of training?

Would love to know why this works and if it could work for others too

I'm not sure it's that much different to Lydiard who was all about the aerobic base.

He was all about getting out to run every day. He told beginngers to start with a 10-min out and back. Then to add time to 15, 20, 30mins as the runs got more comfortable.

His basic training week was a 3/4 effort on Mon/Fri/Sun, a fartlek for leg speed on Weds with 1/4 efforts on the days in between.

An explanation:

Since doing this only for 2 months the improvement due to something new/more is still good.

The 2k above 5k works like a VO2max/threshold pace that boosts this

The longer are intense but look like thresholds, tempos, moderate runs which is great at developing aerobic cabability

THe 2 hour bike is great to build steady endurance.

In fact this is a good approach. I would soon start with some intervals to vary the 2km hard effort. Maybe do 3 km total of reps at faster pace, hill reps, etc

remco wrote:

- Once a week I do a 2 hour bike ride.

As Jeff Gaudette critically says about the cross-training aspect of FIRST ... why go on a 2hr bike ride when you could do a 2hr very easy run and be sport-specific?

Uhhh wrote:

Don't mean to pee on your party but I know loads of guys who can hit this sort of time off low mileage. I know guys who run 15-20mpw and are hitting 18-19mins.

Probably, but I am not looking at other guys, I am looking at myself. I was struggling to run under 25 minutes and now in 60 days, with very few miles I improved this with at least 2 minutes and I try to find out why. 2 years ago I ran 70k per week for some months until I got injured but I was definitely not faster

Thanks I am aware that at some point I will have to add something extra in the mix. This will help

GarminGuy wrote:

This is an intersting issue. I tell my teammates all the time that this only works up to a certain point. In order to reach elite times in the 10k+, you NEED to run high mileage as your aerobic capacity has to be very large.

I don't think you understand what aerobic capacity is.

Uhhh wrote:

As Jeff Gaudette critically says about the cross-training aspect of FIRST ... why go on a 2hr bike ride when you could do a 2hr very easy run and be sport-specific?

2 reasons:

first riding a bik is a lot of fun, and that is the most important one but I also think it is easier on the legs because it is non-impact.

remco wrote:

Uhhh wrote:

Don't mean to pee on your party but I know loads of guys who can hit this sort of time off low mileage. I know guys who run 15-20mpw and are hitting 18-19mins.

Probably, but I am not looking at other guys, I am looking at myself. I was struggling to run under 25 minutes and now in 60 days, with very few miles I improved this with at least 2 minutes and I try to find out why. 2 years ago I ran 70k per week for some months until I got injured but I was definitely not faster

Fair enough. It's quite possible if you'll get down close, or even below, 20-mins using this method. Stick with it until you see times plateauing. But don't make the mistake that many of these guys do of thinking to get faster, you have to train faster - you won't, you'll need to do aerobic development work.

There are two hidden lessons ...

1) When you followed Hansons they really didn't push you that hard on the speed side. As I recall their interval and speed sessions 10-20sec/mile faster than your expected marathon pace.

2) This is the more important one. You only improve when you can recovery from the training. Hansons is all about cumulative fatigue and their "beginner" is nothing I would give to a beginner or anyone who is a 25-min 5K runner. As I recall their beginner plan peaks at 50-55mpw. It's just too much.

Now you are doing small, short runs that are easier to recover from.

As for impact and injuries ... it's something of a myth. If you do your easy runs genuinely easy, there is barely any noticeable impact. It's the stress of fast training and high levels of acidity/cortisol that mainly cause injuries.

some people could run sub 14 on dirt tracks off this kind of training https://www.racingpast.ca/john_contents.php?id=234

So basically, you had mediocre results 20 years ago on unspecified training.

Then you took a long break and started doing unspecified intensity low mileage with very bad results.

Then you dropped your mileage even more and boosted intensity for 2 months and your results slightly improved, but still are nowhere near your results from 20 years ago, let alone your genetic ceiling?

Congratulations, you have peaked without having sufficient base! Was there a point to it?

He gets to submit his thesis for letsrun peer review.

So, there's that.

Yes, Hansons is not for me. Too many miles too much fatigue and my marathon was not a great success.

Darby wrote:

So basically, you had mediocre results 20 years ago on unspecified training.

Then you took a long break and started doing unspecified intensity low mileage with very bad results.

Then you dropped your mileage even more and boosted intensity for 2 months and your results slightly improved, but still are nowhere near your results from 20 years ago, let alone your genetic ceiling?

Congratulations, you have peaked without having sufficient base! Was there a point to it?

Exactly.

Might want to have a look for Klaas Lok's Easy Interval Method. I think he may have contributed to a couple of threads in this forum.

If your not doing workouts then you average pace on runs can be faster for sure. If you like doing what your doing keep it up but eventually you’ll need to slow down those runs and introduce workouts.

remco wrote:

My question: are there running coaches, books or philosophies who promote this kind of training?

Would love to know why this works and if it could work for others too

With your new training you increased your lactate threshold level. -> better race result