Can I Run Sub 14:50 in the 5k?

Anyone else think he can go 14:50 off of this training...

the Rest between the 1k's was = rest....

Assuming reasonable rest intervals and a lighter workload in the last 7-10 days before the race, I'd say you could absolutely run 14:50 SO get out for that first kilometer in 2:55-2:58 and go for it.

And in response to everyone who says this looks like a lot of intensity for this time of year, it's really not THAT crazy of a schedule. He has 2 VO2 days, a tempo day, and one shorter, speed-oriented workout (I hope those 400s are done with a fair amount of recovery, though). It's a little more intensity than most people respond well to, but it might work for him. There are definitely guys who race well at 5k for a few months at a time off of schedules like this, especially with a good base underneath them. It won't work for all of us, but it definitely works for some of us.

(Side note, though: If I were coaching an athlete who responded well to speed and could handle four workouts a week, I'd likely be a little more conservative: the athlete's primary weekly workout this time of year would be a tempo/VO2 pyramid, his secondary focus would be on a slightly longer tempo run (5-6 miles) and a VO2 workout similar to the one he's currently doing, and his lightest workout of the week would be something like 6-10 200s @ 1500 pace w/ full recovery.)

Forget 1450 and think about 355/1435 outdoors. Right now youre a bit better prepared for 1500m. Looks like 5k is your race.

You need more long intervals and extended tempo work 6-10 miles (more <550 miles), but not really more miles just yet.

If you already have 54 or faster 400m speed, you can also get 1430's w/ just shorter tempos (4-5 < 530 pace)and fartleks. Neither of these tempo options are road runs.

Youre swatting flies w/ a sledgehammer on the 6x800m, but that shows real spirit and 3:50 potential (<1430 5k long term). Your 15 mi long run is pointless, at best optional. try splitting it up, with some of the pm miles at 545-6 pace.

Find your middle gears.

Adding the tempo work will require you to back off some on the quality intervals, at least for a time.

Thanks, I will try that, and see how I feel. Anyone else have anything that will get me under 14:50 in 2 weeks, is my training schedule good?

bump....

I'm just curious, but why do you think his long run is pointless?? I would guess that the long run is good and maybe make another day an easier day. I like that he has the paitents to actually take a day off. I dont know if its the better thing to do... i never hear of many runners taking days off (just my college experience), but i would think it would be good, especially on a schedule like that.

Yes yes yes.

Provided the rec's on the km reps aren't more than 90secs then you should do it no problem. I run a similar session in 2:46 - 2:48 ish usually and have run 8:11/14:13. Somewhere in the 14:30s/40s is definitely in range.

Ignore the naysayers. Posting those times in training is tough and show that you are ready to put in a good racing performance.

Good luck

bump

xcrz wrote:

Yes yes yes.

Provided the rec's on the km reps aren't more than 90secs then you should do it no problem.

he said before that the rest was equal (i.e. same as the time for the rep).

bump

I've never run one session that fast in a week let alone 3, and I've run 14.18 for 5km, your either a workout machine of ready for a big PR good luck.

I don't know if this helps, but when I did a 6 x 800 workout similar to yours (2:13, 2:11, 2:11, 2:11, 2:11, 2:10 with a lap jog for recovery), I ran a 14:35 5k on the road. I don't know how much faster I would have been on the track at that point, but I'm guessing 10 seconds or so. Anyhow, my mileage varied between 100 during off weeks and 70 during race weeks. I didn't really have a plan at the time and wasn't really peaking, so I might have run faster on fresher legs. But I would have to say that breaking 14:50 is VERY realistic based on the info you've given.

Ran 1440/ 820 last year with less base, but a similar workouts (4 mi tempo in 5:08, but I was not feeling probably as fresh as you were)

I cant relate to the interval work though, when I PR'ed it was all base mileage and longer tempos/fartleks.

try to hit 440 pace per mile (1435) and if you come up short youve still got a 15 second cushion.

Pointless is a strong word.

Here are the long run myths:

they teach you to burn fat during exercise.

truth-> you get better at burning both fat and carbohydrate as you get fit.

w/ tempo runs (somewhat hard to hard), you burn fuel at a higher rate. even though the percent of fuel from fat is lower, overall you will actually burn more fat cruising instead of jogging. the real upside comes in recovery. higher intensity running leads to more fat burning the rest of the day. this is called the EPOC effect.

they are especially good for developing mitochondria.

truth->if you are out of shape, anything you do will develop mitochondria. volume is a consideration but not the only consideration. A Canadian research group showed that untrained runners can progress quite well intitially running just a short set of intervals. 5x200m turned out to be just as benificial as much longer and slower training in the early weeks. A similar result was found at UCLA. Long and slow is optional, but just one choice when you are starting out. If you are in shape, intensity (+ tapering or periodization) becomes more and more important.

they'll make you mentally tough for a distance race.

truth ->being fit makes you tough. any pace will get difficult if you run it long enough, but tempo type training requires sustained effort and real concentration, a much better simulation of race day. It builds a confidence that jogging cannot. It also teaches you the importance of fuel and how to run with central fatigue. the brain drives the body, and without fuel, you'll slow whichever way you train.

long runs improve your speed.

this is the silliest one of all. truth->nobody can hold a pace they cant hit no matter how many miles they run. truth is ultra runners lose all fast fiber-- not a key if theyre timing your race w/ a stopwatch and not a sundial. youre really looking for fatigue resistance in the active muscle, and the best way to work muscle fiber is solid effort. If you do have fast fiber you condition those fibers best with running near VO2peak. If you have predominantly slow fiber, you'll work it best somewhat hard to hard, actually demanding some force. You want to make those fibers stronger, more like the larger, more powerful fast fiber. You want the fast fibers looking more like slow fiber, packed with enzymes and mitochondria.

Of course you cant train w/ intensity all the time, but you

do want to make sure youve covered all the elements: speed and sustained speed in your training, and not robbed Peter to pay Paul.

In regards to your question about rest days: sometimes taking a rest day is the most competitive thing you can do.

I also give rest days to athletes adding quality to their training. they often find the usual jogging pace is just too slow. instead of forcing an unnaturally slow pace, or bashing away, you give em a rest.

Bump

?

nope, you need more LONG RUNS. make that 12 mile days every day of the week.

Wow, that is an incredibly narrowminded and incorrect view. You're saying he would be better off taking a rest day than doing a long run? I agree that rest days are important, and also that long runs do take away from you when you're racing, but in terms of long term development, long runs are among the most important ones. Your points, while true, are mostly irrelevant.

Long runs are good for burning fat? Are you kidding me? How would that be even remotely relevant to what this kid is trying to do?

They are good for developing mitochondria, some of the best running you can do for it. They're good for developing capillary beds too. This kid is obviously already in shape, so the first part of that statement isn't even remotely applicable. He isn't "just starting out". And yes, tapering is important, but in the middle of indoor season?

I don't think I've ever heard that long runs makes you mentally tough, but I that is, again, irrelevant. I somehow doubt that he is doing long runs for the specific reason of getting mentally tough, and I certainly don't know anyone that does.

Long Runs improve your speed. NOBODY CAN HOLD THEIR PACE NO MATTER HOW MANY MILES THEY RUN????? WHY do you think DO THE LONG RUNS? THAT IS THE VERY POINT OF THE LONG RUN! I... am at a loss for words how stupid you sound when you say that. Are you f*cking serious? Have you ever read, talked to, heard about any -serious- distance runner who did no long runs? The entire purpose of the long run is to develop slow twitch muscle fibers which give you the endurance to hold their pace. You can't run a 5k sprinting, you need endurance to hold a pace. Fast twitch muscle fibers (and the intermediate fibers) are no good for this. You want the strongest slow twitch muscle fibers you can get. These fast twitch muscle fibers chock full of mitochondria you talk about... no. I'm sorry, you're describing a sprinter, not a distance runner (brings to mind The430miler's claims that El G's training was 97% anaerobic "becuase he basically had to sprint for a mile" which was also total BS). Your fast twitch muscles account for much less that 10% of the energy you use during a 5k. Having well developed speed is of little use if you're so inefficient that you can't use it.

I'm not even going to get into the fact that "sustained speed" and "somewhat hard to hard" miles (which I'll assume are tempo runs and long intervals, for lack of better description on your part) aren't doing jack sh*t with your fast twitch muscle fibers, and are actually working slow twitch fibers to make them more efficient at race speeds.

This guy is obviously not ignoring his "quality" training (have you looked at those workouts?) Doing one long run a week is not robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it isn't going to somehow rob him of his speed. You mention that he should make sure to cover all of his bases, and then tell him to ignore long runs? I... haven't seen many posts that are worse than yours. Pure sophistry, truly a weak, pointless, toothless arguement. It isn't that you don't have any points, its just that the good points you have are not something he has a problem with, and the poor points don't even come close to applying to him. I'm sorry for coming off as snooty and a jerkoff, but I couldn't help myself. Seeing you, some anonymous dude on a message board ignoring (and actually denying) some of the most basic tenets of most of modern training theories. You show me a real distance coach who doesn't believe in doing long runs, and I'll show you a sub-par coach.