Your 18 min. 5k time is equal to 1:24:30 for the half marathon based on my prediction of 5k time divide by .90. Your LT based on 5k time is 6:14.6 per mile. I recommend that you do the following workouts:
20-30 minute tempo runs at 6:14.60
40-60 minute tempo runs at 6:27.09
70-80 minute tiemp runs at 6:40.44
It looks like you are already doing really smart training. Way to go!!
Your 18 min. 5k time is equal to 1:24:30 for the half marathon based on my prediction of 5k time divide by .90. Your LT based on 5k time is 6:14.6 per mile. I recommend that you do the following workouts:
Yes, you are right that LT varies a bit for individuals from the old standard of 4 mmols. However, the intensity that can be maintained is quite predictable. The correlates (f factors) I provided are constants that are accurate relative to race pace times / velocities. Since you love Jack's book, take a look at his charts and you will find that the correlates that I used match his very, very closely. For example, look at roughly 15:00 for the 5k (4:50 per mile pace) and see what Jack has for LT pace. I have Jack's books at home, but I will guess that the LT time he lists is within 2 seconds of the one that I derived from 4:50.32 pace per mile (15:00 for 5k) pace divided by .93 which equals 5:12.17. The exact mmol of lactate for a given intensities is not really the important point, but rather the intensity relative to velocity correlative. So, the intensities that I suggest (.93 for LT, .90 for medium length, half-marathon paced tempo runs, and .87 for marathon paced longer tempo runs) are accurate and of benefit to runners seeking more definitive guidelines on how to train better. I appreciate your choice to debate though. Thank you.
you're using Hadd's program, right? so...HR should take care of it. sounds like you are about to set a PR acc to tinman's calculations.
For persons interested in using heart rate as a guideline,I believe too that using heart rate can be of value. I do caution that there are possible variances in heart rate, more so than velocity relative to current race performance, that can affect accuracy. Please be sure to have the same nutritional and hydration status for your key workouts each week. If your are depleted with either, then your heart rates in training may be off a bit. Also, the time of day can affect heart rate accuracy too. You may find it more difficult, for example, to elevate your heart rate in the morning to run the predicted tempo paces. I really like idea of running at predicted tempo pace, whether it is short LT tempo pace, medium half-marathon tempo pace, or long marathon tempo pace while monitoring your heart rate. If you ran a 5k race this past weekend and your average race pace was 5:00 per mile, for example, (300 seconds per mile) and you calculated your short tempo pace to be 5:22.5 per mile, use your heart rate monitor while running at that predicted pace and note the value on the monitor, especially after the first mile and half (it takes awhile to level off). In the past, I prescribed repeat miles on Wed. following a Sat race in which the first 3 reps were at predicted short tempo LT pace (in the above case 5:22.5)and watched runner's heart rates during the reps run at that pace. I gave them just a minute of rest between. The second rep would invariably 5-6 beats higher and then level off after that, no matter how many reps they did (as long as the temp wasn't blazing hot...dehydration can elevate heart rate, of course). Then I would have the athletes run at a pace 4% faster than race pace (in the above case 12 seconds faster) with long jog recoveries (5 minutes) and note their heart rates during those reps. I used the heart rates not as controls on how fast to run, for the predicted LT paces based on recent race time did that but, rather, as a means of assuring that my runners were not coming down with illness or running dehydrated or depleted. If a person was going to be sick, their heart rates were higher than normal at the predicted heart rate by 5 beats or more. If they were dehydrated, it was similar. If they were depleted, their heart rates were low...and the athletes complained that the effort was high but they couldn't get their heart rates to rise. I called it quits for any case of 5 beats above or below normal, unless the temp was really hot outside, in which case I asked the runners to slow down a bit. So, race pace predictions of tempo velocity and heart rate can go nicely together. Their are similarly effective applications to heart rates and slower paces that one should run during maintenance aerobic runs which fill roughy 80% of all training time. The maintenance aerobic runs should be run, in my opinion, at 5k pace divided by .75. If heart rate is elevated at the predicted pace for aeobic maintenance compared to normal, then illness or depletion is occurring. If heart rates is down by 5 beats or more at predicted aerobic maintenance pace, then depletion is occuring. Common sense says at that point to back off and let time heal wounds
This whole deal is chalk-full of estimates but read it through and see what you think:
Renato gave me the following numbers, as 400m PRs relate to 1500m pace:
400m PR 1500m Pace
This pans out as 1500mPace/400mPR = 1.135-1.130
Renato also told me that he was sure that Stephen Cherono (12:48 5k) was no faster than 50.0, and that Nicholas Kemboi (26:30) was not under 51.0. He also estimated that Geb was not under 50.0
Here are the "on paper" PRs for Gebrselassie and Radcliffe:
Athlete 400m 1500m 3000m 5000m 10000m Marathon/km Gebrselassie NT 3:31.76i 7:25.09 12:39.36 26:22.75 2:59.99 Radcliffe 58.9 4:05.37 8:22.2 14:31.42 30:01.09 3:12.56
If we apply the 1.130 1500m/400m ratio to both these runners, we estimate that Geb can run 49.97 for 400m (believable) and Paula can run 57.9 (also beleivable).
Then, if we take those estimated 400s and apply the 1.215 5k Pace/400mPR ratio, we estimate Geb at 12:38.9 for 5k (virtually there) and Paula at 14:27.
Here are their times estimated, with 400m times estimated on 1500m bests, and 5k's based on those 400 estimates, and then what the .87 rule governs for their marathon:
Athlete 400m 1500m 3000m 5000m 10000m Marathon/km Gebrselassie 49.97 3:31.76i 7:25.09 12:38.9 26:22.75 2:54.46/km (2:02:41) Radcliffe 57.9 4:05.37 8:22.2 14:27 30:01.09 3:19.31/km (2:20:09)
Now, Geb's chart looks plausible but we know that there is something wrong with Paula's. Either her 1500m/5k time is in need of significant revision or the .87 does not apply to elite females.
Working backwards from Paula's 2:15:25 (3:12.56/km), we find that she would need a 5k time of 13:57.6 for the .87 rule to apply. That would also require an estimated 400m of 55.15, and an est. 1500m of 3:53.7. Let's lay it out again.
Here are Paula's estimated PRs, based on her marathon and using the ratios found in her male counter parts (.87 5k/marathon, 1.215 5kPace/400mPR, 1.135 1500mPace/400mPR):
Athlete 400m 1500m 5000m 10000m Marathon/km
Radcliffe 55.15 3:53.7 13:57 29:04 3:12.56/km (2:15:25)
This leaves us with a few possibilities (assuming Paula is a clean athlete):
1.) The longer the distance, the closer womens' performances come to those of their male counterparts. This is seen in other examples, such as Ann Trason (accepting the fact that the competition is not on the same level at ultras as it is in elite track/marathoning).
2.) Paula can seriously revise all her track PRs (and destroy the Chinese 5k/10k records).
2a.) Paual could destroy all her track PRs, if she can could run 55sec 400m.
3.) The .87 rule is simply not accurate for elite women.
Think again wrote:
I can see and understand all your rationalzations, but they don't cover all the bases. Would also like to see you figure in a ton of Japanese women, and then I'd be even more confident that the numbers would skew.
Don't wholly agree with your, good for the goose, claim either. I would argue that few men (with a 5k equal to a female runner) will finish up with the same marathon time as the woman achieves. Yet your numbers say they will...
On the other hand, I would argue that the numbers give you a good starting point. They may not be perfect, but I'm betting that they would work for most people. To get the true answer, each individual would have to be tested to determine his/her pace at each level. Even 2 16:00 5K runners might have different threshold paces based on their physical makeup, but the books and formulas have to be for the public in general and just one or two individuals.
Good info. Thanks for sharing it with us.
It is my opinion that Paula Radcliffe's p.r.s for shorter distance are not at par with her marathon p.r. I do believe that Paula is due for big improvements (as a percentage of previous best race times) for shorter events, provided she chooses to run in shorter events.
Reiterating my point earlier that some persons are at the ends of the continuum when it comes to either endurance or power, it is plausible that Paula could be a genetic marvel when it comes to endurance. I do think that Paula is capable, if in the same shape as her marathon p.r., of running in the low 14s for 5k and 29s for 10k.
Regardless, the picky points we can come up with about predicting times for other distances are really only for fun, but figuring out a training schema for runners is important. It is my intention to help runners determine with greater precision the paces / intensities at which to train. The paces you and I and Renato Canova have talked about in training are designed to escalate our sport. Of course, human conditions vary a bit, but for the most part persons do have reasonable predictable values, especially int the middle range of races such as the 5k to half marathon. The 800-1500m and marathon are more extreme, and both as consequent of duration to maintain intensity over distance and the very nature of physiologic requirements to excel at these distances, we will always be exposed to small variation from the lines of best fit from formulae. Thanks for you continued qustioning and hypotheses.
Yea, I've been following Hadd's advice for quite some time now and I've seen significant improvements (for me). I was curious to see how my current efforts off my Hadd training correlated to what tinman is saying. It seems to be pretty close. Hopefully I'll hit some PR's over thje next few months.
You make a good point. The tempo paces I offered are a starting line, just as Daniels or Vigil or Canovas formulae are reference marks (with small possibilities for error).
Here is something for us to consider, variations in the middle or any statistical schema are small. The ends of schema are where more variations occur. The line of predictability between the 5k and one-hour race pace (found to be LT) is quite predictable because the time range is small. We have a centralized region of predictability which gives us statistical confidence of validity and reliability. On the other hand, if we correlated the mile to the marathon, we would have extremes on the range and thereby less validity and reliability.
If we asked a bunch of milers to race a marathon, we might not be very accurate at predicting who will place first, second, third, etc. if the milers were in a small range of ability. If we had five milers with p.r.s of 4:16, 4:18, 4:20, 4:22, and 4:24, we might have many possible finishes in the full marathon race. The 4:24 miler might even finish first in the marathon while the 4:16 might be last. But, if we take 5k runners with times of say 14:40, 14:50, 15:00, 15:10, and 15:20, we would have far greater predictability in the place at which said runners would finish in a marathon. Better yet would be 10k runners or half-marathoners, obviously.
Our starting point, just like those of other authors like Daniels, etc., in which we use .93 for LT, .90 for half marathon, .87 for marathon pace tempo runs of short, medium, or long duration, may indeed be both predictably accurate (especially at the LT which is the one-hour race pace predicted intensity) and useful for training distance runners. The key would be to be realistic with ourselves about what are inherrent strengths are (power vs endurance) and are training status. A miler may be running minimal mileage and not be able to hold the half marathon predicted tempo run very well because the 5k was predicted from their mile time which led to the predicted LT time. If a person actually runs a 5k or 10k (just divide 10k time by 2.08 to get predicted 5k time...and yes, it is fairly accurate, just look at Daniels charts or Vigils, or Canovas or play around with elite runners times and correlate their performances with the 2.08 factor) and then derives the tempo paces based on the correlates mentioned, then we can say with some confidence that the paces run will be reasonably accurate; assuredly enough to qualify training more effectively than going by gut instinct.
The problem faced by all distance runners is that racing in longer events can't be done on a frequent basis without interupting long-term progress. So, in order to solve this problem, we have to find good estimates of paces to be run to meet physiolgic components of race performance. We can't go out every week and run a hard one-hour race just so that we know what LT pace is, for example, nor can we run a half-marathon or full marathon. We can, however, use reasonably accurate formulae to predict those paces and use the predictions to guide our training. Hit and miss is what we are avoiding. Long term improvement for most of us requires a bit of a scientific, systematic approach; hence, the formulae I offer.
Good luck! I am sure you will enjoy some new p.r.s. Hadd's training and Canovas, and Daniels are all well-thought out. The one thing I will say is keep doing the tempo runs and mileage. Tempo runs or tempo pace is key for all distance runners, fast or slow, female or male, skinny or fat, old or young. After college (which was abysmal for me because I had chronic injuries, two surgeries, and too much passion for intensity) I ran a 15:13 5k on nothing but 30-35 miles per week and thee 4-mile tempo runs. I ran no speedwork, no long runs, and only two races prior to that. That was a p.r. for me. Two weeks later at an all-comers track meet, I ran a p.r. for the 1500m. I never ran a single rep of any sort, unless you count the one workout that I ran of 4 x 1 mile at LT pace. What is the point? Tempo paces are critical to stamina building. There are many,many elite success stories out there in which you will find that fast aerobic running (tempo type running) was the key to success. Many people try to emulate training schemes that famous runners have done, but too often disappointments occur because of one key ingredient; stamina building tempo paces were not tailored to individual and current ability. Just because Bob Kennedy runs 5:10 pace in the winter for his 10 mile tempo runs doesn't mean that it is the right pace to run for the aspiring runner emulating Bob's workouts. The key is to do the right intensity within a small range of possibilities for the right duration. Then, do maintenance distance workouts and small amounts of faster work before going for another tempo type workout. You can literally speed up your training process by manyfold if you use tempo runs properly. I think Lydiard was saying that all-along but few ever heard his message.
The above was intended to state that I did three tempo runs per week of 4 miles. I think I ran those for only about 2 months, maybe a tad more. Prior to that I ran in 10k and did only 36 minutes. See how valuable tempo pace is for improving runners?
I coached a guy who was a 18:20+ 5k runner in high school one year (and low 11s for 3200m) who asked for my guidance. I simply asked him to run the high school cross country course three times per week at tempo pace, starting in early July. He ran his first meet of the season, though it was fairly hot, in 16:14. He was putting in about 40miles per week by the time xc season started, but he started out at roughly nothing by late June. I didn't really think that he would be up to 40 per week by the time xc season started after I received a call from him in late July in which he said that he had took the whole month of June off. He was tired from hard track intervals/track season, he said. Anyway, apparently he liked the tempo runs and gained so much strength and stamina that moving up to 40 miles per week from nothing didn't seem that hard to him. Tempos were the key, I think. After that, I noticed that his times were in the 17minute or slower area. I felt sad for him. I know he wanted to do well. It was his senior year. I just wonder what he could have done if he had continued doing those moderate paced tempo runs.
Tin, great posts.
Jozast, thanks. I like to help people improve and get a grasp on some of those seemingly intangibles that all runners face.
I am going over to watch the Oregon State HS Cross Country Championships now in a few minutes. It should be good. Galen Rupp will be running, the new wonder kid. I don't know if he will be at his best today, though. He had an injury that kept him out of the district meet.
I'll post what I saw when I return.
Thanks for the advice and encouragement. I don't know who you are , but you seem very knowledgeable and your training seems to be very well thought out also.
It seems to me that it is better to post responses to question rather than write about training and racing topics in general that are my choices. I like to make the info. relevant and personalized. When responding to your qestions, I will use examples of situations and runners that I have coached or runners that I know who fit the example at hand so that technical info. makes sense. I learned a long time ago in grad school that just because someone is smart, doesn't mean they can teach. I observed that the best teachers and coaches used examples and answered questions that the students had. I hope that you feel free to ask questions which are important to you. Your questions are relevant no matter not if you are slow-poke Joe or Jane or Olympic Champion Geb or Joanie to me. All runners want to improve. All runners want to feel satisfaction from their struggles in sport...and in life. Bill Bowerman, coach of coaches now since passed, said that running should not be meaningless, it should represent more than putting one foot in front of another.
Tinman & Trackhead
Thanks for your great post, much appreciated.
I do the tempos regularly, here is my quandry and where i need guidance.
I presently am in base wk for LA marathon in early march.
Can you provide where you put the major focus over the final
If you could break down tempo runs during each phase would be
so how would you go about working these tempo runs into training for 1500/5000m? Would you do them at all times during the year, or just in the base/pre-comp periods? Do you find that runners need to recover from tempo runs, or can you do back-to-back workouts with them?
You have a valid point about how many 5k males slow more than 5k females at the full marathon distance. There is a simple answer to this, I think: men 5k runners tend to have more power than women 5k runners contributing to race performance at 5k. The opposite is also true regarding the marathon: I think, generally speaking, many women have stronger endurance when it comes to marathoning than men do. It certainly has nothing to do with natural strength because all ex.physiology textbooks state that there are not leg strength differences betweem genders when lean body mas is accounted for. Performance is related more to how much extra adipose a runner is carrying than in gender difference. So a male who is carrying more adipose weight would show similar declines in applied power as typical female athletes do. So, regardless of gender, a key to power produciton is extra weight carried. Take a look at great runners and one thing is common: lean and light bodies, not anerorhexic or fat bodies. Paula Radcliffe and Hicham El G are great examples: both lean, light, and powerful looking.
Why do ypical women distance runners show a small pace degredation than typical men distance runners besides power differences?
I think it is more that women distance runners follow the course of fastest progress which is doing the distance runs which build endurance. I think if more women middle distance runners started racing at the 5k and marathon we would see similar speed degradations as those which men have typically experienced.
So, if 5k times for women are not, in your opinion, relevant at predicting training paces because, as you say, women distance runners can't run at the same rate of incline or decline in speed on the distance continuum, let's use another distance: 10k. How about using the 10k for women as a means of identifying training paces for tempo runs and aerobic maintenace runs? So, the power factor inherent in the 5k will have been diminished so that training paces can be more accurate for female persons.
So adjust to the following:
5k Men 10k Women
.93 for short LT tempo runs .96 for short LT tempo runs
.90 for medium tempo runs .93 for medium tempo runs
.87 for long tempo runs .90 for long tempo runs
So, that should take care of your concerns for Japanese women runners. Caveat, what if you are a runner, male or female who carries a bunch of extra adipose? Hmmmm!! I guess you would have less applied running power than others of your gender, so maybe you (reader carry a couple extra pounds) will have to use the 10k chart, regardless of gender. What if you are a super lean lady? Hmmmmm again! I guess you would be back to the original 5k chart which shows tempo paces.
I will answer your question soon after answering a previous poster's.
Hi! I think that tempo runs are the most critical element of race fitness for the marathon. Question: What training have you done thus far? That makes a difference in what I recommend.
As a blanket statement, I will suggest the following workouts:
One week before your race do a 10 miler at marathon race pace with a warm-up and cooldown. This serves as a medium length tempo run at slightly slower than normal medium lenght tempo pace (normal medium length tempo pace is at half-marathon race pace) Each weekend prior to that run either a Sat or Sunday "big" day in which you run a total for the day which is equal the time you will run in the marathon. So,if you think you will run 3 hrs and 30 minutes, then each Sat., for examaple for a month, run two workouts totaling 3.5 hours. Each of the two runs should include 30 minutes of running at medium tempo pace. This workout day alone will round you into excellent race shape.
For the 12 weeks prior to that, run eighter one long tempo run or one medium-length tempo run each weekend, if not racing. See previous posts on how to determine pace and length of runs for medium and long tempo runs. During the middle of each week, run any of the following workouts:
1.5 hours with 3 x 5 minutes at 5k-8k race pace, jog 5 minutes between
1.5 hours with long hill reps (4 x 600m, for example) at 5k race pace effort
1.5 hours with with LT reps (short tempo pace) such as 4 x 1 mile jog 1 minute. See chart for short tempo pace.
1.5 hours with a 2 mile time trial at 90% of maxium effort
The key will be to get in two days per week in which you run both longer and faster. The second day each week (on Sat or Sun) is the more specific day. The sustainded tempo runs on the weekend, plus one strength day in the middle of the week will make you very race fit. Do not get any crazy ideas about doing speedwork. Unless you are running 2:20 for the marathon, you will be better off working on race specific stamina (tempo runs) and strenght-endurance , aka Max VO2.