Quest to run 13:35 on 70 miles per week

it can be done wrote:

My dad ran 13:39 and didn't run twice a day. Mileage was normally 70-80. You don't need great basic speed to run this time either as some on this thread seem to be suggesting, can't remember his 1500 best but it wasn't sub 3:50.

uh yeah...gonna call BS on this one...might want to ask your old man for some documentation on that 13:39 if his 1500 pr was not sub 3:50, thats pretty dang slow for a 1330 5k guy.

Earl wrote:

Interesting because the 3:54 is equal to about a 14:30 5k

No its not...try 350 or better.

13:35 Work Out

2 Miles Warm-Up

4*400m in 58 secs Jog 30 secs in between Reps

Rest 2mins

2*800m in 2mins 04 secs Jog I min in between Reps

Rest 4 mins

1* Mile in 4 mins 24 Secs

2 Miles Cool Down

Redding wrote:

uh yeah...gonna call BS on this one...might want to ask your old man for some documentation on that 13:39 if his 1500 pr was not sub 3:50, thats pretty dang slow for a 1330 5k guy.

It's well documented thank you, on national and international ranking lists (28:45 10k too). You're right that he didn't have much natural speed for someone who could run that time, but there are some runners who are able to operate quite close to their max like that. I also know of a 13:45 runner who couldn't break 2 mins for 800 and I don't think went quicker that 3:55 for 15. They both have efficient, tidy strides, but couldn't break into a faster pace when necessary.

I remember reading a couple threads in the past about guys who ran 100 mpw in college and who were always tired and burned out. Then after college when they reduced mileage and could train the way they wanted they significantly improved, so maybe the high mileage in college will translate to greater success now because you already have that base. My advice is to stay injury free, stay relaxed, and to set smaller goals. Going to 14:30 to 14:20, etc is much more feasible than dropping over a minute.

My Typical Longest Mileage Week

Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat

Morning

10 miles 10 miles 5 miles 10 miles 12 miles 20 miles

Easy Easy

Afternoon

5 miles 7 miles Total

Work-out

Sundays:Rest Day

Total Mileage:79 Miles

Get your 1500m time down to the low 3.40's or a 4 minute mile and you have a chance.

You know the workouts you need to do. Don't be afraid, but don't train too hard.

Don't think of 10x400 in 59 with 60 seconds recovery as an awesome workout, think of it as a target along the way from which you will recover quickly.

optional wrote:

I have the confidence that I can run sub 13:40 and have been told that I am a 13:30 5k'er that will "never reach his potential..."

...have run PR's of 8:34//14:43//30:14//1:07.42.

I'm 23 years old.

Thoughts?

HAHA!

i never ran faster than 3:54, but easily ran under 14:30 a number of time.

however, sounds like you're an expert, i must just be remembering my PRs incorrectly.

bonzo wrote:

however, sounds like you're an expert, i must just be remembering my PRs incorrectly.

Or perhaps there's a slight chance that you're not representative of the general population, due to your complete lack of speed.

really funny guy wrote:

bonzo wrote:

however, sounds like you're an expert, i must just be remembering my PRs incorrectly.

Or perhaps there's a slight chance that you're not representative of the general population, due to your complete lack of speed.

I would think he would have a faster 5k with 3:54 speed. The rough rule for mature 5k specialists is mile+20s. 3.54 is about 4.14/13 mile or so, 14:29 is about 4:40 pace. If he is running sub 14:15, then you can accuse him of lacking foot speed. And if he runs sub 14 with 3.54 speed, then you can accuse him of being a genetic freak (or someone who just hasn't run a 1500 while in great shape).

You definately can run faster on lesser mileage if you train smartly. I think your 400m speed is just fine to reach your goal, but I think you might want to change your goal for right now. Just try to get under 14:30 first, then 14:15-20, 14:10, etc. and just keep seeing how far you can get down. You might reach under 13:40, you might not. Now, think about your training and see where you need to improve, don't just follow a set schedule. We're all individuals and need to work on different things to get faster. Most of the time you should spend at least around 6 weeks of fairly easy running if you've taken off for awhile just to get fit again so you start handling some quality. Since you got injured in the past, I think a good strength training program would help to alleviate these injuries. Specifically focus on the leg muscles, mostly the ones you don't use as much in running. Muscular imbalance can cause a lot of problems. Next, see what you need to work on. Exactly what is it that you need to improve on in order to race faster? I think your speed is just fine for a goal of around sub 14:30, so you probably need to improve somewhere else. Of course, do some speed work to maintain your 400m speed, but I don't think there's a need to be hammering speed work for you, If you can look at other race times (10k, maybe half-marathon?) or just some workouts, you can probably see where you need to improve. You might need more long runs or you might need to do some more tempo work or maybe intervals are what's needed. Study up on what each workout does to your body and think of which ones would work best for you. Break it down, you need to hold 69s in order to break 14:30. Your 400m speed is fine for that, so I'd focus more on speed endurance and simple aerobic capacity. If hammering out long runs at fairly fast paces is easy, then you probably don't need any extra work there and might want to focus on some tempo work. You might also want to have a "test" workout that you use to see your improvements. It could be 12x400 in 69s starting with fairly long rest and decreasing that rest, then possibly doing longer repeats such as 8x600, then 6x800, etc. just to gauge your fitness and racing times. Know the purpose of each workout, be able to tell yourself what each workout is improving on. Be in CONTROL of how hard you're working too. Don't race your workouts, it's better to be more conservative than to try to push yourself beyond your limits in a workout, then be trashed for workouts for the next 10 days or get injured. Know what the workout is supposed to be doing and run it so that you get the desired effect. Don't turn tempo runs into all-out efforts, in fact, no workout should be an all-out effort, save that for your goal races. Consistent, smart, conservative work will ensure that you show continued improvement and won't injure yourself. A final thought is that there will never be a perfect way for you to train and you should always be thinking about ways to improve your training. You mentioned Bannister, he was one who thought about how he could get around his time limitations and get the most effective training to race at his goal pace. He used his medical knowledge and experimented with things. He didn't just follow one set system to reach that sub-4 mile, he experimented until he found a way to get there. Don't be afraid to experiment with your training and always be thinking about ways to improve it. You will never perfect it because there is no perfect way to train, but you can probably get pretty close if you keep experimenting and figure out what works for you. Some people might need those 100+ mile weeks to reach their potential. Some get injured by that or get stale from too much easy mileage and need faster stuff. Hell, doesn't Lagat only train like 70-80 miles a week? I know that he's immensely talented, but high mileage isn't some holy grail that will solve all your problems. Sure, most people will improve on it just because it will get them very fit cardiovascurally, but there's more to it that than that. And sure, some people are probably better running that high mileage, that's good for them, other people have to run a different way. Whatever works best for you.

3:54 and 14:16 (before injury stopped me). I'm glad you seem to know what you're talking about, so others can't go spewing mis-information unchecked.

there is no chance whatsoever that 14:30 matches up with sub-3:50 or whatever the other dude said. that 1500 time is much better than the 14:30 5k

Some people, like myself, are just slow as shit but have natural endurance. When I was in about 14:24 shape, I would have been hard pressed to break 4:00 for the 1500. I probably could have done it, but just barely.

I ran 3.46 and 8.06 but had a best of 14.41. I was shyt over anything over 3k. But that was mostly because I was just unable to deal with any kind of pain for more than a few minutes. Ten minutes was my breaking point. I think if I hadn't been a pssy i could have run 14.10.

If there is something you want to do, do it.

If people don't believe you can, prove them wrong.

If the facts say you can't do it, test them.

You have experience, you have confidence, you have discipline, and you have a goal. Do some studying, make a training plan that will fit you, and give it everything you've got. If you never break 14, at least you know you tried. When you're 40, you won't be able to go back and give it another shot.

If you've been injured all this time, maybe you've been doing too much mileage for you anyways. Do as much as you can and don't stress over what you can't change.

There's no harm in trying, right?

I seem to remember steve jones doing a lot with a little amount of time, hard hour long run on his lunch break.

But seriously you can't find 30 more minutes a day to obtain your goal? I mean you are not willing to pack a lunch to PR?

For all your talk your dedication seems to be seriously lacking. If you lose friends and relationships because you are passionate about running then they weren't your friends in the first place.

I'll give myself this plan until the end of the 2009 track season...I'll get to race some local xc stuff, maybe some decent road races and see how fast I can get on the track in the spring/summer.

If I'm not progressing, then I go back to the drawing board.

Earl wrote:

Interesting because the 3:54 is equal to about a 14:30 5k

Enrique Eilgel wrote:

No its not...try 350 or better.

Me, 14:08 and 3:57. Should have gone quicker at 15 but think I could only have found a couple of seconds.