VO2 max for 10k?

beentheredonethat,

If your 10k doesn't meet the standards of your 15:00 5k, how many miles per week do you run?

confused- wrote:

Hi, just a quick question. Is doing work at 5k or faster pace (800s, 1000s, 1200s etc) beneficial to do ever week or so while training for the 10k? I know threshold/tempo and long runs are of importance, but how often should someone do work at VO2 max pace?

It depends how fast you are. The slower you are--my speed, for example: an aging 41-minute 10Ker--the more you should be training at what Tom "Tinman" Schwartz would call CV (critical velocity) pace. That's slightly above tempo/threshold pace but below VO2max pace. It's basically 45 minute pace: the pace you could hold in a 45 minute race. If you're a 30 minute 10K guy, that's your 12-15K pace. If you're a 41 minute guy like me, it's pretty close to 10K race pace.

Here's something Tinman wrote on his forum. (The thread is called "Re: CV: Less total distance but quicker pace"):

"There's nothing inherently wrong with a 3 x 1 mile workout at faster than CV pace. The key to understand training is what Arthur Lydiard called "balance." So often balance is disrupted by poor structure of training. A 3 x 1 mile workout at 5km race-pace, for example, could serve you well, provided you don't do another workout of similar kind within 5-7 days, depending upon your body's rate of recovery and how many easy miles you are willing to run between such a workout and then similarly hard workout (or race).

Another thing about balance; you have to recognize that as soon as you start doing too many hard workouts, especially of similar kind, you'll soon feel chronic fatigue; you'll experienced poor racing performances. Note too that when you do only VO2 max or 5km paced workouts (which are about 93-95% of VO2 max for most runners), you are eroding stamina by eliminating stamina training. The result of not doing stamina training is an inability to hold a strong pace for a long time. The classic example of a relatively high aerobic power capacity for one's ability and a low stamina capacity is realized during racing situations. You run fast early, feel great, and then all of a sudden you are in oxygen debt, sucking air and hating life. This is poor balance: a high (personal) aerobic power and a low stamina capacity. Know this: It's beter to have a high stamina capacity with moderate aerobic power capacity than have low stamina and high aerobic power. So, if you decide to use 3 x 1 mile at 5km pace workouts, for example, be sure to balance your training and avoid losing stamina. You'll race better and feel better! Take care, Tinman"

It should go without saying that Tinman and Malmo don't see things the same way.

kudzurunner wrote:

It should go without saying that Tinman and Malmo don't see things the same way.

I don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion by reading that passage.

*$GJKrbkexj wrote:

beentheredonethat,

If your 10k doesn't meet the standards of your 15:00 5k, how many miles per week do you run?

Ran my 5k pr around 60-70 mpw. I increased the mileage to 80-90 for the 10k but I've never had much success. My coach keeps telling me mileage is the key factor but completely takes out tempos out of training. I just don't see how running more easy mileage benefits you for a longer race distance if you arent doing the other things right. I believe that increased distance on the track sessions combined with extended runs at a faster pace are key for me for that race but I never get them in my training.

Have you ever read about how former 10k world record holder Mamede trained?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2375989

No tempo or extended runs at a faster pace.

Just one man's example...but I ran my 10k PR after years of running 3 track workouts a week....once I switched to a more tempo oriented marathon training schedule I improved in the marathon but did not improve in the 10k.

Alan

And another. After 17 years of running track workouts and a classic workout regime I improved over every distance from 400m-half marathon without doing anything but higher miles, temnpo and strides.

I think people are getting elites mixed up with the common man.

An average person can pretty much devote a lifetime of training to just getting to the level that an elite comes off the couch with. You get that with miles and tempo, not track workouts.

Another man's example: I've been stuck running the same 5K/10K times for 2 years. During this time I was running the typical 1 track workout, 1 tempo, and 1 longish run.

3 months ago I dropped all of the above and started running 60-90 minutes a day, letting the pace come to me. No track work, no planned workouts of any kind. Last weekend I dropped 20 seconds off of my 5K road best (on a course I've run 3 times prior).

*$GJKrbkexj wrote:

Have you ever read about how former 10k world record holder Mamede trained?

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2375989

No tempo or extended runs at a faster pace.

Antonio Cabral's comparison of Lopes v. Mamede is especially interesting.

Thanks Malmo!

malmo wrote:

kudzurunner wrote:

It should go without saying that Tinman and Malmo don't see things the same way.

I don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion by reading that passage.

Let's not drag Tinman into this debate. He can chime in when he wants and I know he'll have something potitive to contribute.

Malmo speaks from the perspective of a world class athlete who has run 100 mile+ weeks and has maxed out (or close, only he can answer that) his potential. For that kind of athlete 2-3 speed sessions a week are necessary to improve at any distance. Someone running 100mpw is doing 14miles a day. For them a 20mile long run weekly is inconsequential to racing 6 miles.

But if you are running 30miles a week, well, maybe you should run more easy miles before attempting those three speed workouts.

There’s generic training, special training and specific training. This is a artificial training characterization but for the better understand it´s used.

The specific one is on the top of importance and direct contribute for the performance (race pace workouts) . The special one is the support or the main contribute to access and able to perform the specific one. The special one is the kind of training that while is interesting it´s distant than the direct contribute to the performance.

The generic training is the main shape condition that able to access to the special one and indirectly to the specific one, but it´s quite different activity than the event.

Each middle and long distance event does different percent and frequency (volume and intensity) of the3 kind of training, the generic, the special and the specific. That´s why to train for instance for 800m can´t be the same generic aerobic training than to train for 10000m or for the marathon, as well as different distance events do require different training specifics. This is why aka “aerobics marathon training” it´s not right as some might think for every middle to long distance event , it doesn´t matter what event.

The main mistake from most of posts of this thread is that while it´s said what´s the important one (the specifics) what in the 10000m we can agree with Malmo, that´s 2000m 3000m intervals, this idea doesn´t exclude that the 10000m special workouts like can be considered the tempo run, shall or might be excluded. Other mistake is to consider that when it´s said that the IMPORTANT ONE IS THE SPECIFIC TRAINING, anyone night thing that because it´s the important one might be DONE HIGH FREQUENCY, most of the time. The specific workouts, while the important one shall be low frequency relate to the daily runs for example. This is why this post of is not correct while say that IMANE MERGA did that number of specific workouts, that number of tempos. What she did with higher frequency is daily easy runs, but that ones despite that´s the higher number aren´t the important one relate to the training package.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Antonio.

I just want to clarify a few things. The majority of this thread is debating what types of workouts are more beneficial to running a top-notch 10k. There are those that think the Threshold/Tempo type long workouts are the best, and those that think the faster Track/Interval type training is the best.

I freely admit I don't know a whole lot about training modalities, but when listening to two sids of a debate I always put more stock into hard evidence rather than claims by anonymous posters to the effect of "Well I PR'd in the 10k when I was doing alot of Tempo stuff, therefore it's the best". I happened to have that thread bookmarked and analyzed it to see what kind of work Imane Merga was doing prior to his 10k at Worlds because I hadn't actually taken a good hard look at it. I was, in all honesty, a bit surprised to see the amount of fast-paced track work being done.

I just wanted to put forward what I saw in Merga's training logs. I even say in my 1st post that there are other things to consder like the caliber of the athlete and the point of the cycle in which the log is from (i.e. peaking for a major championship).

Hey Malmo you do realize that the fastest US athlete at 10 EVER achieved that time on a steady diet of 120 mile weeks, long runs and long tempo runs.

Jerry S has even gone on record (or his athletes have gone on record for him) and said to run a good 10k you have to train like a marathoner.

So there goes the "steady diet of 120 mile weeks". Also, no distance runner is going to completely ignore long runs, so claiming that he has a steady diet of long runs is ridiculous because everyone does. Lastly, while I cant provide any solid evidence, I would highly doubt Solinksy only did Tempo-eque workouts in preparation for his AR. I'd put money on the fact that his "steady diet of long tempo runs" was supplemented by a steady diet of specific track work

If we accept Merga´s training as rich one, ther´s 2 interesting lessons to learn from that logs.

The fact that generic training (aerobic daily runs and short-fast hill repeats), special training (LT, tempos)and specific training (race pace) ALL KIND OF LONG DISTANCE training zones are done during the same phase, in the Merga´s log, done in the pre-competitive phase.

This goes to the lesson and the conclusion that some kind of methods, exclude some type of training during one phase, it´s what is named linear-periodisation.

But Merga´s training shows that non-linear periodisation it´s the best solution and the rich training periodisation. The non-liner training periodisation admits some percent of every kind of training kind on every training phase.

Second lesson is that rich Merga´s training goes from the early phase of emphasis in generic training, changes to phase 2 of emphasis in special training and from that goes to emphasis on specifics.

It´s total different from other methodology, as the Lydiard one. Lydiard taught about periodisation from early aerobic training to move to anaerobic, or said it another way from easy-volume-slow training to harder-faster-low volume training. Lydiard doesn´t target specific training as the goal of the season periodisation.

Someone might think this is irrelevant, the 2 different concepts of season periodisation: one is to early aerobic/easy training to late anaerobic/fast training, and the other is from generic to specific without exclude no one of the 3 kind of training variables (the generic, the special and the specific) IN DIFFERENT TRAINING PERCENTS during every phase of the season periodisation.

Among the many texts, conferences, books, articles, interviews that Lydiard or their disciples did on the past, ther´s no chapter, paragraph, sentence, ther´s nothing that sees the season periodisation as non-linear periodisation and that sees the season periodisation with the main importane of the specific training, the one related to race pace. Lydiard ever sees the training and the season periodisation as from quality to quantity, or as from aerobic to anaerobic and the concept of specificity doesn´t exist as part of the Lydiard lexicon or Lydiard training approach.

I challenge everyone else to show us wher´s the concept of Lydiard training specificity, the one that goes toward the specific race pace as prime pace interest, and that sees the specific training as the important one training pace zone as every other training pace is submitted somehow. I guess it doesn´t exist.

Ps – I challenge everyone that want to be KInd to inform me about some material, some documented prove that i´mm wrong and that Lydiard periodisation goes in the direction of specifics. I don´t want oral talk like the usual “Lydiard said…(to me)” or “i know that one Lydiard runner did it...”. As you might understand “Lydiard said…(to me)” or “that one Lydiard runner did it...” or last minute article from a disciple to save the soul can´t be accept as prove.

malmo wrote:

Tempo runs and long runs rate far down on the level of importance for 10k training. So low that you could completely do without them if you wanted to. Most importance would be repeats (800-2000m) at race pace.

I guess that what malmo means by repeats (800m-2000m) at race pace can be considered as specifics, or specific workouts if you prefer. Don´t ?

Now, if you permit me

From another earlier thread: Wow, Lydiard training seems ridiculously hard

NOTE: Kadaffy it´s my own post nickname on the occasion.

post by Malmo /26/2011 5:09PM - in reply to Kadaffy duck

(…) The specifics of training programs aren't important at all (…)

post by omnipotence 3/26/2011 7:32PM - in reply to malmo

(…) and that's why you're not a coach. If the specifics were not important, if it were that simple malmo then coaches would not be needed.... Simplicity works malmo but the do specifics are very important.

Post by Malmo 3/26/2011 7:41PM - in reply to omnipotencegf

Please don't kid yourself that you have a clue, or your reading comprehension skills are sound. You have neither. Specifics and simplicity are not synonyms.

post by omnipotence 3/26/2011 9:21PM - in reply to malmo

LOL typical malmo! When did I ever say they were synonymous?

Specific work outs should be simple and effective. What do I mean by specific work outs? work outs that directly improve and facilitate race pace.

In my experience, specific work outs in training programs are very important. I do not agree with your claim that

"The specifics of training programs aren't important at all"

Post by malmo 3/26/2011 9:34PM - in reply to Omnipotence

Good for you and your superstitious belief system. Specifics don't mater.

It doesn't matter one iota whether or not the workout is 8x 1000, or 8x 800, or 6x800, or 4x1600, or 6 x 1600 or 3 x 3000 or 16x 400 or ladders or cutdowns or ..., or..., or..., or.... Training for competitive running is a big picture endeavor.

If you think that it does then believe it. The placebo effect is real, just make sure that you really belieive.

Post by Renato Canova 3/27/2011 5:19AM - in reply to HRE

I also agree with Malmo, but I think his idea of Specific is not as mine.

His example (which is the difference between 4x1600 or 6x1200 or 8x1000 or 20x400) is not something regarding "Specific", but regarding "Particulars inside the specific".

Specific means, for example, to have a session with the final goal to work for increasing the Aerobic Power.

We can reach this target using different "Particular workouts":

(…)

So, SPECIFIC is the physiological goal, and this is very important. PARTICULARS used for reaching a "specific" goal are not important.

Under this point of view, the ability of a coach to make EASY what in the mind of many athletes is DIFFICULT (when not IMPOSSIBLE) is not to give too much importance to PARTICULARS, giving great importance to SPECIFICITY.

Post by Malmo 3/28/2011 12:28PM - in reply to Omnipotence

Omnipotence wrote:

And that is your opinion based on your own RUNNING AND RACING EXPERIENCE. I based my opinion on my own running and COACHING EXPERIENCE. BTW, have you ever coach anybody malmo?

________________________________________

Yes I have coached thousands of runners, and not one of them by default (employment). Every single one of them has come to me for advice.

________________________________________

Renato Canova wrote:

I also agree with Malmo, but I think his idea of Specific is not as mine.

His example (which is the difference between 4x1600 or 6x1200 or 8x1000 or 20x400) is not something regarding "Specific", but regarding "Particulars inside the specific".

________________________________________

Yes, Renato, we understand each other perfectly.

I think tempo runs on the track as PART of your training is a good idea. Doing regular tempo runs in the 8k range 10 seconds per mile slower then goal 10k pace will certainly aid in concentration for your 25 lapper come race day. Bear in mind this is just one component of training and a fair amount of VO2max work must be done as well... Long runs are imporatnt as well but not during the champion part of the season..

READ their books... you train for a 1ok and don't do any LT work or long runs--keep your runs say at 6 miles a day and see how far you get...