basic speed

slow or fast, focus on a little bit of progress at a time. Walk through the door. tonight. do it.

I went sub 19 when I could break 70 sec in a 400, but everyone is different

broke dad wrote:

so what sort of basic speed must one have to run a sub 19 XC 5k? What's the best way to improve it over a 6 month period? What's the best way to measure basic speed?

you don't need "basic speed". you can not run any faster than 80 secs for a 400 and still break 19.

speed isn't necessary, strength and aerobic conditioning is. having those will propel you along fast enough to go sub 19.

I understand you don't need to be able to break 80 in a 400 to run sub 19, but you'd have to be very efficient to have that sort of speed deficiency & still be able to run 18:59.

Wouldn't it be easier to focus on improving basic speed, rather than trying to increase your efficency to overcome your lack of speed?

My daughter can't run a 200 faster than 35. She doesn't run track. Has a XC 5k PR of uper 19s. We've never really worked on speed, but it seems like we could get her 200 down to 30 & have a better shot at running a faster 5k, rather than solely depending on working the same systems we've worked the last few years in an attempt to break 19 this fall.

I agree at least to the extent that doing some speed or speed endurance work will acclimate her to running at a fast pace, which can only help.

Others more knowledgeable will have to advise on specifics.

broke dad wrote:

I understand you don't need to be able to break 80 in a 400 to run sub 19, but you'd have to be very efficient to have that sort of speed deficiency & still be able to run 18:59.

Wouldn't it be easier to focus on improving basic speed, rather than trying to increase your efficency to overcome your lack of speed?

My daughter can't run a 200 faster than 35. She doesn't run track. Has a XC 5k PR of uper 19s. We've never really worked on speed, but it seems like we could get her 200 down to 30 & have a better shot at running a faster 5k, rather than solely depending on working the same systems we've worked the last few years in an attempt to break 19 this fall.

80s is an extreme example, but the point is that basic speed is NEVER the limiting factor in a 5k. Ever.

So no, focusing on improving your basic speed is nearly pointless for running a 19min 5k. It's just so far removed from what you actually need to focus on that it's essentially a waste of time.

There is not a correlation between what you can sprint 200m in with how fast you can run a 5k. Completely different on nearly every physiological level.

Now, none of that is to say that you should never work on basic speed or anything like that, but it is to say that you should ABSOLUTELY NOT FOCUS on basic speed if your aim is to run a faster 5k. For that you should focus on volume, aerobic and lactate thresholds (strength), 10k pace, 5k pace, and a smattering of 3k/VO2max pace.

That is quite literally all you need to break 19, 17, 15, etc.

op ed wrote:

80s is an extreme example, but the point is that basic speed is NEVER the limiting factor in a 5k. Ever.

This is utter nonsense. The world record for 5000m is 12:37, barely over 60 seconds per lap. Bekele's 1500 pr is 3:32. Obviously you have to have considerable speed to run a fast 5000.

All the textbook mucking around with only aerobics, thresholds and race pace will only train you to run slowly for a long time. It neglects the benefit of training faster than race pace, which is efficiency at higher speed. KB could run 12 sub-61's in a row because he could run well under 60 4 times in a row, and in the low 50's one time. Sure, he needed extreme aerobic fitness, and probably a lot of dope, but those were not enough.

Training faster forces your muscles and bones to adapt to running faster, and that adaptation makes them more efficient at the original pace. That's why an 800 meter runner who runs 46 for 400 can look relaxed at 52 second pace.

Take your favorite 13 minute 5000 runner, drain them of enough blood to make them aerobically equal to an average 19 minute runner, and time trial them, and they'll still go under 19 minutes easily. Under 15, probably. Because they are doing less work at any given pace than the 19-minute runner.

Basic speed does matter. If you wish to run fast for the 5k you need decent basic speed.

There's no doubt in my mind that some form of speed would help. But instead of arguing this point I think its time to move on and perhaps talk about HOW to implement some speed since the poster has probably already decided. What would a weekly schedule look like? Since speed endurance is the key to linking speed and endurance (very basic explanation I know), there'd be no point in talking about improving basic speed if the programme misses these key linkers.

broke dad wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier to focus on improving basic speed, rather than trying to increase your efficency to overcome your lack of speed?

My daughter can't run a 200 faster than 35. She doesn't run track. Has a XC 5k PR of uper 19s. We've never really worked on speed, but it seems like we could get her 200 down to 30 & have a better shot at running a faster 5k,

I'd agree that volume and tempos should be your primary training objectives, but when you say that your daughter doesn't run track, do you mean that she doesn't do track workouts at all?

Let us know if that is the case.

If so, she would probably benefit from a weekly interval session. I'm not a coach, but hopefully someone who is can chime in with some appropriate workouts. Here's a few of my recent interval workouts that might be appropriate:

10x800m (some above current 5k pace, the last few, faster.) Recovery=rep time.

1000 800 600 400 600 800,

400 800 1200 800 400,

3 sets of 3x400m with two reps at slightly faster than 5k pace and one rep about 4-6 seconds faster.

16x200m with recovery equal to rep time

Ah, starting your daily dose of nonsense so early today?

You can just as easily have a 52s 400m struggle to run a 19 min 5k as a 75s 400 runner. Now why is that? Could it have something to do with the physiological requisites for the various events?

Is this thread about a 13 min 5k runner or a 19 min 5k runner? Your stupid line about blood (?!) is so fundamentally stupid that it's not even worth the sentence in this paragraph.

Do explain how basic speed has ANYTHING to do with a 19min 5k, because so far you've struck out big time (per your usual postings).

Or just slink back to that bridge you pull yourself out from every day.

my daughter basically isn't allowed to run track. We live in GA - kind of a backwards place when it comes to eligibility for non-traditional HS students. My daughter is home schooled through a school she attends twice weekly. Next year she'll dual enroll at a local college. Her goal is to earn a college scholarship to run, beginning fall 2014. She has to do this off her last XC season this coming fall, as she doesn't have track times on her resume. It's actually easier for her to enter a college meet & run unattached than it is to find a HS meet that will allow her to compete. She may run a 5000 or 2 at college meets this Spring.

Sure, we can do track workouts, although since we're not really needing to peak for a Spring track season, we do very little on the track. I realize focusing on basic speed as a priority over running mileage, tempos, threshold work, etc. isn't the way to go. I should've been more clear in my initial post. What I'm wondering is if it wouldn't be beneficial to focus on basic speed 1 day/week? Even then it'd probably be something we'd do in addition to a run.

It just seems like if she's competing in the fall vs girls who can run 75-77 sec 400s X 4 = low 5 min. 1600, when her top speed for ONE 400 is probably 75, that she has to be a lot more efficient than her faster competitors. Rather than focus ONLY on being way ahead of the faster girls from an efficiency standpoint, my question is wouldn't it be wise to spend 1 day/week in this long base period working on her basic speed, so that we're not so dependent on efficiency?

And I'm wondering how easy it'd be, for example, to get her from a 35 sec 200 to a 30? And wouldn't the increased speed help her work harder at race specific training, which we'll begin in earnest in August?

I found a blog post by Steve Magness on his site that has a progression from short hill sprints to flat sprints that made sense to me. I've also read a thread on LRC where a coach prescribes running 200s all-out every week, starting with 2 & progressing to 5, with full recovery. I was sort of thinking of starting with the Magness idea, then finishing up in a few mos. by working the 200s. I'd appreciate any wisdom or ideas on that - thanks.

fisky wrote:

10x800m (some above current 5k pace, the last few, faster.) Recovery=rep time.

10x800? Good luck.

I'd suggest that, at this point in time and for the particular athlete, the full recovery sprint workouts would be a bit of a waste of a workout day. Instead, I'd alternate a hill workout each week. One shorter hill of 20-25s x 12, moving up to doing 16-20 straight off (moving up could mean increasing number but spliting in half with 5min rec)depending on the ability to keep good driving form and pace up throughout. The other week would comprise of a less steep hill of 40-50s x 10. This would include a slightly quicker 'jog' or easy pace run down as rec instead of a slow jog.

These hill sessions must be done with a good form. The times should not fall off. However, a good speed and drive should be used throughout the workout. Almost like the athlete is sprinting up the hill but in a more comfortable way. That being said, by the end of the session the athlete will be struggling to hold up. Keeping the form, arm drive and relaxation at this point is the key.

I'll keep this part very basic. This blend of hill sessions provide the basic power, form, speed and speed endurance needed to run faster and more efficiently whilst also keeping the volume high enough so that the session is not a 'waste' for a 5k athlete.

yeah, I appreciate the advice but 10 X 800 is not soemthing we'll be doing... Might hit 6 x 800 in late summer or the fall.

What we're doing now - which I'd love for someone knowledgeable to critique is something like:

M - 55 min at 1/2 effort (per Lydiard's definition) after WU & a few strides. Will probably get to 70 min at some point

T - 80 min. easy with a 30 sec surge or two + 4 steep hill sprints of approx 8 sec., gradually will work up to 8-10 X 10 sec hill sprints. Will add more 30 sec surges as well & prob top out at 90 min. total for the entire workout.

Thinking about adding the flat sprints here once we've done hill sprints for a couple mos.

W - 45 min at 3/4 effort after WU & a few strides. May get closer to 60 min eventually

Th - 90 min easy

F - either 50 min @ 1/2 effort or a shorter tempo, usually broken up into something like 2 X 12-15 min., after WU + a few strides. Will probably throw in some longer progression runs & tempos over time, i.e. 3 x 12-15 min. or a 30 min tempo

S - long, easy run 1hr 50m. May top out at 2 hours or even slightly longer

Su - 70 min easy

We run a lot of hilly trails, so even the easy runs have some fairly challenging hills. We've done a lot of long, easy runs & she seems to struggle a bit with the 1/2 & 3/4 effort runs, which we just recently added. This makes me think we should keep at the 1/2 & 3/4 effort runs throughout the Spring. I don't think it's a case of running those too hard. Might even be the opposite.

1:50? Is this a troll? 10/10 if so.

Otherwise its no wonder she has no speed. She is running 5k not marathons. Drop 1 day entirely, replace one with hills only, replace one with 1000m repeats or similar, and cut the time 20% across the board on the other days. Keep some drills, strides, etc.

In my opinion, the short hill sprints could simply be done with a full recovery before the hill sessions. Doing them after the run takes away the majority of the value, since the nervous system is already running low. Also, I think the addition of the hills would be a good idea. Another key thing I can see missing would be the work at VO2 max. A workout every 1 - 2 weeks at this point. Moving to 1 a week. Sessions including 6 x 800m with 2 30rec of jogging. Or 8 x 6, 10 x 5 as basic straight forward examples. Approx 3k pace. Drop recovery to 2mins for progression.

The is alot of long slow miles in there for me. The aerobic capacity wont be fully untilised at distances as short as 5k with no year long VO2 or hill work.

interesting. We may give alternating hill sprint length workouts a go. Maybe an 8-10 sec day 1 week & then 16-18 sec duration the next week.

We've stayed away from longer hill repeats during the base phase before - I guess I was thinking they were a bit too intense, but I'm beginning to doubt some of the conventional wisdom about strict linear periodization where you basically avoid 'anaerobic' training until after the season starts..

1:50 easy trail run is probably 12 miles. I don't think a weekly 12 miler in the base period is that crazy.. Invariably when I see posts about how crazy something like a 12 mile weekly run is, the poster says something like it should be 10 miles. Not sure it's worth arguing the distance of a weekly long run, provided it's not a 20 miler or something..