basic speed

"Also pointing out how your 400m speed analogy has nothing to do with 5k speed by showcasing how ANY top 400m runner could run nowhere NEAR a top 5k."

Because their aerobic, VO2 etc systems are weaker. If you bought these systems in a 400m runner up to the levels of a 5k runner, it is more than likely that the 400m runner would beat the 5k runner since his anaerobic/lactate systems, as well as lactic tolerence would be higher. Thus his mix of systems becomes stronger than the 5k runner. Doesn't matter that these systems are used LESS. Fact is, they are still used and will still factor.

"assuming equal aerobic systems then the longer the event, the closer the times will get. Once they're running a bit over a half marathon (or around an hour) they would be quite similar (assuming equal efficiency, etc)."

So then, you're agreed that for distances under a half marathon, such as 5k, the runner with a better 400m time would be quicker?

TopCat wrote:

So then, you're agreed that for distances under a half marathon, such as 5k, the runner with a better 400m time would be quicker?

No, not at all.

Take ten runners with 10 different 400m speeds and I'll be a monkey's uncle if you can predict and rank their 5k times.

TopCat wrote:

Because their aerobic, VO2 etc systems are weaker. If you bought these systems in a 400m runner up to the levels of a 5k runner, it is more than likely that the 400m runner would beat the 5k runner since his anaerobic/lactate systems, as well as lactic tolerence would be higher. Thus his mix of systems becomes stronger than the 5k runner. Doesn't matter that these systems are used LESS. Fact is, they are still used and will still factor.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you asserting with the above that you could take, for example, a 400m runner (say a sub 45s guy) and turn them into a world class 5k runner, because, as you put it, "these systems will still factor"?

Because no, you are very, very wrong.

Okay so what you're saying is, there should no work any faster that 5% quicker than 5k speed at any point in the entire year?

And that at no point should 800m runners practice running at below their 800m pace?

So you're saying that the majority of top athletes have workouts, particularly during race season, that are a waste of space and time?

I believe Mo and Galen included a sprint workout per cycle all year round as to not lose speed? Maybe you should have a word? Speed of course isnt important?

TopCat wrote:

Okay so what you're saying is, there should no work any faster that 5% quicker than 5k speed at any point in the entire year?

And that at no point should 800m runners practice running at below their 800m pace?

So you're saying that the majority of top athletes have workouts, particularly during race season, that are a waste of space and time?

I believe Mo and Galen included a sprint workout per cycle all year round as to not lose speed? Maybe you should have a word? Speed of course isnt important?

Nope, never said a single thing about that.

Try reading carefully next time.

I said that focusing on basic speed is NOT what one should do to improve their 5k time.

I'm sure you can go through and note the half dozen posts I made stating that or something similar.

In case you missed it on the first page, Topcat:

"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."

Please don't start making up random sh!t and claiming I'm saying it as a means of deflecting attention from my answering every one of your attempted rebuttals.

op ed wrote:

In case you missed it on the first page, Topcat:

"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."

I'd agree with this, but I think you are misinterpreting what Topcat is saying. It's a matter of semantics over the meaning of "FOCUSING on improving BASIC SPEED."

You are right that the systems are different between 200m and 5k. You are right that you can't predict 5k based on 200m times. When you say there is no correlation between 200m and 5k times, that's not correct. If you took a cross section of elite to recreational runners, there would be some correlation between 200m and 5k times. The faster runners would be in the 20s and the slower runners would be in the 40s.

Your point is that (correct me if I'm wrong) is that a difference of 2-3 seconds over 200m won't predict who is the better 5k runner. I agree. Probably so does topcat. Topcat's premise that if runners have equal aerobic capacity and efficiency, the runner with the faster 200m time will win. Assuming tactics don't play a role, I'd agree.

Getting back to broke dad's daughter, she is running nothing faster than 5k pace and very little at 5k pace. In order for her to run sub 19, she needs to do some workouts at sub 19 pace to improve her running efficiency at faster paces. That's why early in this thread I suggested a weekly interval workout.

There is a lot of confusion over the term basic speed and what it means to train for it. Broke dad's daughter doesn't need to train for "absolute flat out 200m" speed. It would be a waste of time, not to mention the risk of injury. However, adding some 200m reps at faster-than-5k pace in the middle or end of an interval workout would teach her muscles how to run faster when tired.

If I read broke dad's post correctly, his daughter has a 5k PR of 19 high and 200m speed of 35. He wonders if bringing her time down to 30 would be good for her. That's 4:00 mile pace. Even 35 is 4:40 pace. So the answer is no. It works different systems and the risk of injury would be very high.

A better approach would be intervals at or faster than her current 5k pace (about 6:20/mile or 47.5/200m or 95sec/400m. For example, X x 400m at 93-96 sec with every 3rd rep faster at 88-92 sec (with X starting low (4-6) and increasing over weeks to 12 based on her ability to handle the workout. Since 200m are shorter, they could be faster at 44-45 sec for most reps and some at sub-40.

I don't think anyone here has argued the benefits of 'focusing' on improving basic speed, so I don't understand your argument.

What we're discussing is the merits of doing some work - perhaps once a week - to improve basic speed.

Nobody is saying an athlete should forego VO2 or threshold work & focus instead on basic speed..

I completely agree with fisky.

And I think all of the training changes I suggested would also show that I didn't once suggest any exceedingly fast work as to build specific speed, just something below 5k. Take 15 x 30s 'short hill' (approx... cant quite remember). This was the shortest thing, other than strides, that I suggested. Which would take place once a month or less. Its not really focussing on speed. I dont think anyone here has suggested that focussing on speed is the way to go.

You're right, I did miss that post. For that I apologise. However, I too never said there should be FOCUS on speed. Simply improving it would help. Improving it ways that are not specific to basic speed whatsoever. Which I still believe.

All I can is that myself and those whom I know (and help) and train with must be doing something right. Im certain the hills are key in developing a mean kick. To win races.

Im curious, do you coach or run?

I think you're confusing correlation and causation.

A faster 5k runner WILL likely have a faster 200m time (assuming we're talking fairly large discrepancies in 5k times)just like they'll probably have a faster 10k, half, and mile time. But you can absolutely not say that a 14min 5k runner will absolutely be able to run a specific 200m or even 400m time and more than you can say a 13 min or a 20 min 5k runner will.

I agree to a certain extent that some 3k VO2max work should be done, but I don't think it's necessary to focus an entire workout every week to it. Focusing more on tempo-10k work and throwing a fewer faster 3k-5k repeats on to that should be more than sufficient.

Again, this "improving running efficiency at faster speeds" stuff is a little silly and I think is generally approached from the wrong angle. You're pretty efficient at 3k and 5k speeds for the first half of the race, right? But then what happens? You get tired, you bog down, you start dying. Hence doing a strength workout first and then tacking on a little faster pace work when you're already a bit tired. Not only is that work then much more specific to what you'll experience in the race (so proper focus on maintaining form can be encouraged), but you're also not sacrificing the more important and more repeatable aerobic strength work.

So I don't think your 400 workout is a good one unless done just once or twice in a buildup. I don't think it addresses what's needed to run a good 5k (taking a break every 400m isn't particularly specific) and I don't think it is sustainable over the long term. I think too much emphasis is put on really fast speedwork and it is to the detriment of the runners (especially younger runners without much base to handle it).

Workouts like that can come into play later on in a career, but at this point and level a little can go a long way.

Frankly, getting rid of those crazy long runs will probably help a lot too.

TopCat wrote:

You're right, I did miss that post. For that I apologise. However, I too never said there should be FOCUS on speed. Simply improving it would help. Improving it ways that are not specific to basic speed whatsoever. Which I still believe.

You said a lot of incorrect things about 400m speed and how it relates to a 5k.

That's primarily what I've addressed in your posts.

I agree with your hypothetical scenario, that a runner could have the same aerobic capacity as Bekele but be much slower as a runner. The difference is in their running endurance. For example someone who does a lot of physical work or another sport, but is a poorly developed runner simply because he doesn't run enough.

broke dad wrote:

I don't think anyone here has argued the benefits of 'focusing' on improving basic speed, so I don't understand your argument.

What we're discussing is the merits of doing some work - perhaps once a week - to improve basic speed.

Nobody is saying an athlete should forego VO2 or threshold work & focus instead on basic speed..

Yes it helps to do regualar speed work - sprinting. It helps basic biomechanics and helps with the neural devlopment, i.e. the nervous stimulus of running quickly.

If all you do is plod slowly, you will just get more and more tired. But with some faster running, you get a nervous stimulus that makes other paces feel more comfortable.

I agree. The challenge is to fit it into a busy schedule. Would long recovery strides after a run be effective? Or is doing them like this just a placebo effect?

broke dad wrote:

I don't think anyone here has argued the benefits of 'focusing' on improving basic speed, so I don't understand your argument.

What we're discussing is the merits of doing some work - perhaps once a week - to improve basic speed.

Nobody is saying an athlete should forego VO2 or threshold work & focus instead on basic speed..

I have followed this argument with interest. I believe all of you are wrong. Focusing on raw, animal speed is ALWAYS useful to a runner of, at least, up to 5km. I mean, as part of the overall plan, doing something like 10x 30-40m all-out sprints on grass (barefoot if you like to encourage good foot strike) with complete rest in between. This enhances the ability to move the legs as fast and efficiently as possible, and trains fast-twitch fibers, improving form and energy conservation at all longer distances. I see no reason why, with a proper dynamic warm-up, she would necessarily get injured. BTW, if her 200m time went from 35s to 30s, given intelligent endurance training, her 5km time would undoubtedly come down.

Doing strides after a run is good, you will feel more efficient and can run further at the same speed as you would at the beginning of a workout.

All training is neural. You are training your nervous system to help deliver both speed and endurance messages from brain to muscles. Running is a skill to be practiced and learned.

I tend to agree with this.

Here's a revised schedule (keep in mind that we're not looking to peak until FL South, which is 9.5 mos. away..):

M - 3 mile WU, including 3-4 strides, 3(30 sec hills)faster than race pace but not max effort, 2 miles easy, then approx 2 miles steady, then 1 mile comfortably hard. This will be 10(40 sec hills by early-mid summer)

T - 90 min easy

W - 1mi WU, 5.5-6mi. progression run on hilly loop (from approx 8:30 down to approx 7:30 pace) + strides, 1 Mi CD

Th - 80 min easy

F - 60 min steady (probably average 7:50-8:00 pace) + strides

Sa - 2 hr run easy

Su - 70 min. easy

M - same as last Monday, except substitute 6 X 8 sec hill sprints for 30 sec hills. This will be 10 X 10 sec hill sprints by late Spring

T - same as last week

W - 1 mile WU + 3-4 strides, then 50 minutes comfortably hard (prob 7:40 average)

Th - Sun - same as last week

We have a couple half marathons on the schedule this month & next, plus a few 7-10 mile trail races over the next few mos.

Will replace short hill sprints with sprint work + circuits in late Spring & back off slightly on volume

broke dad wrote:

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.

broke dad wrote:

We have a couple half marathons on the schedule this month & next, plus a few 7-10 mile trail races over the next few mos.

I understand the desire to run a half marathon, but in view of your long term goals, the risk/reward ratio is not your favor.

She won't get much XC benefit this fall from racing two halfs over the next couple months. More important, she runs the risk of getting injured from the over-distance race.

Also, if the trail races in GA are like the trail races in TN where I live, they are very hilly and technical. Racing a slow, technical trail 10 miler trail isn't good preparation for shorter XC courses. The shorter races might be okay if they are reasonably fast courses.

Anyway, that's my thoughts.