Sciatica Road wrote:
Eighty 13min miles (slow enough to stave off injury) is only 17.33 hrs of training,
which is less than 2.5 hrs/day averaged over all 7 days/week.
Sciatica Road wrote:
Eighty 13min miles (slow enough to stave off injury) is only 17.33 hrs of training,
which is less than 2.5 hrs/day averaged over all 7 days/week.
Sciatica Road wrote:
Okay, forget the second job commitment. Regardless of the money, do you seriously think it would only take that guy, at his current age and weight, to go sub-20 by the end of the year, if he only just 'puts in the miles', without getting injured?
Eighty 13min miles (slow enough to stave off injury) is only 17.33 hrs of training,
I thought it goes without saying that he does a minimal amount of 5k pace work, but even still, some hill reps and fartleks here and there should be enough.
Why would he go 13 minute miles? He should be able to handle 10:00 pace just fine and bring it down to 9:00 as he adapts. You did not specify that it had to be done by the end of the year, but depending on how fast he absorbs it, it could very well be done.
If he gallowalked 13 minute miles then no he would not break 20.
Sciatica Road wrote:
Sciatica Road wrote:Eighty 13min miles (slow enough to stave off injury) is only 17.33 hrs of training,
which is less than 2.5 hrs/day averaged over all 7 days/week.
And I doubt well off upper middle class Americans would choose to work an extra 17 hours a week for only $10K extra at the end of the year.
Something is seriously wrong with your training if you are putting in 80mpw for 7 months and can't break 20. With that kind of volume, for that duration, a 25min 5k'er should easily break 19.
0/10
Mike
In words I usually reserve for bad wiggins. Just go away! Maybe if you put effort into losing that "real body" spare tire of fat hanging around your waist, you might get somewhat fast but for now, you are a slow fat hobbyjogger.
Thanks
Gary
Voice of reason wrote:
Sciatica Road wrote:Okay, forget the second job commitment. Regardless of the money, do you seriously think it would only take that guy, at his current age and weight, to go sub-20 by the end of the year, if he only just 'puts in the miles', without getting injured?
Eighty 13min miles (slow enough to stave off injury) is only 17.33 hrs of training,
I thought it goes without saying that he does a minimal amount of 5k pace work, but even still, some hill reps and fartleks here and there should be enough.
Why would he go 13 minute miles? He should be able to handle 10:00 pace just fine and bring it down to 9:00 as he adapts. You did not specify that it had to be done by the end of the year, but depending on how fast he absorbs it, it could very well be done.
If he gallowalked 13 minute miles then no he would not break 20.
We were discussing whether the Rossi dude could actually do it, if he just 'logged the miles'. You are now qualifying the miles, with the stipulation that they have to be done at a minimal 'quality', although you earlier mentioned the issue of injury. However, injury IS part of the equation, moreso as one gets older, when balancing intensity and volume.
Point being, the Rossi dude, running the fastest paces he could handle while getting up to 80 miles a week, would still not break 20 minutes by the end of the year. That is the reality, regardless of how much money is or is not involved.
Sciatica Road wrote:
Voice of reason wrote:I thought it goes without saying that he does a minimal amount of 5k pace work, but even still, some hill reps and fartleks here and there should be enough.
Why would he go 13 minute miles? He should be able to handle 10:00 pace just fine and bring it down to 9:00 as he adapts. You did not specify that it had to be done by the end of the year, but depending on how fast he absorbs it, it could very well be done.
If he gallowalked 13 minute miles then no he would not break 20.
We were discussing whether the Rossi dude could actually do it, if he just 'logged the miles'. You are now qualifying the miles, with the stipulation that they have to be done at a minimal 'quality', although you earlier mentioned the issue of injury. However, injury IS part of the equation, moreso as one gets older, when balancing intensity and volume.
Point being, the Rossi dude, running the fastest paces he could handle while getting up to 80 miles a week, would still not break 20 minutes by the end of the year. That is the reality, regardless of how much money is or is not involved.
Well we are splitting hairs at that point then. I wouldn't call my suggestion quality miles at all. Quality would be 8 x 1000m, fast 200s/300s, tempos, frequent hill reps, etc. I suggested a very minimal amount of faster work to keep from going completely stale. Obviously gallowalking at 13 minute pace isn't going to cut it. Whether he could do it in a year is another story, yes.
I ran close to 40 miles a week for two years and couldn't drop below 22 for a 5k. Admittedly though no speed work. I ran sub 11 for the 100m regularly in HS. Distance isn't then and will never be my thing. I am a mesomorph. Nothing wrong with having different genetics.
Mike In San Deigo wrote:
Just because I have lots of fast-twitch and powerful frame that carries a lot of extra muscle doesn't mean that I should be ridiculed for my slow 5k. The only difference between you and me is my inferior genetics.
Are you saying that you are slow twitch as in you can sprint or run short intervals faster but you can't run long? If so, you're doing it all wrong.
I really am a sprinter and about the same size as Bolt and Ryan Bailey, so I am a freaking monster by the standards of this site. But in the time that I was climbing in Nepal and not sprinting, I did 5K in ~19 with not much over 10-12 mpw this way:
Tue: 3X400, 95% effort 4 min rest (*classic" 800m workout)
Thu: 7.5 mi progression ("Kenyan tempo run")
Sat: 4X1200, 5K date pace
No slow running whatsover
If mileage doesn't work for you (and you're not the only one to come on here with 80-100mpw and poor results), try the other way:
~30 mpw
long intervals twice a week (800-2000 repeats)
everything fast
coach d wrote:
Are you saying that you are slow twitch as in you can sprint or run short intervals faster but you can't run long? If so, you're doing it all wrong.
I really am a sprinter and about the same size as Bolt and Ryan Bailey, so I am a freaking monster by the standards of this site. But in the time that I was climbing in Nepal and not sprinting, I did 5K in ~19 with not much over 10-12 mpw this way:
Tue: 3X400, 95% effort 4 min rest (*classic" 800m workout)
Thu: 7.5 mi progression ("Kenyan tempo run")
Sat: 4X1200, 5K date pace
No slow running whatsover
If mileage doesn't work for you (and you're not the only one to come on here with 80-100mpw and poor results), try the other way:
~30 mpw
long intervals twice a week (800-2000 repeats)
everything fast
When I was in HS, I did 5K in ~ 19 with not much over 0 mpw this way:
Thu: race 5k.
I wasn't a sprinter, though.
Get used to it.. wrote:
I am a mesomorph.
There is still no such thing as a mesomorph, no matter what your anti-semitic friends tell you.