I'm a mid distance runner, best even is the 800. I'm built pretty speed based but I've run consistent 60 mile weeks for a while now. Currently on my off week and trying to rehab some nagging injuries.
I'm itching to get back to training so I've been thinking about some different approaches.
Has anyone here had success using the CV pace stuff has tinman has described it? (35-40minute pace race pace), somewhere between 10k and 15k pace. I've done a few workouts with it before, usually just the 6-7x1k with 200m jog rest, but I've read that you can break it up into miles or even 2 mile repeats. I also read that tinman advocates doing it every single week.
I'm a big proponent of lots a high quality aerobic running during base phase. I usually do a lot of tempos from half marathon-marathon pace and some faster ones in addition to spontaneous progression runs when I'm feeling good.
So my plan was to, after building mileage and stuff for a month or so, to add in a weekly CV pace workout and try to be consistent with that. I'll probably still do other kinds of tempos and long runs also. I just wanted to see if anyone had ever used the CV pace type stuff and used it consistently. I figured its worth a try for me but I wasn't sure.
Anyone else have success or problems doing this? thoughts?
Anything is better than talking about politics right now..
Critical Velocity (CV) Training
Report Thread
-
-
Sure guys were doing that before Tinman was around. What's the big deal?
-
Ryan Mckenzie
OT 5 km 13:35.56 Palo Alto CA/USA 29 Apr 2007
7 times 1000 in 2:45 on a grass loop -
fred wrote:
Ryan Mckenzie
OT 5 km 13:35.56 Palo Alto CA/USA 29 Apr 2007
7 times 1000 in 2:45 on a grass loop
I'm not arguing about who invented the workout or paces, I just referenced Tinman because he recently popularized the term with Drew Hunter's training. I was asking for peoples opinions or experiences with this type of training, specifically using it for consistent aerobic quality work. -
When considering a workout, I always ask myself the following questions:
1. What physiological adaptation am I trying to effectuate?
2. Does this workout achieve that adaptation with the lowest possible amount of stress on my body?
If I cannot answer #1, I never get to #2. If I get to #2, and the answer to that is no, then I find a different workout to do.
Just about the only exceptions to me not doing a workout that does not have an identifiable adaptation to be achieved is during the early ramp up of a training cycle and, to a lesser extent, during the peak phase. But even in those instances, I am trying to achieve something (lock into race pace (particularly if the goal race is a distance other than 5k pace), improve turnover, try to get my legs to feel fresh, etc.).
Some people here disagree with this approach, but it has served me well.
So I ask you: what adaptation do you believe running at 10k-15k pace achieves, and does it achieve that adaptation with the least possible amount of stress on your body? -
As far as I can tell, this is basically 8k pace for most HS girls and 10k pace for most HS boys.
This does produce a pretty solid effect. The kids will become aerobic monsters. Don't expect everyone to respond like Hunter, though.
We don't do them year round, but we do increasingly greater volumes of them over a 3 week period, then drop the volume and time and build back up again for another 3 week period. We'll do this each track and XC season.
I don't know if the kids would like doing it year round even if it was the only workout each week. I think it would take a certain level of motivation that is rare among HS kids. -
I asked about 10k pace workouts a few months ago, so I am not being critical; I am genuinely curious - what physical adaptation is effectuated by this workout?
Certainly lactate threshold adaptation is achieved, but that could be achieved almost as well with a lot less stress on your body by way of cruise intervals or straight tempo runs.
Not quite fast enough to improve vo2max efficiency.
There is probably some running efficiency adaptation (although I think that can be better achieved by way of 200s and 400s - which I admit are more intense, but the increased adaptation is worth it in my book).
Look, lots of very successful folks use 10k pace based training sessions, so I think there is probably something to it. I just cannot quite identify what the precise goal is. -
I've been doing 4 x 8 minutes with 2 minutes recovery and a 40 minute tempo run once a week since December. No other intense work out and the rest of the week I just run easy miles.
I am 52 and in the last month I have run a 18:33 5k split in a 10k. I ran 38:09 in the 10k and I have run 2:59:59 in a marathon. If I was in the open category my times would age grade to 16:15 for 5k, 33:42 for 10k and 2:41:41 for the marathon.
Basically all I do is CV paced running and try to hold the 80/20 easy ratio. -
bump
finally a running thread!!!!!! -
Smoove wrote:
I asked about 10k pace workouts a few months ago, so I am not being critical; I am genuinely curious - what physical adaptation is effectuated by this workout?
Certainly lactate threshold adaptation is achieved, but that could be achieved almost as well with a lot less stress on your body by way of cruise intervals or straight tempo runs.
Not quite fast enough to improve vo2max efficiency.
There is probably some running efficiency adaptation (although I think that can be better achieved by way of 200s and 400s - which I admit are more intense, but the increased adaptation is worth it in my book).
Look, lots of very successful folks use 10k pace based training sessions, so I think there is probably something to it. I just cannot quite identify what the precise goal is.
In McMillan's system, Greg doesn't use the term critical velocity but "cruise intervals" are about 40 minute race pace, slightly faster than tempo intervals and tempo runs (which are threshold pace or about 60 min race pace in this system). The terminology is different that Daniels' "cruise intervals" which are right at threshold pace and not this slightly faster pace. In McMillan's plans the adaptation sought is stamina and it's alternative to a straight tempo.
This alternative may be desirable just for variety. Contrast something like the Hansons' marathon or half plans which call for a straight tempo of increasing length every week (and their tempo is slightly slower than threshold). Working in a set of cruise intervals may break up that monotony.
Another reason for doing a stamina workout in the form of cruise intervals is that for some runners (those who are more fast twitch), straight tempos may be very hard. Faster efforts with very short rests would accomplish nearly the same thing for this group. -
Yeah, the Hanson longer-but-slower concept is also a concept that Daniels uses. With that, the adaptation sought is to adapt to increased blood lactate and improve clearance of lactate by allowing it to build up over time. That can be done right at threshold pace (in which case most folks go for 20 minutes) or a bit slower (in which case folks slow it down a bit - Daniels has a pretty good set of data that he use to determine how much you should slow down by based on long you are running and how fit you are).
The part that made me curious about this was that it was actually slightly faster than the pace that Daniels calls for (and that it seems the Hansons call for).
I would give these a try though, especially since I use a Daniels approach to marathons and as a result I rarely go faster than 5k pace during the last 12 weeks of my training cycle. Doing these would give me a little speed fix while still presumably working the lactate threshold adaptation. I guess I am willing to violate my 2nd rule some since I can get the same adaptation for less stress elsewhere just to see how it feels to get something a little quicker in from time to time. -
Glad there's been thoughtful discussion in here (about running) in the midst of the election threads.
I think when tinman explained it, he likes doing it because it's getting all the adaptions of the tempo run (traditional ones, like the 20minute @ 60minute pace tempos), but is able to break it up and do more work. i.e. instead of 20 minute tempo you can do 6xmile or 10x1k and get something like 30-40 minutes at a high quality pace.
Now i'm not sure why but he says its more effecient to run at this pace than a slower tempo pace. I'm not sure if the fact that its about 90% of Vo2 max has anything to do with it or not. I, personally, hate running Vo2 pace (3k-5k) pace stuff and feel like it just beats down my body and I never see real improvements in my distance races. So maybe this is an alternative to get "some" vo2 work in while getting in enough volume to make it a good aerobic tempo type workout too.
I'm going to try to give it a try when I'm back in the swing of things because at worst at least I'll be getting in some lactate threshold work from it. -
I used a Tinman inspired plan for my 400 kid who bumped up to the 800. She had zero 800 experience prior to last season. She was a 57 second 400 kid and ran 2:10 for the 800. CV was done weekly starting in September until June. She was so strong and that 65 first lap was so easy she just crushed the last 200.
-
You could do 10 x 1k if you are a 14:00 5k runner. If you are slower, 10 x 1k at CV pace is too much.
Tinman's guideline is 420 divided by 5K time in minutes is the maximum number of minutes of CV in a workout. So 420 divided by 14 minutes = 30 minutes.
The CV pace for a 14 flat 5k runner is 2:55 to 2:59 per 1000. So you could do 10 x 1000. If you are a 21 minute 5k runner, don't do more than 20 minutes of CV in a workout. That could be 4 x 1100 in 4:43 to 4:49. If you wanted to hit 20 minutes on the dot, you could extend one of the CV runs beyond 1100.
I used to do way to much CV in a single workout. Now that I've been using the 420 rule, I'm racing much faster. -
itworks wrote:
I used a Tinman inspired plan for my 400 kid who bumped up to the 800. She had zero 800 experience prior to last season. She was a 57 second 400 kid and ran 2:10 for the 800. CV was done weekly starting in September until June. She was so strong and that 65 first lap was so easy she just crushed the last 200.
Really? If she went out in 65, she had to come back in 65, looks pretty even to me, not sure that is crushing it. -
She was in 9th place in a huge race and ran a 31 last 200 to win. I think that qualifies as crushing. Goal in racing is to win and the strategy was to win. Could she have run 2:07...probably but 2:10 is what was needs to win. My point is she was so fit that the pace of lap one did not matter, she was more fit than anyone in that race and faster as she has a great 200 time. Put those together and you even split the 800.
-
Um, everyone else went out too fast, typical HS race. Her third 200 was 34, why?
-
timeless. wrote:
Um, everyone else went out too fast, typical HS race. Her third 200 was 34, why?
Because that's how 800s typically go ya goof. -
Because the field allowed her to close the gap only running a 34. What are you not getting? Goal of a race is to win...strategy was come even with 200 to go and unleash the speed.
-
Because the field allowed her to close the gap only running a 34. What are you not getting? Goal of a race is to win...strategy was come even with 200 to go and unleash the speed.
