Road Racing and Training Thread. Week Ending May 6 2018

Catching up with the conversation a little...

Cool to see all those pictures. What stood out to me in the "after" shots was the eyes. Intense!

Jewbacca: Thanks for posting the link to your training and to the Lydiard/Daniels thread (I think that was you?). Look forward to digging into those a little more, and hearing what everybody has to say. Too hot's comments on Daniels were very intriguing to me. I suspect that I may fall into the category of people who have problems with VO2 max work, though maybe I've had a tendency to approach it in the wrong way.

Allen: Interesting what you were getting at in terms of different approaches to periodization. As I'm making my "comeback", so to speak, I'm kind of gravitating toward a less distinctly periodized approach, sort of like what you were saying about touching on a bit of everything every week/ten days/two weeks (if I understood you correctly). In thinking about how to do this, I've been intrigued by the concept of "complex" training a la de Castella and by Canova's method of layering in more and more specific work as you build toward a goal race.

Epimetheus: Best of luck with the half marathon! I'll be interested to follow your training.

OR: Nice run!

Bdubs: Sorry to hear about the rough go. Heat in the spring is a killer. The good thing is, you should have a lot of endurance built up from the marathon training, so if you can shift gears and start doing some quicker stuff, you may be able to do some good things in shorter races.

Coach Jeff: I really like Murakami. I think I've read five or six of his books, and my favorites were probably Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, Dance Dance Dance, and A Wild Sheep Chase (in that order). Sounds like Puto Miudo's got me beat, though, and I would be interested to hear if he's got any recommendations.

The idea of an "opposite world Murakami" is very Murakami.

Great insights, here and above. Thank you for sharing them. I think Lydiard's emphasis on speed development - like speed speed - is often under-appreciated. (By, say, me...)

Run to the Top is a great book.

As a general comment, something I favor about Daniels' non-linear approach is the early speed development. Some people might develop speed quickly, but for me it is a long process. That was something I discovered in my college XC program. Late-season speed sessions were too little too late for me.

Come to think of it, doesn't Daniels say that his Phase 2 and Phase 3 can be swapped depending on the runner's strengths? In that case, his season would become quite linear. (It's been awhile since I read the book cover-to-cover.)

I like what Pappy has written out for me for my first 7 weeks. Hill Sprints, Strides, on/offs, Progressions, And some longer intervals (which I will probs do on the road)... it is going to be fun! excited to get crack a lacking.

Starting when 100%.. which should be soon.. did 3 miles this AM and had some residual soreness from doing 30 miles on hard trail but did not feel "injured".

A couple of thoughts:

First, I think it would be helpful if we were all speaking the same language regarding linear and non-linear. I think this is a little bit like using "tempo run" in that it may mean different things to different people. My understanding of a linear approach to training is that there is a significant emphasis on one training system at a given time in a training cycle. That is not to say that you do work at only one pace, but that the vast bulk of the work done in a particular phase of the cycle would be at particular pace. So with Daniels emphasizing rep work early, vo2max work in the middle, and threshold work late, that would be a linear approach notwithstanding that there would be threshold workouts throughout the cycle and a bit of rep work at the end. Compare that to a non-linear approach that has much less of a distinction between phases and works all of the systems through the training cycle. There would obviously be weeks where you don't touch on a particular system, but during what would be each phase you would likely touch on all of the systems and the distinction in emphasis between phases would be much less than in a phased system. Like with everything else running, we are really working n a continuum, so the distinction probably gets blurred a bit in the middle.

Second, as to some people being high vo2max responders and other being low vo2max responders, I would certainly agree with that, but I would say that there is a place for vo2max training even in low responders. I am working with a great marathoner right now - he ran Olympic Trials in 2016, qualifying with a 2:18:1x. The guy simply has no speed whatsoever relative to others with similar running resumes - he has a 14:5x 5k PR. When I started working with him toward the end of the calendar year, he wanted to focus first on the 15k/half marathon distance until February, then get ready for a late May marathon. Given his history, I really thought he needed to work his speed some, especially if he was going to reach his goal at the 15k race, so I built in a tiny bit of rep work and a decent sized block of vo2max work. He struggled mightily with the vo2max work, but I had him stick with it even though he was struggling based on the premise that I thought that working at that pace, if nothing else, would make the endless amount of threshold work that was to follow during the marathon cycle more manageable. The guy was going to have to race at 5:15-5:18 pace, and was going to do a ton of work at 5:00 pace; so I felt he needed some work at closer to 4:50 pace to make those other paces manageable. He showed some marginal improvements in vo2max workouts but showed great improvement in his threshold workouts during the 15k cycle and then decided to jump into a 5k to try to PR. He ran about 15:10 in bad race conditions, but the issue was less about the race conditions and more about him just not being a huge responder to vo2max work, I think. He did go on to run very well in his 15k/half marathon races, crushing guys who he thought might be able to beat him. He then went on to have a great marathon training cycle, which included just a few vo2max maintenance workouts. He ended up doing a few vo2max workouts at low-to-mid 4:40s pace (blazing for him) and has absolutely destroyed his marathon pace and threshold pace workouts (going 14 at 5:08 pace in his last M paced run) and has had some sick threshold workouts (did 5 easy/3 tempo/5 easy/3 tempo with the easy section being at 6:05 pace and the tempo 3 milers being at 4:54 pace for the first one and 4:52 pace for the second one). Very long story short, even though he struggled with those workouts, and even though they did not yield dividends in the expected time frames, I think it is pretty clear that they did yield dividends in the long run in terms of overall fitness and by way of creating a bigger delta between his fastest training paces and the paces at which he was going to "live" during the marathon training cycle.

I thought linear meant a general progression from slower to faster paces. If not correct, then yes, we do need a clear definition.

Also, very interesting anecdote, smoove. I've heard a few people say "do workouts you're good at," and this would clearly be a contrary example.

Allen1959 wrote:

outsiderunner wrote:

Ended up going 13.13 in 1:26:42...6:36 overall...7:09, 7:04, 7:03, 6:43, 6:39, 6:32, 6:37, 6:37, 6:24, 6:16, 6:21, 6:18, 6:08, 0:49.

I give this one to all of you.

OR, that's a great effort on a warm May afternoon. I wish you REALLY could "give this one" to me. I would love to RACE that fast. Heck, my 5K goal is about the pace you closed the last few miles! This morning's 6 x 880y workout was barely at that pace, as a matter of fact.

Also, a shout-out to Pretzel Man. A fine 5K last weekend, bouncing back quickly from Boston. Might see you at the July 4th 10K. Are you racing it? A week from Saturday I have a 5K scheduled. Hope to do as well as you. My first race since Oct 1st!

Allen - Thanks very much. May you be blessed in your training and racing.

We have a July 4th 5k here, and I usually run it. As I had mentioned a few weeks ago, there is a 5k in my area this Saturday, 5/12. I am leaning toward not running it, but will decide today. I ran the 10k a few days ago...plus I would enjoy getting in some miles this Sat.

jewbacca wrote:

I thought linear meant a general progression from slower to faster paces. If not correct, then yes, we do need a clear definition.

Also, very interesting anecdote, smoove. I've heard a few people say "do workouts you're good at," and this would clearly be a contrary example.

I have always heard that with running is best to work on mainly strengths.. What was the saying "slow runners should train slow and fast runners fast"

But i would take that as the Bulk of training and not always. But interesting

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that this guy do a ton of work at vo2max pace. His vo2max work was limited to a block of vo2max work in the lead up to the 15k, and after that it was limited to one strategically placed vo2max effort per month in March and April. And this is a guy who historically ran 130-140 miles per week and who has historically done a ton of work at LT pace; so there was no real concern that I was sacrificing one adaptation for the other. He was still doing LT work and still running high mileage (I got him to commit to the 120s, peaking at 130), so I was not worried about sacrificing LT work for vo2max work - there were too many mile of LT work in the bank for him to lose that adaptation. What I am advocating is that there is a place for the work that we don't like - the work with respect to which we are low responders. Sometimes that work is not done to get a response with respect to that stimulus, but rather to improve our ability to do the work with respect to the stimuli to which we are high responders.

I have much better speed (both absolute speed in historical terms and relative speed in terms of my 5k:marathon times) than the guy I am talking about. My 5k times are still my best absolute times as both an open and a masters runner. But I have come to learn that while I always considered myself to be a relative speed runner, my response to vo2max work comes quickly, then plateaus; with the big improvements in my fitness coming through dedicated threshold work. The threshold work seems the hardest for me, and I have always struggled with 20 minute tempo runs, so I found a way to get the threshold work in that works for me - cruise intervals. Similarly, for this guy, his vo2max maintenance work during the marathon cycle came by way of 800s and 1000s. For a guy at his level, those are actually marginal-at-best vo2max workouts. But - and this is my overarching point - vo2max adaptation was not the main end goal of those workouts. Creating a bigger delta between his top end speed and his meat-and-potatoes work was the main end goal (getting him out of his comfort zone was a secondary end goal).

So for those of us who are non-responders or seem to plateau in their response to vo2max work, I would say that getting in at least a 4 week block (instead of a more customary 6 week block), and maybe doing 800/1000/1200/ladders as your intervals instead of a ton of mile repeats, may make that work more palatable and that work will likely pay a dividend notwithstanding your atypical response to the stimulus.

jewbacca wrote:

I thought linear meant a general progression from slower to faster paces. If not correct, then yes, we do need a clear definition.

My take on "linear" would include any pre-planned progression from Point A to Point B.

That could be the introduction of faster-pace work through the cycle, or could be a progression from speedwork early in the cycle to an emphasis on threshold work late in the cycle.

By that definition, though, even my "non-linear" training, which regularly includes work at all the paces throughout, could qualify as "linear." Over the 18 weeks, the repeat lengths generally increase while the recoveries shorten (and, hopefully, the paces get faster). That's a pre-planned progression from beginning to end of the macrocycle.

Smoove wrote:

Very long story short, even though he struggled with those workouts, and even though they did not yield dividends in the expected time frames, I think it is pretty clear that they did yield dividends in the long run in terms of overall fitness and by way of creating a bigger delta between his fastest training paces and the paces at which he was going to "live" during the marathon training cycle.

We've talked about this before but there are two ways to shift the lactate curve. You can "pull it down" from below or you can "push it down" from above. That's how I like to think of it.

A marathon is run very close to threshold, even more so for elites. So let's say the goal is to make a person more comfortable at 5:15 pace or to make marathon pace feel more manageable. One way to do that, as Smoove suggests, is to approach the puzzle from the speed end (do more rep and V02 max style work). Another way to do that is to approach the puzzle from the stamina end and run A LOT of miles in the 5:15-6:00 pace range for a significant period of time.

The thought behind Lydiard's periodization is to prevent the anaerobic stuff from undermining the benefits that come from long-term, consistent mileage at a good aerobic clip. This is where you have to know the athlete you are coaching very well. Some are high responders to interval training and some wilt. For Lydiard, the anaerobic stuff was important but it was not the main ingredient.

By the way, Lydiard considered everyone a beginner until they broke 2:45 for the marathon.

Smoove wrote:

So for those of us who are non-responders or seem to plateau in their response to vo2max work, I would say that getting in at least a 4 week block (instead of a more customary 6 week block), and maybe doing 800/1000/1200/ladders as your intervals instead of a ton of mile repeats, may make that work more palatable and that work will likely pay a dividend notwithstanding your atypical response to the stimulus.

A 4-week block is pretty much what Lydiard suggests but it is placed at the end of the cycle. That's where these two systems fundamentally disagree. Linear periodization (Lydiard) is like circuit training. You do one thing for a while and then you move on to something else and there is very little blending in between. The ultimate goal is to peak at the right time.

I got the blue screen of death for my earlier, imprecise use of "linear." Just about any program could be described as linear/non-linear in some dimension! Best to specify as a function of what.

Fascinating discussion, as usual.

First, my thoughts on linear progression were that it had to do with moving from general fitness/paces to specific fitness/paces. Interesting to see how we are all viewing linear.

Smoove, thanks for the detailed description of your marathoner. I think I am possibly an average guy version of him. Not much speed and I like the longer stuff. Unlike you, a 20 minute tempo is a dream workout for me. Even better would be going a teeny bit slower for longer, like HM tempo runs.

I'm recovering nicely from my marathon and trying to decide how to approach my summer build up and transition to fall racing. And I'm really torn between doing some faster stuff early or doing a more Lydiard style (and I think Hadd fits this idea) push the paces down from above as too hot mentions.

It's funny, because it can feel like there is a lot at stake with making these kinds of training decisions. When in reality whatever I pick and just work at will probably help me. But hearing from all you guys is definitely helpful.

For the knowledgeable Lydiard people, I just checked out the only Lydiard book from my library, and it's Running to the Top. Is this very different from Run to the Top? And why make titles so similar?

So my build into the HM in April (the build was great the race not so much) I did the v02 work at the end. I do not know about the physiology,but it seemed like that mileage and threshold work leading into the v02 work ....made it more manageable from the built up strength.Which was big for a slow runner like myself.. Included the best "fast" workout by far to this point for me.

runrincerepeat wrote:

So my build into the HM in April (the build was great the race not so much) I did the v02 work at the end. I do not know about the physiology,but it seemed like that mileage and threshold work leading into the v02 work ....made it more manageable from the built up strength.Which was big for a slow runner like myself.. Included the best "fast" workout by far to this point for me.

That was a Pfitz based program, right? He puts the V02 stuff at the end of his marathon builds as well, which is honestly one of the main things that has kept me from doing those programs. That just seems counter-intuitive to getting ready for the marathon? But with a Half and faster stuff, it doesn't seem as drastic a change for some reason. But I had also never thought of how all that strength and tempo work can make for an excellent transition to 800 and 1000m repeats. Especially for those of us who kinda don't look forward to those so much.

Does Lydiard have his marathoners do the hard track/VO2 type stuff at the end of a build up? Or did they just race at the end of the marathon section of his build ups?

Glad to hear you're back running RRR. I miss your Strava updates, so regular check-ins here will keep us all informed!

Consistency - Running Easy with no watch is a very freeing feeling. When I first started running I ran for 10 months with no watch and no races... it was a load of fun.. i basically just ran around everywhere.

I based it on a pfitz plan , but with some less intensity basically until the end and then more than the plan called for. It was a good build and I hope I reap the benefits now , esp when I get a few miles built up and start Plan Pap

Sub 6:00 wrote:

I got the blue screen of death for my earlier, imprecise use of "linear." Just about any program could be described as linear/non-linear in some dimension! Best to specify as a function of what.

Point taken. After posting, I gave it some more thought, and came to the same conclusion.

Regarding preferred types of training (what we "like" doing or are "good" at, versus what we loath or fail at), VO2max workouts are, for me, at lot less daunting than threshold runs (or even HM-pace or M-pace).

Admittedly, I tend to be generous with the VO2max recoveries, but my pace usually aligns well with actual race results.

But I have NEVER been able to hit "one-hour race pace" for a 5- or 6-mile training run. And the prospect of even trying scares the heck out me whenever I contemplate it.

As a low-mileage guy who has never been shy about taking a day off, I can't really blame the general fatigue from training. I don't know what the reason is, exactly. Last year, I struggled to run 6:35 pace for 5 miles in training, dry heaving at the end. But 15K race pace was 6:26/mile.

To have actually scheduled a 6-mile threshold run at 6:26/mile just seems unfathomable.

Started writing this reply earlier this afternoon, before I had a chance to see the other responses. Just going to post it as is, but apologies for being a bit behind the conversation...

Fascinating stuff. Just wanted to pick up on this part of what Smoove said: "The guy was going to have to race at 5:15-5:18 pace, and was going to do a ton of work at 5:00 pace; so I felt he needed some work at closer to 4:50 pace to make those other paces manageable."

What Smoove is saying makes a lot of sense, and it sounds like the approach he's taken has been effective for the athlete in question. I wonder, though, if there's a distinction to be drawn between doing workouts that are "two steps up" from race pace in order to promote mechanical development and doing workouts that are "two steps up" to promote metabolic development?

This is one of the things that I find intriguing about Canova's approach (from what I understand of it, and I certainly don't claim to be an expert). Canova has his athletes do a very high volume of work just a little bit slower than race pace (about 95%, so for Smoove's athlete about 5:30), particularly in the form of the "long fast" runs. He has them do a lot of work at race pace, particularly in the form of high volume interval workouts. He has them do some work just a little bit faster than race pace (about 105%, so for Smoove's athlete 5:00), but this work is really only a little bit faster and the volume is fairly limited. His athletes do a little work faster than that, but the volume is pretty minimal and the primary emphasis appears to be neuromuscular recruitment and mechanical efficiency.

So, in a sense, it's like the key Daniels paces are shifted one step slower, in the interest of significantly increasing the volume of "specific" training. In that sense, the relative emphasis shifts more to the endurance side of things, though Canova would probably say that he's emphasizing specific speed endurance.

Just to be clear, I am far from being an expert on either Daniels or Canova, and I'm not trying to suggest that one way is right and the other way is wrong. But I do find the apparent contrast intriguing (and as someone with exactly three fast-twitch muscle fibers named Moe, Larry, and Curly, I confess that I find an endurance-side approach personally appealing).