Am I a "Speedster" or "Endurance Monster"?

Training?

Over the offseason I had spotty base mileage (4 runs a week for a month, 1 to 2 runs a week after). Monday: 60-70 mins run at conversational pace. Tuesday: 6x800 at 2:35 w/ 3 mins rest or 10x400 at 69 w/ 2 mins rest. Wednesday: Easy 30 minute run. Thursday: Meet day. Friday: Easy 30 minute run. Saturday: Long run or meet.

I would say you're more of a strength based runner i.e."endurance monster". You need to play to your strengths in training. So put more of a emphasis on longer tempo runs, steady state runs, progression runs and more easy mileage.

Alright good to know, thanks!

Ezekiel bread wrote:

I would say you're more of a strength based runner i.e."endurance monster". You need to play to your strengths in training. So put more of a emphasis on longer tempo runs, steady state runs, progression runs and more easy mileage.

No, from that, you should have observed that OP is more likely a "Speedster"

An "Endurance Monster" would unlikely have the leg speed shown by OP, and have a tendency for longer, steady-state (marathon-style) workouts.

You have almost identical PR's to me as a sophomore. With that being said I would've considered myself a bit of a hybrid. When I ran the 1600 I would time my kick for either 600/400m out. Anything else I tried my best to run at a high pace from the gun. I ran a 57 open 400 though. Seeing your training would make me think you have some speed honestly.

JackHills wrote:

Ezekiel bread wrote:

I would say you're more of a strength based runner i.e."endurance monster". You need to play to your strengths in training. So put more of a emphasis on longer tempo runs, steady state runs, progression runs and more easy mileage.

No, from that, you should have observed that OP is more likely a "Speedster"

An "Endurance Monster" would unlikely have the leg speed shown by OP, and have a tendency for longer, steady-state (marathon-style) workouts.

Well, with multiple no-it-alls disagreeing, maybe he is a true hybrid.

Those are almost exactly my PRs from HS. I didn't run too seriously (never at all in college) but have raced decently as a master at everything from 800 to half marathon, with no single distance standing out as stronger or weaker than the others. (Probably the mile would be the sweet spot if I have one, but I get to race that less than 5k etc (and thus I train for it less.)

I would see the OP as an endurance-end 800/1500 guy at this point. Think Nick Symmonds. A pure 800 runner (speed-end 800 guy, think Solomon/Rudisha/etc) doesn't run a 400 over 55 after age 15 :)

Your 56 is a better performance than the 2:06 and 4:40 (which are comparable) and those are better than your 10:15. Still, being young you might be an undertrained endurance monster.

Ezekiel bread wrote:

I would say you're more of a strength based runner i.e."endurance monster". You need to play to your strengths in training. So put more of a emphasis on longer tempo runs, steady state runs, progression runs and more easy mileage.

train your weaknesses, race your strengths

Agreed. A sophomore with speed should be able to run 54 every meet...speedy juniors and seniors 52 and below. FWIW.

duh duh duh dum dum wrote:

Ezekiel bread wrote:

I would say you're more of a strength based runner i.e."endurance monster". You need to play to your strengths in training. So put more of a emphasis on longer tempo runs, steady state runs, progression runs and more easy mileage.

train your weaknesses, race your strengths

Cool story bro.

Well it was a high 56 and a relay split. Is it still better?

Definitely not aerobic monster.

Think of it like a spectrum with "speedster" at one end and "endurance monster" at the other. Most people are going to fall somewhere in the middle. You're somewhere in the middle.

Committed Runner wrote:

Well it was a high 56 and a relay split. Is it still better?

You should be able to tell the answer by how you feel with the different training paces in McMillan. The training paces are the same for tempo runs, tempo intervals, and "cruise" intervals, if I recall.

But for speedsters, the "speed" pace is faster. Those are intervals of 1 mile and shorter (down to 400). I'm an "endurance monster" and would never hit the speedster paces for those workouts. For your current fitness level, take a look at the "speed" paces for the two types of runners and you should be able to tell which is appropriate for you. Ie can you do the written workout at the speedster paces without making it into a race? If not, use the endurance monster paces.

So, as a speedster, what would be the structure of training looks like:

More intervals & easy run vs. long tempo & easy?

TxMaster wrote:

So, as a speedster, what would be the structure of training looks like:

More intervals & easy run vs. long tempo & easy?

I haven't looked at his book for a while but that's the general idea. In the book he starts with a general plan and shows how to modify it for speedsters and again for endurance monsters. He discusses hybrid runners, who might lean toward one of those two types.

An example that I remember is in one plan he had a 20 x 200 workout, and for the endurance monster he got rid of it (and I was glad). He said (correctly AFAIK) that an endurance monster wouldn't respond to that workout, and he put in tempo intervals or something.

TxMaster wrote:

So, as a speedster, what would be the structure of training looks like:

More intervals & easy run vs. long tempo & easy?

Read this:

you sound like me in 9th grade