roast my training

1) I would make the long run much longer on your level, building to 90 min to up to 120 min. Can also include stuff, like a fast finish, strides, pick-ups etc.

2) I would alternate the 25 min tempo with longer ones of 40-50 min. These will optimize your fat burning, which is a little part of a 10k race. This will also allow you to safely run the 90 mpw, possibly a bit more with a longer LR. The 25 min tempos are much better for the 5k tho.

3) I would reduce the goals a slightly bit, or set intermediary goals. Improvements of 30s in 5k time (or 60s in 10k) at your already very high level are significant and not small steps. Work towards 14:40 first, maybe even improve your "under-distance events" in the winter, like a 1500 or 3k, and then slowly approach 14:20.

Lots of strides, core, plyometrics, strength work after easy runs. It is a good thing to do something like that several times a week, but twice a day after each and every easy run seems a lot too much. There might be a lack of recovery after some time.

3 days of quality running (one day even a tempo run and 10x1k double) is a lot.

There is a lot of threshold running. This is around 3:20/k or 5:20/mi at your level?

I would definitely add faster intervals like 6 x 1 k in 2:55 or 15x400 in 68-70 s and the like. You can't expect to hold that pace in a 5 k race if you seldom run faster than 80 s laps in training sessions. Of course you will introduce more of this pace closer to your racing season, but it is a good idea to stay in touch with that pace once a week now.

There is not much variety in the easy runs. Why not run a single 8-10 miles instead of a 2x4-6 mi double on some days?

Just wondering if you already trained like this for a while or if you like to change to that kind of plan?

To me it looks like a bad copy of what someone posted in the internet, his idea how Ingebrigtsens training might look like.

That’s a lot of strides

I like that you can focus and do all the ancillary stuff. But if you want to get roasted, this is all I'll do -

Drop one of those workouts and make your long run 18 miles and only do one run that day. Turn some of those short doubles into singles.

Are you in the Ingebrigtsen family. Impressive times and nice plan. Get yours boi

Not bad, son wrote:

I like that you can focus and do all the ancillary stuff. But if you want to get roasted, this is all I'll do -

Drop one of those workouts and make your long run 18 miles and only do one run that day. Turn some of those short doubles into singles.

This. Also what the hell is wrong with you? The frequency of strides is too damn high. You do not need to do strides twice in one day, that's the amount of strides you can get away with in an entire week. I also second LRP on changing up your workouts every now and then.

I'm just looking at it again and it really is comical, doing strides 9 times a week lmao.

obviously as a norwegian runner, my training is inspired by the Ingebrigtsens/Marius Bakken/other good norwegian guys. wich means:

1. focus on threshold training from october-march, (only the hill work beeing over threshold pace)

2. short long runs as oposite of what americans do. (you rarely see norwegians hammering long runs)

ingenrigtsens base week is double threshold sessions tuesdays and thursdays, (25*400, 12*1k, 5*6min, lac3.0) sunday longrun 20-25k (12-15miles)

3 quality days (sometimes double) require really controlled threshold sessions. we never run fast on these (3:10/5:06) in my case. have done this type of training, (3 quality sessions/week) for 3 years, doubble thresholds for a few months.

my strides are 4*~80m (rarely running faster than 800/1500m-pace

my core work is 20mins hard (45sec on/15sec off)

my plyometrics is just some easy drills + stair jumps (20min in total). (to work on my top speed)

strength is one harder session with squats, hamstring work, and injury prevention, probably easy 30mins, and one easy session with only injury prevention (15mins)

so my total time spent in the gym is 1hr core, 40min plyo, 45min strength.

the thought of little variety in easy runs is just really that the benefit from easy runs is just easy recovery miles, and we think that we recover better from 2*5miles than 1*10miles, while getting the same time spent on the legs.

lastly, as a guy who never race for more than 30minutes, i do not see the point in running 120mins

also, we do less core/strength/plyo work after christmas. october-december is just all about building a base that can handle the heavy treining we do later.

Norwegianrunner wrote:

lastly, as a guy who never race for more than 30minutes, i do not see the point in running 120mins

Maybe if you did your 10k PR wouldn't be more than 30minutes. (Roasted)

What's the point though? Why post your training, and ask for people to roast it, if you're just going to go on the defensive to justify yourself? Aren't you Norwegians not supposed to be better than we are? Or know more than we do? Or laugh at us?

Norwegianrunner wrote:

lastly, as a guy who never race for more than 30minutes, i do not see the point in running 120mins

The 90-120 min long run simply develops endurance.

Put the same question the other way around: Why do you see a point in running lots of 10 - 12 s (80 m) strides if you want to race 15 or 30 min?

One thing develops speed, the other develops endurance, both is necessary if you like to be successful.

Think about major training principles:

1) consistency: I think you have some.

2) variety: not much variety, always the same distance in easy runs, mainly just threshold for quality work.

3) specificity: not very specific to just do threshold. As I mentioned if you like to race 70 s laps you have to do some work around that pace.

4) progression: Not possible to judge from a single week. You can tell us how you plan to further progress your training throughout the year and over the next years.

5) moderation: Not a very moderate approach to do strides twice every day and quality work four times a week...

These principles are taken from Dick Quax's (5000 m world record holder and Olympic silver medalist) short film "the right track", a good film about training methods of second generation Kiwi runners like Quax, Walker, Dixon (modern, more mixed and less periodized Lydiard training).

You need some faster intervals and to add more variety to your workouts (1k or 3min every week will make you stale).

Don't be afraid to take an afternoon off if needed and don't obsess about the easy runs pace, let it flow by feel (may be slower or even faster given your capacity).

You're already pretty fast, well done.

husk janteloven wrote:

What's the point though? Why post your training, and ask for people to roast it, if you're just going to go on the defensive to justify yourself? Aren't you Norwegians not supposed to be better than we are? Or know more than we do? Or laugh at us?

haha, lol. postet because it is always fun to discuss training, and read opinions on personal training. however i got the impression thet you guys thought i was hammering lots of heavy strides and destroying myself with gym work. just wantet to clarify what i do, since my first description was inadequate

ps. janteloven er for tullinger

Original post is too long, so I didn't read it.

But your training sucks!

Partridge wrote:

The 90-120 min long run simply develops endurance.

Put the same question the other way around: Why do you see a point in running lots of 10 - 12 s (80 m) strides if you want to race 15 or 30 min?

One thing develops speed, the other develops endurance, both is necessary if you like to be successful.

interesting thought. i think my strides improves my running form by running in a more relevant "movement pattern" than just jogging, also stimulates anaerobic muscle fibers. we can agree that long runs develop endurance (aerobic muscle fibers, hearth and lungs). but how does it compare to shorter easy runs? obviously you get better at handling fatigue, but as a 5k guy i guess most of the fatigue i meet is caused by lactic acid and not "hitting the wall". lastly, running more shorter easy runs is (in my opinion) better for recovery, and the injury risk is lower.

i see your points in low variety. howerver i think that focusing on threshold training and excluding track workouts is a good way to get in many miles at relatively high speed, without overtraining. you could say that my training is not moderate enough, however using a very long time to build up to this volume makes it sustainable.

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

I'm just looking at it again and it really is comical, doing strides 9 times a week lmao.

again on the strides: what is REALLY the problem doing lots of strides?

injury risk?

this totals about 3k/2miles per week running "high" speed, equivalent of a short track session (wich most of you advise me to do). also, spreading it out evenly reduses the impact.

increases recovery time?

i would understand why people would think that, however i think the effect is the oposite. my experience is that the strides gives the blood flow a boost, and gives the leg a different stimuli, wich helps recovery. worth to mention that you should have ~60sec rest between strides.

i think strides is a great way to get in some time spent @race pace without demanding lots of recovery time.

in the 70's some norwegians where doing 50*100m @race pace in spikes during the winter, as an easy session. those guys ran 13:27 for 5k and the grandson of one of them also does this session (he ran 8:09 and 14:05 as an 19 yr/old)

Norwegianrunner wrote:

in the 70's some norwegians where doing 50*100m @race pace in spikes during the winter, as an easy session. those guys ran 13:27 for 5k and the grandson of one of them also does this session (he ran 8:09 and 14:05 as an 19 yr/old)

Did you know these 50x100 were not 50 sprints or strides, but a continuous 10 k run? They were just picking it up a bit on the straights and floating around the curves. Nothing special about it, this kind of training is known as far back as the 1920ies, and guess what - many of today's runners are much faster than everyone from 1920 to 1990 so there must be something different which is more effective.