He is a middle distance runner who probably doubles a few times a week on his way to 60-70 miles. Assume he has two workouts per week (20 miles total) and doubles the day before each one (10 miles total) just to loosen up, that leaves five runs to add an additional 30-40 miles, with one of them probably 12+ miles for his long run. I think he'll be ok running 6:20 pace for his 6-8 mile runs the days between workouts.
LM wrote:
800 dude wrote:
Nobody here is suggesting that "easy days" be faster than VT1. The question is how MUCH slower should they be.
And for what it's worth, I've seen many athletes improve by increasing speed on "easy days." My general approach is to run "easy days" at a pretty decent clip early in a training cycle, while having "quality days" that aren't especially taxing (maybe 60% of the workout volume that athletes will approach later on in the cycle). As competition gets closer, and workouts get harder, then easy days get easier.
Okay, yea I'm with you here. If you do an approach like you describe that can work well, essentially increasing the polarization as you move through the training cycle, and having some days near VT1 isn't a bad thing, especially if you're at lower volumes of intensity.
With regards to Murphy though, I would suspect with 65 or so half ability that 6:00 is pretty close to, or quite possibly over, VT1. That's 83% of threshold in a guy that's focused on speed, he is going to have a lower VT1 relative to threshold than a dedicated 10k or marathon guy, and even in many of them VT1 tends to sit around 80% or so of threshold.
What in the hell are you all talking about? This is why exercise physiologists shouldn’t coach.
800 dude wrote:
LM wrote:
In this elite runners, AneT/VT2 is occuring around 20 kph (4:50 pace), but VT1 around 15kph, which is like 6:30 pace.
This is just very, very wrong. I know what VT1/AeT is. It roughly corresponds to marathon pace in well trained runners.
No elite runners have a 1:40 gap between VT1/AeT and VT2/AnT. Even poorly trained high school kids don't have that big of a gap.
He literally posted a study showing that gap exists for elite athletes....
It's a shame posters dont actually read what other people post and focus on proving right or wrong as opposed to having a discussion.
Paralysis through analysis wrote:
LM wrote:
Okay, yea I'm with you here. If you do an approach like you describe that can work well, essentially increasing the polarization as you move through the training cycle, and having some days near VT1 isn't a bad thing, especially if you're at lower volumes of intensity.
With regards to Murphy though, I would suspect with 65 or so half ability that 6:00 is pretty close to, or quite possibly over, VT1. That's 83% of threshold in a guy that's focused on speed, he is going to have a lower VT1 relative to threshold than a dedicated 10k or marathon guy, and even in many of them VT1 tends to sit around 80% or so of threshold.
What in the hell are you all talking about? This is why exercise physiologists shouldn’t coach.
Good thing these people arent talking about coaching. They are debating whether or not 6:00 pace is easy for Murphy. Haven't seen any comments whether or not Murphy should or should be running those paces.
Parsec wrote:
Paralysis through analysis wrote:
What in the hell are you all talking about? This is why exercise physiologists shouldn’t coach.
Good thing these people arent talking about coaching. They are debating whether or not 6:00 pace is easy for Murphy. Haven't seen any comments whether or not Murphy should or should be running those paces.
"On the other hand, 800 runners become more economical the faster they go compared to typical longer distance runners. Maybe for 800/1500 runners additional CHO/lactate work is beneficial (faster recovery runs). But maybe with their improved economy at faster paces they are also running at just below VT1 (maximal fat oxidation). One could also argue that shifting the lactate curve to the right (maximal fat oxidation -> recovery runs just below VT1) would benefit them too, even though their event is so short and lactate tolerance/utilization may be more important for them."
A number of mistakes and omissions. Mileage totals generally overestimated.
WR for 800m w 80+/week slower than WR for 40/weeks
At 6 pace Murphy is running < half speed
For a HS runner w 12.5 100 speed means jogging at 6;40 pace
Parsec wrote:
800 dude wrote:
This is just very, very wrong. I know what VT1/AeT is. It roughly corresponds to marathon pace in well trained runners.
No elite runners have a 1:40 gap between VT1/AeT and VT2/AnT. Even poorly trained high school kids don't have that big of a gap.
He literally posted a study showing that gap exists for elite athletes....
It's a shame posters dont actually read what other people post and focus on proving right or wrong as opposed to having a discussion.
I didn't read it because if it says that, it's obviously wrong. The notion that an Olympic medalist is starting to breathe hard at 6:30 pace is preposterous. It contradicts a ten foot shelf of running texts in my living room (including Canova, Daniels, and Friel). It contradicts all the lactate data I've ever taken. It contradicts common sense. Just do a little googling. I could cite actual books and studies if I were at home:
The average marathon pace of a well-trained runner should be right at their aerobic threshold[.]
https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20847773/learn-to-pace-like-a-pro/
Once you’re warmed up a little, we slowly increase the speed of the treadmill to around your two and half hour race pace – marathon pace for some runners, half-marathon pace for others, somewhere in between for most of us. Each of the variables on the graph gradually increases — faster heart rate, ventilation, oxygen consumption, a little more effort and lactate. It’s at this point (around two and half hour race pace) that runners often experience what has been called the “second wind”. It seems that the systems of the body are geared up (muscles pliable with large delivery of blood, energy-delivery systems running efficiently) to the point where the pace seems to get a little easier. Some scientists have called this pace, your Aerobic Threshold.
https://www.mcmillanrunning.com/mcmillans-six-step-training-system/
For example, proper marathon training is designed around improving your aerobic threshold (the fastest pace you can run while still efficiently burning fat as a primary fuel source). Aerobic threshold correlates pretty closely to your marathon pace. The more you can improve your aerobic threshold in training, the faster you’ll be able to race the marathon.
https://www.podiumrunner.com/setting-a-realistic-marathon-goal-time_79229
800 dude wrote:
Parsec wrote:
He literally posted a study showing that gap exists for elite athletes....
It's a shame posters dont actually read what other people post and focus on proving right or wrong as opposed to having a discussion.
I didn't read it because if it says that, it's obviously wrong. The notion that an Olympic medalist is starting to breathe hard at 6:30 pace is preposterous. It contradicts a ten foot shelf of running texts in my living room (including Canova, Daniels, and Friel). It contradicts all the lactate data I've ever taken. It contradicts common sense. Just do a little googling. I could cite actual books and studies if I were at home:
The average marathon pace of a well-trained runner should be right at their aerobic threshold[.]
https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20847773/learn-to-pace-like-a-pro/Once you’re warmed up a little, we slowly increase the speed of the treadmill to around your two and half hour race pace – marathon pace for some runners, half-marathon pace for others, somewhere in between for most of us. Each of the variables on the graph gradually increases — faster heart rate, ventilation, oxygen consumption, a little more effort and lactate. It’s at this point (around two and half hour race pace) that runners often experience what has been called the “second wind”. It seems that the systems of the body are geared up (muscles pliable with large delivery of blood, energy-delivery systems running efficiently) to the point where the pace seems to get a little easier. Some scientists have called this pace, your Aerobic Threshold.
https://www.mcmillanrunning.com/mcmillans-six-step-training-system/For example, proper marathon training is designed around improving your aerobic threshold (the fastest pace you can run while still efficiently burning fat as a primary fuel source). Aerobic threshold correlates pretty closely to your marathon pace. The more you can improve your aerobic threshold in training, the faster you’ll be able to race the marathon.
https://www.podiumrunner.com/setting-a-realistic-marathon-goal-time_79229
At least you responded. That's better than most. I think the main thing that jumps out at me about your implication is that it means that aerobic threshold is almost the same as anaerobic threshold. Kipchoge for instance, if aerobic threshold = MP then it's like anaerobic threshold = 4:25 and aerobic threshold = 4:40.
I'd really like to read some of the literature you've obviously read in the past to come to your conclusion. I read the study LM posted and it seemed fine, did some digging and am consistently finding studies saying the same as that, such as these:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6167480/Our findings corroborate this association between VT1 and LT but showing a greater external workload in runners (VT1 = 59–65% of MAS) compared to cyclists [VT1 ~ 51.5% of maximal aerobic power (MAP)].
Reading this to me does suggest that VT1 is higher in runners than in cyclists. MAS = VO2, which is usually 3k pace, which is around 25kph, giving a VT1 range of 14.75 to 16.25kph. Which is like 6:00-6:40 by pace. Definitely not yielding anything near 5' pace.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/33/3/178.full.pdf- This one is in cyclists but is quite interesting, basically finding that EMG characteristics show clear changes at VT1 and at VT2, which as usual occurred around 60-70% VO2, and 80-90% VO2 for VT1, VT2.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17024637- In soccer players, but finds a roughly 20% difference between VT1, VT2
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3990884/- This one uses a treadmill test to basically estimate VO2, and found that 64% of that velocity was under VT. That's again, sub 10mph for elite athletes.
I guess the bottom line here is all the stuff I'm finding suggests that VT1 is quite a bit different from threshold, not a very similar value, which would be necessary for MP to be near VT1. With that in mind, and no rush, I'd really love to read some of the studies you have if you have the opportunity to share them.
Yeah it's fast, but not surprising for a guy his caliber. A few 5k/10k guys on me D2 team ran at or faster than that pace, but would never even sniff Murphy's times in the 3k/5k.
David Rudisha would run his easy runs at 8 min pace, Makhloufi would run even slower. Everybody's different and trains different, so what's the argument about?
Daniel88 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MzPwWFlbfE&t=308s11:17 - 11:40 of this video.
Is this why he performed so poorly at Worlds and the big competitions this year? The man rarely runs above 6:00 pace. He must be feeling the burn.
Discuss.
What in the Wide World of Sports is going on with Let's Run.com?
More recently:
Please accept my apology if this has already been addressed. I have only skimmed things already written.
Has anyone addressed that it might be time for Murphy to move back to the 1500? This is the event I thought was his strength. He tried the trials double and had to fall back on the 800 and seems to be happy there since. He seems to run enough mileage and at a pace (most at 6 or better) to bolster a 1500 more than an 800. He and coaches must have the dicussion from time-to-time of emphasizing the 1500 again. Has this come up in interviews? I am thinking this might be the behind the scenes reason for faster paced runs instead of typical 800 training of slower mileage and more top end speed.
Also, whoever mentioned in the thread that there is a big difference between 'easy' and 'recovery' runs is spot on from my experiences. 6 minutes might not be complete recovery for a guy with the talent of CM but is likely very easy for him. True recovery is needed a lot less than many people think.
Parsec wrote:
At least you responded. That's better than most. I think the main thing that jumps out at me about your implication is that it means that aerobic threshold is almost the same as anaerobic threshold. Kipchoge for instance, if aerobic threshold = MP then it's like anaerobic threshold = 4:25 and aerobic threshold = 4:40.
I'd really like to read some of the literature you've obviously read in the past to come to your conclusion. I read the study LM posted and it seemed fine, did some digging and am consistently finding studies saying the same as that, such as these:
Reading this to me does suggest that VT1 is higher in runners than in cyclists. MAS = VO2, which is usually 3k pace, which is around 25kph, giving a VT1 range of 14.75 to 16.25kph. Which is like 6:00-6:40 by pace. Definitely not yielding anything near 5' pace.
This one is in cyclists but is quite interesting, basically finding that EMG characteristics show clear changes at VT1 and at VT2, which as usual occurred around 60-70% VO2, and 80-90% VO2 for VT1, VT2.
In soccer players, but finds a roughly 20% difference between VT1, VT2
This one uses a treadmill test to basically estimate VO2, and found that 64% of that velocity was under VT. That's again, sub 10mph for elite athletes.
I guess the bottom line here is all the stuff I'm finding suggests that VT1 is quite a bit different from threshold, not a very similar value, which would be necessary for MP to be near VT1. With that in mind, and no rush, I'd really love to read some of the studies you have if you have the opportunity to share them.
(I removed the studies from your quoted post so this post wouldn't be too huge.)
I didn't mean to imply that AeT/VT1 is at all the same as AnT/VT2. They are fairly close in trained runners though. It'd be interesting if it's different for cyclists. Not sure why that would be, but I have no reason to doubt it, though I'm not sure that there's a valid way to compare "external workload" between runners and cyclists. I'm also open to the idea that non runners (or poorly trained runners) would exhibit a much larger divergence. I would certainly consider soccer players to be untrained, non-runners (not that there aren't, of course, outliers).
I'll cite some stuff below, but I do want to emphasize that this idea that the two values are far apart for trained runners just doesn't pass the smell test. If we accept that VT1 is roughly marathon pace and VT2 is roughly 1-hour pace, then you can just look at the pace formulas used by Daniels, McMillan, heck, even the Riegel formula. You can also look at your own experience and that of runners you've trained with or coached.
Even if we're quibbling with the assumption that VT1=AeT=Marathon Pace, VT1 by definition means somewhat heavier breathing. Again, there is some subjectivity involved in the measurement, but NOBODY who runs a half marathon in 1:03 is breathing remotely hard at 6:00 pace, which is what would have to happen if there were a 1:40 gap between VT1 and VT2. This is a situation where, if a study is suggesting otherwise, you need to step back and ask what's going on.
Anyway, here are a couple of cites from my shelf. I don't know what original studies they're using, or if they're just using common knowledge/long experience:
Arcelli and Canova, page 26:
Anaerobic threshold speed...corresponds to a blood lactate level of 4 mmol/l and there is also an indication of the constant percentage difference between these two speeds (5%) [note that Canova calculates percentage speeds in a goofy way], we may say, for instance, that the running speed during the marathon is lower than anaerobic threshold speed by: ....for athletes with a marathon performances just under 2:49; this means that these athletes run the marathon at a speed of 15 km/h (4' per kilometre) and have an anaerobic threshold speed of 15.789 km/h (3'48" per kilometre)....for athletes with marathon performances around 2:10'; these athletes run the marathon at a speed of 19.474 km/h (3'04"8 per kilometre) and have an anaerobic threshold speed of 10.5 km/h (2:55"6 per kilometre). [so 10-12 seconds difference]
Page 25:
in well trained marathon runners aerobic threshold speed will be very close to anaerobic threshold speed
Page 38:
most athletes run the marathon (see paragraph 1.10.4) at a speed that corresponds to their aerobic threshold (i.e. to a blood lactate level of 2 mmol/l)
Martin and Coe, page 100
Trained male marathon runners, as an example, can maintain reasonably stable arterial lactate levels (ranging from around 26 mg/dl [2.9 mmol/L] to 44 mg/dl [4.9 mmol/L]) during runing work loads reaching paces exceeding 5:00 min/mile.
[This is in a section about aerobic threshold, and the quoted language, along with a section on the following page about AnT, is simply making the point that the blood lactate concentrations in high level runners can be much higher than 2 and 4 mmol at each of the two thresholds. I don't think that's a controversial point anymore, despite the continuing use of 2 and 4 mmol as shorthand. There was a 2000 study with participants showing LT2 ranges from 2 to 8 mmol.]
Edit: With a 1:40 gap, a 1:03 half marathoner would be breathing hard at 6:30 pace!
Your brother was about as good as a world class female so excuse me if I take my advice somewhere else.
I was running on Hollister Trail at Nike on Thursday, and he ran past much slower than 6:00 pace– just to add to the discussion.
Speed is somewhat relative.
800 dude wrote:
Edit: With a 1:40 gap, a 1:03 half marathoner would be breathing hard at 6:30 pace!
How are we defining breathing 'hard?'
I think there are plenty of runners with 1:03 ability/PRs (or faster) who would be starting to breathe a bit harder at around 6 minute pace.
From when I used to use logarun, Noah Droddy is one that comes to mind.
If it means just breathing a little harder than true easy pace, then maybe VT1 is slower than you think.
Heck, I am 'breathing' as hard as my buddy who is an 18-19min 5k guy, even when I'm in 4:20/mid 15 mile and 5k shape when we run at 7:20-7:30 pace. What does that mean?
ThatAverageRunner wrote:
800 dude wrote:
Edit: With a 1:40 gap, a 1:03 half marathoner would be breathing hard at 6:30 pace!
How are we defining breathing 'hard?'
I think there are plenty of runners with 1:03 ability/PRs (or faster) who would be starting to breathe a bit harder at around 6 minute pace.
From when I used to use logarun, Noah Droddy is one that comes to mind.
If it means just breathing a little harder than true easy pace, then maybe VT1 is slower than you think.
Heck, I am 'breathing' as hard as my buddy who is an 18-19min 5k guy, even when I'm in 4:20/mid 15 mile and 5k shape when we run at 7:20-7:30 pace. What does that mean?
If you can comfortably speak in complete sentences, you're below VT1.
Anyway, that's just the easy way of looking at it that doesn't require you to assume that VT1=AeT=Marathon Pace, even though that's pretty well established. Obviously 1:03 doesn't equate to 2:50 for the full.
Opinionated guy wrote:
Please accept my apology if this has already been addressed. I have only skimmed things already written.
Has anyone addressed that it might be time for Murphy to move back to the 1500? This is the event I thought was his strength. He tried the trials double and had to fall back on the 800 and seems to be happy there since. He seems to run enough mileage and at a pace (most at 6 or better) to bolster a 1500 more than an 800. He and coaches must have the dicussion from time-to-time of emphasizing the 1500 again. Has this come up in interviews? I am thinking this might be the behind the scenes reason for faster paced runs instead of typical 800 training of slower mileage and more top end speed.
I'm not so sure. PBs arent everything especially considering the importance of tactics in the 1500, but he has to drop a good 4 seconds+ to be competitive in the 1500 (his 3:51.99 mile is his best mark). In the 800, meanwhile he's already there. While he has excellent speed for 1500 obviously, it's not necessarily a given that he can turn that 1:42 high ability into better than a 3:34-3:35. Especially since he already runs relatively high mileage. He should definitely give it a shot, but for every Marcin Lewandowski there're plenty more 800 guys who are superior at the 8.
Parker Valby post 5k interview... Worst of all time? Are Parker Valby interviews always cringe?
Live Now - Official 2024 Track Fest at Oxy Live Discussion Thread
Start Lists for the Men's and Women's Mile/1500 at Pre are up
NCAA D1 Conference Outdoor Championships Live Results and Discussion Thread
Trans Dude On Pace To Break Girls 200 & 400 records & lead team to State 6A Oregon title