speed methods discussion (split from favourite track workouts)

[ultraslacker]

Sure you can. Just doing strides can introduce you to # 1. Intervals cover 5km pace. Tempos and cruise intervals cover 10km-half pace.
That eliminates specifically focusing on # 4 and you can add a bit of MP into every second long run.
Tuesday Easy with strides
Wednesday-Intervals
Thursday- Easy
Friday- Tempo or cruise intervals
Saturday- Easy
Sunday- Long
Monday- off

definitely not ready for that yet... but could eventually work up to it (though I have never had success with trying to run more than 4-5 days per week... if I replaced the Thursday easy with a rest day, it might work... but not until my hip is better!).

[ultraslacker]

for kicks, I went to mcmillan and plugged in a 4:29:59 marathon (which would be my ultimate goal for 2010, if all goes well). Even now with my injury, my long and tempo paces are within range. I can hit the cruise interval pace for 400m but not consistently or repeatedly (was playing with that pace yesterday). Have not hit the V02 max paces yet since my injury.

I'm hoping/praying that my hip will be 100% by the end of December. If all goes well, my weekly mileage will be starting to increase by then too (right now I'm only at 15-25 miles per week).

Maybe there's hope?


All of this new information gives me something to work towards, and an idea of how I might be able to structure things from January forward. :)

[Jwolf]

for kicks, I went to mcmillan and plugged in a 4:29:59 marathon (which would be my ultimate goal for 2010, if all goes well). Even now with my injury, my long and tempo paces are within range. I can hit the cruise interval pace for 400m but not consistently or repeatedly (was playing with that pace yesterday). Have not hit the V02 max paces yet since my injury.

Maybe there's hope?

You definitely have the potential to train for a 4:30 marathon, given health and the ability to do enough mileage. But it takes a while to build up to the desired mileage level, so how quickly you can get to recovery will be key. I'm in the same boat... I know I have the potential to train for a 4:00 marathon once I'm healthy and can do enough mileage. I'm hoping by January the injury is mostly behind me, but I've heard things like this can linger, so I might be doing non-training, easy running for a while.

[ultraslacker]

for kicks, I went to mcmillan and plugged in a 4:29:59 marathon (which would be my ultimate goal for 2010, if all goes well). Even now with my injury, my long and tempo paces are within range. I can hit the cruise interval pace for 400m but not consistently or repeatedly (was playing with that pace yesterday). Have not hit the V02 max paces yet since my injury.

Maybe there's hope?

You definitely have the potential to train for a 4:30 marathon, given health and the ability to do enough mileage. But it takes a while to build up to the desired mileage level, so how quickly you can get to recovery will be key. I'm in the same boat... I know I have the potential to train for a 4:00 marathon once I'm healthy and can do enough mileage. I'm hoping by January the injury is mostly behind me, but I've heard things like this can linger, so I might be doing non-training, easy running for a while.

same... it's kind of a wait-and-see game right now... I *think* I'll be ok by January and could train for Vancouver in May. Failing that, there is Seattle in July and Victoria in October. :)

[Jwolf]

for kicks, I went to mcmillan and plugged in a 4:29:59 marathon (which would be my ultimate goal for 2010, if all goes well). Even now with my injury, my long and tempo paces are within range. I can hit the cruise interval pace for 400m but not consistently or repeatedly (was playing with that pace yesterday). Have not hit the V02 max paces yet since my injury.

Maybe there's hope?

You definitely have the potential to train for a 4:30 marathon, given health and the ability to do enough mileage. But it takes a while to build up to the desired mileage level, so how quickly you can get to recovery will be key. I'm in the same boat... I know I have the potential to train for a 4:00 marathon once I'm healthy and can do enough mileage. I'm hoping by January the injury is mostly behind me, but I've heard things like this can linger, so I might be doing non-training, easy running for a while.

same... it's kind of a wait-and-see game right now... I *think* I'll be ok by January and could train for Vancouver in May. Failing that, there is Seattle in July and Victoria in October.

I'm actually thinking longer term-- getting up to marathon mileage for me needs to be very gradual, and I need to regain the fitness I've lost. I'm thinking Victoria at the earliest.

btw-- Seattle Rock n Roll is usually the end of June...

[ultraslacker]

I'm actually thinking longer term-- getting up to marathon mileage for me needs to be very gradual, and I need to regain the fitness I've lost. I'm thinking Victoria at the earliest.

btw-- Seattle Rock n Roll is usually the end of June...

see, my mileage this month is better than my pre-chuckanut mileage lol so it's not necessarily volume that I'm worried about (though I definitely want to get that higher). Consistency, strength, and being able to run at more than one pace are my immediate goals, and then hopefully in the new year can start looking at speed and structure.

[Jwolf]

I'm actually thinking longer term-- getting up to marathon mileage for me needs to be very gradual, and I need to regain the fitness I've lost. I'm thinking Victoria at the earliest.

btw-- Seattle Rock n Roll is usually the end of June...

see, my mileage this month is better than my pre-chuckanut mileage lol so it's not necessarily volume that I'm worried about (though I definitely want to get that higher). Consistency, strength, and being able to run at more than one pace are my immediate goals, and then hopefully in the new year can start looking at speed and structure.

But being able to hit a predicted marathon time really requires you to get into a decent mileage volume. Being able to hit the paces isn't enough. You might be able to do the marathon, but you might have to scale back the time goal if your mileage is on the lower side.

[ultraslacker]

I'm actually thinking longer term-- getting up to marathon mileage for me needs to be very gradual, and I need to regain the fitness I've lost. I'm thinking Victoria at the earliest.

btw-- Seattle Rock n Roll is usually the end of June...

see, my mileage this month is better than my pre-chuckanut mileage lol so it's not necessarily volume that I'm worried about (though I definitely want to get that higher). Consistency, strength, and being able to run at more than one pace are my immediate goals, and then hopefully in the new year can start looking at speed and structure.

But being able to hit a predicted marathon time really requires you to get into a decent mileage volume. Being able to hit the paces isn't enough. You might be able to do the marathon, but you might have to scale back the time goal if your mileage is on the lower side.

we'll see. ;)

[Mid_Packer]

The most I've ever seen recommended is 10 repeats. 20? What planet is that?

Ok, 10 then

I didn't look it up, and I haven't been doing them. See my logic below.

I use Yassos (10x800m, starting every 5 minutes) as a technique & VO2max workout about a week and a half out from a goal marathon. It is one of about a half dozen calibration elements I have for determining a realistic goal pace: in my case, my optimum marathon time is about 5 minutes higher than what the Yassos predict, provided the workout feels hard but not brutal. The catch for me is that I kind of have to estimate the 800m pace first and then confirm that it feels like it should, rather than racing each interval.

Ian, I'm surpirzed that the Yasso's work for you with only 10 repeats. Here's my logic, and its a sample size of 1. My old running book by Jeff Galloway uses 1 mile repeats (intervals or whatever we call them). His program alternates the long run and these repeats on the Sundays after the hill strength building phase. After the hills the long run is about 16 miles (by memory) and goes up by 2 miles every other week. The off weeks are the intervals starting at 2 x 1 mile and building to 10 (I think) towards the end.

For me my Oct 2008 marathon race was 3:36 xx and my 2009 MP target was 3:35 (which gives a Yasso at 3:35 or about 7:10 per mile pace). This past summer I was doing the 1 mile repeats at the 7:00-7:10 pace on the track at a very even pace per lap. So I was hitting the 800 at 3:30 on the way to the 7:10.

To me the Yasso figures are a bit to conservative for "only" 10 repeats. Now I know that my own experience in the marathon this year was lack of endurance. I'm pretty sure that I could run Yasso's at about 3:20 if I had a full 5 minute recovery. I was doing the 1 mile recovery at about 4 minutes which is my walk time for 1 lap of the track.

In the early 90's I followed the program to to the T with both the long runs and was doing my 1 mile repeats at about 6:40 mile pace and I had marathon debut at 3:10.

If I read Michael's post correctly I think he is suggesting 1200 meters for 7 min miles and maybe longer distances if the pace can be faster. Did I get that right?

Would there be any benefit to do doing a ladder of 800's 1200 and 1 mile? And if so would the workout be
a) x numberof 800, 1200, 1600 or
b) x number of 1600, 1200 800 or
c) x number of 800, 1200, 1600, 1200, 800?

Dave

[ian]

Ian, I'm surpirzed that the Yasso's work for you with only 10 repeats.

Yasso himself originally designed the workout as 10x800, so technically any other number of repeats would be a different workout.

To me the Yasso figures are a bit to conservative for "only" 10 repeats. Now I know that my own experience in the marathon this year was lack of endurance. I'm pretty sure that I could run Yasso's at about 3:20 if I had a full 5 minute recovery.

Note that I measure "every 5 minutes" from the start of the previous 800 so that the rest for me is a little over two minutes; this way I can keep my watch running continuously.

In general, the "Yasso prediction" will be very optimistic for most runners, for the same reason that McMillan extrapolations from 10K to 42K fail: not enough mileage. I have enough mileage to be pretty consistent across all distances and even I add 4-5 minutes to convert my Yasso prediction to a marathon projection. Also, I try to run each interval at about a 5K pace, rather than "all-out & hope the recovery will save me".

Would there be any benefit to do doing a ladder of 800's 1200 and 1 mile?

In general, ladders can be good. Two potential problems with this specific suggestion: (1) You don't really want to be running VO2 max intervals (like Yassos) for more than 5 minutes at a time, lest you accumulate lactate and then have the workout deteriorate with each repeat. As a result, 1200 is about as far as a midpack runner would typically go, with only elite runners doing a full mile. (2) The total distance covered in a VO2 interval workout should probably stay below 8% of the weekly total, therefore even 10x800m is only advisable for a runner doing at least 100K per week.

[Ironboy]

To me the Yasso figures are a bit to conservative for "only" 10 repeats. Now I know that my own experience in the marathon this year was lack of endurance. I'm pretty sure that I could run Yasso's at about 3:20 if I had a full 5 minute recovery.

Note that I measure "every 5 minutes" from the start of the previous 800 so that the rest for me is a little over two minutes; this way I can keep my watch running continuously.

To paraphrase Ian:
Yasso himself originally designed the workout to have recovery exactly match the time to run the interval, so technically any other amount of recovery would be a different workout.

Longer recovery invalidates the speed of the later intervals because you get more rest, shorter recover means you aren't on you feet as long and won't be fatigued as you reach the end of the workout.

[MichaelMc]

for kicks, I went to mcmillan and plugged in a 4:29:59 marathon (which would be my ultimate goal for 2010, if all goes well). Even now with my injury, my long and tempo paces are within range. I can hit the cruise interval pace for 400m but not consistently or repeatedly (was playing with that pace yesterday). Have not hit the V02 max paces yet since my injury...
All of this new information gives me something to work towards, and an idea of how I might be able to structure things from January forward.

This is a general comment, not specifically at you!

I have an issue with people using the training pace calculators as predictors, or even as 'reality checks'. Worse is plugging in a goal time and running THOSE paces in training hoping it will 'pull' you to the goal time.

The pace calculators were designed to take your CURRENT fitness (as demonstrated by a recent race) and produce the BEST training paces to improve that fitness. If training faster was going to produce better results they'd just say "run these as fast as possible": in fact they want you to run "this pace; no faster, no slower". Remember each workout should have a purpose and a target effort range. Running a threshold (tempo) run too fast makes it WORSE at what it is designed to do, not better (for example). Running all of your training at the wrong paces is the result when you plug in race times you'd like to achieve rather than your current race fitness. It doesn't mean you won't make any progress, but if the pace calculator has any value then your progress will be slower when you run the paces too fast. If it doesn't have any value, why use the calculator at all?

In my experience taking a recent 5k -10 mile race result from a 'normal' course gives a very close estimate of proper training paces. The way I know they are right is by cross checking the heart rate zones the training puts runners into. One proviso is that marathon results can be misleading for lower mileage runners: fatigue plays such a large role in this distance that VO2 max and LT aren't neccessarily estimated well from a marathon result. 10k is my favorite, as it has lots of LT and VO2 max involved. Remember on any calculator: GIGO.

[La]

In my experience taking a recent 5k -10 mile race result from a 'normal' course gives a very close estimate of proper training paces. The way I know they are right is by cross checking the heart rate zones the training puts runners into. One proviso is that marathon results can be misleading for lower mileage runners: fatigue plays such a large role in this distance that VO2 max and LT aren't neccessarily estimated well from a marathon result. 10k is my favorite, as it has lots of LT and VO2 max involved. Remember on any calculator: GIGO.

Even then, there's still a big margin of error. I know that based on my 10K times (my PB is on a downhill course, but I have another one that's only about 90 seconds slower on a rolling course), my longer race times (1/2M and 30K) just don't measure up. I'm sure a lot of that has to do with my lower-than-optimum training mileage, which accounts for my pace fading more than the calculators would predict over longer race distances. My 1/2M and 30K PBs correlate pretty well, though (my 30K "predicted" time is about 4 minutes [2%] faster than my actual 30K PB).

[ultraslacker]

Unfortunately, I don't have any recent 10k, 5k, of halfM races to compare to. My only two races this year were each 50k. :) My last halfM was over a year ago, and my last 10k race was in 2007. My halfM pb was 2:08:xx which is exactly the time mcmillan associates with a 4:30 marathon (but that pb was set 2 years ago).

I will be running a 10k race on November 15, but I'm not planning to race it or prepared to race it... so it won't likely make a good indicator anyway.

[MichaelMc]

In my experience taking a recent 5k -10 mile race result from a 'normal' course gives a very close estimate of proper training paces...

Even then, there's still a big margin of error. I know that based on my 10K times (my PB is on a downhill course, but I have another one that's only about 90 seconds slower on a rolling course), my longer race times (1/2M and 30K) just don't measure up. I'm sure a lot of that has to do with my lower-than-optimum training mileage, which accounts for my pace fading more than the calculators would predict over longer race distances. My 1/2M and 30K PBs correlate pretty well, though (my 30K "predicted" time is about 4 minutes [2%] faster than my actual 30K PB).

I wasn't clear. The race results give a good estimate of proper TRAINING PACES, they still do not give a good estimate of other distance RACE RESULTS. Longer race results are limited greatly by FATIGUE, not aerobic fitness. The calculators are taking a race time and estimating your aerobic fitness, so a 20 minute 5k suggests enough aerobic fitness to run a 41:33 10k (McMillan or 41:28 by Daniels). What they don't tell you is how much you'll slow down as you fatigue, and that varies a TON. A 20 minute 5k according to McMillan allows a 3:15 marathon. I know people in that 5k range who struggle to get under 3:30, yet 20:01 was my 5k PR when I ran a sub-3 marathon. That is a 30+ minute spread (17%).

This is actually a good example: the 20 minute 5k/3:30 marathon person and I were challenged by the SAME aerobic paces and needed to run the same Rep, Interval and Tempo runs to improve our (aerobic) fitness. Odds are he would have been a lot closer to my marathon time had he (slowly) doubled his mileage, though.

[CinC]

Unfortunately, I don't have any recent 10k, 5k, of halfM races to compare to. My only two races this year were each 50k. My last halfM was over a year ago, and my last 10k race was in 2007. My halfM pb was 2:08:xx which is exactly the time mcmillan associates with a 4:30 marathon (but that pb was set 2 years ago).

I will be running a 10k race on November 15, but I'm not planning to race it or prepared to race it... so it won't likely make a good indicator anyway.

why not first try to run a couple races (10k, half marathon) as a test of your fitness after you've been training (given you are coming off a serious injury) before you set marathon time goals then? 2 years is a long time esp since your training and racing has taken a very different direction than a traditional half/marathon program.

[La]

I wasn't clear. The race results give a good estimate of proper TRAINING PACES, they still do not give a good estimate of other distance RACE RESULTS. Longer race results are limited greatly by FATIGUE, not aerobic fitness.

Thanks for the clarification.

Based on that, my "McMillan-suggested" training paces are:

Long Runs: 6:17 to 6:54 (my average pace on my 28K run last week was 6:40)
Easy Runs: 6:17 to 6:36 (I tend to do them a bit faster than that 6:10-6:15)
Steady-State Runs: 5:40 to 5:50 (yup, no problem there, probably closer to 5:50, though)
Tempo Runs: 5:26 to 5:40 (did that the other night, maybe a tad faster though)
Tempo Intervals: 5:21 to 5:32 (haven't tried this yet, but I know I can hit those paces)

However, based on my current and projected mileage (50-62K per week as I get closer to the marathon), I still think I'm a long way off the 4:11 marathon that McMillan predicts.

The tough part of this is deciding whether to use my 1/2M PB training paces or my 10K PB training paces. Those would be much more aggressive.

[BJH]

The tough part of this is deciding whether to use my 1/2M PB training paces or my 10K PB training paces. Those would be much more aggressive.

Do the ranges overlap? If so, my instinct would be to target the overlap zone.

[ultraslacker]

Unfortunately, I don't have any recent 10k, 5k, of halfM races to compare to. My only two races this year were each 50k. :) My last halfM was over a year ago, and my last 10k race was in 2007. My halfM pb was 2:08:xx which is exactly the time mcmillan associates with a 4:30 marathon (but that pb was set 2 years ago).

I will be running a 10k race on November 15, but I'm not planning to race it or prepared to race it... so it won't likely make a good indicator anyway.

why not first try to run a couple races (10k, half marathon) as a test of your fitness after you've been training (given you are coming off a serious injury) before you set marathon time goals then? 2 years is a long time esp since your training and racing has taken a very different direction than a traditional half/marathon program.

because without a goal I do not have motivation.

And I know what I'm capable of and what I need to do to get there. The only variable is my hip.

[MichaelMc]

I wasn't clear. The race results give a good estimate of proper TRAINING PACES, they still do not give a good estimate of other distance RACE RESULTS. Longer race results are limited greatly by FATIGUE, not aerobic fitness.

Thanks for the clarification.

Based on that, my "McMillan-suggested" training paces are:

Long Runs: 6:17 to 6:54 (my average pace on my 28K run last week was 6:40)
Easy Runs: 6:17 to 6:36 (I tend to do them a bit faster than that 6:10-6:15)
Steady-State Runs: 5:40 to 5:50 (yup, no problem there, probably closer to 5:50, though)
Tempo Runs: 5:26 to 5:40 (did that the other night, maybe a tad faster though)
Tempo Intervals: 5:21 to 5:32 (haven't tried this yet, but I know I can hit those paces)

However, based on my current and projected mileage (50-62K per week as I get closer to the marathon), I still think I'm a long way off the 4:11 marathon that McMillan predicts.

The tough part of this is deciding whether to use my 1/2M PB training paces or my 10K PB training paces. Those would be much more aggressive.

Which reflects your CURRENT fitness better? The calculator's accuracy depends on being calibrated to CURRENT fitness, not PB if that isn't where you are. Everything else equal, I'd use a 10k result over a Half for picking training paces.

[Jwolf]

Unfortunately, I don't have any recent 10k, 5k, of halfM races to compare to. My only two races this year were each 50k. My last halfM was over a year ago, and my last 10k race was in 2007. My halfM pb was 2:08:xx which is exactly the time mcmillan associates with a 4:30 marathon (but that pb was set 2 years ago).

I will be running a 10k race on November 15, but I'm not planning to race it or prepared to race it... so it won't likely make a good indicator anyway.

why not first try to run a couple races (10k, half marathon) as a test of your fitness after you've been training (given you are coming off a serious injury) before you set marathon time goals then? 2 years is a long time esp since your training and racing has taken a very different direction than a traditional half/marathon program.

I agree-- the fact that you haven't done much racing recently due to injury is all the more reason to not have any time goal for a marathon now. Getting healthy and running consistently should be enough of a goal in itself... if not you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

[CinC]

I agree-- the fact that you haven't done much racing recently due to injury is all the more reason to not have any time goal for a marathon now. Getting healthy and running consistently should be enough of a goal in itself... if not you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

+1

[Jwolf]

The tough part of this is deciding whether to use my 1/2M PB training paces or my 10K PB training paces. Those would be much more aggressive.

I don't think it really matters at this point-- just keep doing what you're doing, because it seems to be working. Your training paces are not your limiter right now.

[La]

Which reflects your CURRENT fitness better? The calculator's accuracy depends on being calibrated to CURRENT fitness, not PB if that isn't where you are. Everything else equal, I'd use a 10k result over a Half for picking training paces.

My 10K time from 1 year ago (same fitness level now as then) is 52:21 (PB of 50:53 was on a downhill course, so I don't "count" it)
My 1/2M PB is from 8 months ago (same fitness level now as then) is 1:59:16.

Do the ranges overlap? If so, my instinct would be to target the overlap zone.

They do. Good suggestion! Those ranges are pretty wide to begin with, so if my 1/2M PB gives me a tempo pace range of 5:26-5:40 and my 10K time gives me a range of 5:18-5:32, then I should be targeting in the 5:26-5:32 range. That's exactly where I thought I should be for tempo runs.

I don't think it really matters at this point-- just keep doing what you're doing, because it seems to be working. Your training paces are not your limiter right now.

Agreed. On both points.

[ian]

To paraphrase Ian:
Yasso himself originally designed the workout to have recovery exactly match the time to run the interval, so technically any other amount of recovery would be a different workout.

Longer recovery invalidates the speed of the later intervals because you get more rest, shorter recover means you aren't on you feet as long and won't be fatigued as you reach the end of the workout.

I'm confused by two things here:

(1) Shorter recoveries most certainly do not make an interval workout easier on account of less time on your feet. If the cumulative length of a few minutes of light jogging between intervals makes a workout too long, the solution is to do fewer intervals, not to shortcut the recoveries.

(2) When you paraphrased me, were you supporting my point or were you using my words against me to claim that I'm not doing Yasso 800s either because technically my recoveries don't exactly match the run times? (If it's the latter, I'd claim that 2:36-2:24 is close enough, especially if the recovery is a gentle walk/jog near the start & finish area so that I can sip some water and be in the right place for the next one.)