Planning next year's training, 5k programs.

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

As you may or may not know, I've been running for about a year
consistently. Right now I run about 10-20km per week, mostly on steep
hills. My longest runs are hilly around 10k; I do them in around 1h20m.
And I can do a 5k on the flat in around 23 minutes it seems. I sometimes
do easy runs mixed with fast-paced bursts, either on the flat or moderate
downhills. I am really happy with that kind of training and I wish I could
continue it.

However soon I will be moving to an extremely flat place and I was looking
for ideas about what to do with my training. One idea was to do training
for middle distance. So, I looked at www.coolrunning.com's schedules.

However, the site's recommended mileage for beginner runners, posits that
you do at least 15 miles per week, which is beyond my current mileage. Hm.
However my 5k times indicate that I should be doing something like the
intermediate program (5k time between 20-25min though.. the mileage seems
far too ambitious.


Should I really build up my volume like that? I was thinking of just
ignoring the volume on recovery days and focus on the main workouts
[perhaps going out for some recovery runs if feeling ok, but I'd rather
spend the time doing upper body weight training than slogging along]

Any ideas?

15 miles a week is not that far for someone with a year's experience.
Im sure you could add a mile every other week until you are up
to 15, 20, 30 miles a week.

Also you'd be suprized at the bits of topography in supposedly flat
places.
And I dont mean stair climbing which has the danger of tripping.
I lived in Houston for a while once. They had these river channels
with 20 foot slopes along them. What city are you looking at?
Some runners may know of topography.

Christos:
> Right now I run about 10-20km per week, mostly on steep hills.
> My longest runs are hilly around 10k; I do them in around 1h20m.
> And I can do a 5k on the flat in around 23 minutes it seems.
> [...]
> One idea was to do training for middle distance. So, I looked at
> http://www.coolrunning.com 's schedules.
>
> However, the site's recommended mileage for beginner runners, posits
> that you do at least 15 miles per week [...] seems far too ambitious.
> [...]
> Any ideas?


- You don't need to follow anyone's schedule.

- If you do follow someone's schedule, you're allowed to modify it.

- Run as much or little as you wish - well, actually the lower of the
two between how much you wish and how much you can handle.

- Everything's relative but 15 flat miles would be a very low ceiling
for what a healthy young guy could handle. You could surely run that
much if you wanted to, unless you've got a significant physical
problem or are triple the age I reckoned. I doubt you'd even need to
ramp up. Perhaps slow down though. If 15 MPW looks scary to you
after running for a year, my hunch is you're running too fast most of
the time.

- Question: what sounds "far too ambitious" about 15 MPW? Worried
about injury? Exhaustion? Just uninterested in investing 2.5 hours
per week? Something else?

- 15 flat miles is almost surely easier than the 20 very hilly km you
already (sometimes) run.

- I bet your 80' run which covers 10km of hills would get you more
like 8M on a flat route. (Sanity check: 10'/M easy pace is consistent
with faster than 8'/M 5k race.) Add a couple half hour jogs and
you're already up to 15 on just three days.

- What's your ultimate motivation(s) here? If it's to enjoy running,
do what you enjoy. If it's for stress relief, meditation, as an
antidepressant, or whatever you like to call it, do as much as you
need for the beneficial effects. If it's to improve racing
performance at distances of a mile or more, recognize that far and
away the #1 factor that will bring you gains is running more. And
then do with that what you wish.

- If you're like the ADD wreck.ultra-runners who're always talking
about their total lack of motivation to run a single stride unless
immersed in the most unspoiled jaw-dropping natural scenery on the
face of the earth, and if your running is important to you, cancel
your move!

"Christos Dimitrakakis" wrote
| However soon I will be moving to an extremely flat place and I was looking
| for ideas about what to do with my training. One idea was to do training
| for middle distance. So, I looked at www.coolrunning.com's schedules.
|

As you might have noticed on training week threads,
some people list the time on their feet instead of miles.
I would look up current schedule times and spend the
same amount of time & days of training on a flatter
surface initially. Then, if flatter surface gives you a feel
for doing more, try increasing gradually.

I live in the hills, but relish any opportunity I get
to run on a flatter surface where I can go faster and longer.
I go out of my way for flat surfaces to do 20+ milers
during a marathon training.
Enjoy the flatness of your new location. :)

Christos Dimitrakakis wrote:
> As you may or may not know, I've been running for about a year
> consistently. Right now I run about 10-20km per week, mostly on steep
> hills. My longest runs are hilly around 10k; I do them in around 1h20m.
> And I can do a 5k on the flat in around 23 minutes it seems. I sometimes
> do easy runs mixed with fast-paced bursts, either on the flat or moderate
> downhills. I am really happy with that kind of training and I wish I could
> continue it.
>
> However soon I will be moving to an extremely flat place and I was looking
> for ideas about what to do with my training. One idea was to do training
> for middle distance. So, I looked at www.coolrunning.com's schedules.
>
> However, the site's recommended mileage for beginner runners, posits that
> you do at least 15 miles per week, which is beyond my current mileage. Hm.

Don't use your current distance as a guide for total volume because of
the steep hills. BUT, looking back at a few random training weeks,
including before skiing started, it looks like you may only be running 2
hr or less a week - but may do some hiking, biking, and skiing besides
the weights and running. 2 hrs of hilly runs does not equal 2 hrs of
flat runs. The hilly runs may be shorter and good leg strengtheners, but
they don't have the repetitiveness of flat runs - so it's hard to equate
things.

So you may need to take some time to figure out where you really are
running-wise in terms of what canned pgms speak, if that's the route you
want to go. And to clarify your goals. You apparently like weight
training so aren't willing to put all your effort into running. That's
ok. Just an observation on priorities and goals.


> However my 5k times indicate that I should be doing something like the
> intermediate program (5k time between 20-25min though.. the mileage seems
> far too ambitious.
>
>
> Should I really build up my volume like that?

The easy runs may be building your aerobic base as well as some muscle /
tendon / ligament adaptations. You might have some adaptations from your
xt, but, iirc, you tend to do most things "hard", so you may need more
cardio development. This is one of the main goals of running volume. 5k
and longer are mostly aerobic events.

There are other pgms like www.halhigdon.com or Runners World SmartCoach
http://tinyurl.com/2nd8ft and I think their base expectations are
probably similar. Some of Lydiard's principles are discussed here:
http://www.fitnesssports.com/lyd_clinic_guide/lydpg1.html
(you might note the amt of training he suggests for a 5k)

Some pgms, like SmartCoach and a bunch of others, do indicate that you
can use xt instead of some recovery days. The CR and HH don't have a xt
provision in there, although it is acceptable - it's just not as readily
apparent which days. I was also surprised that Pfitz had some in his Adv
Marathon book. And I think Lydiard may provide for some xt in his
masters book, iirc.

A general rule of thumb is that the more time you spend running, the
better you will become - at least up to some limit, but usually above a
few hours / wk. (Elites like Scott Jurek may do 100+mi in some weeks and
also do a fair amt of strength training. Some just run.) Also, some
people, esp. low mileage / volume, may have trouble with injuries until
they reach a certain point.


> I was thinking of just
> ignoring the volume on recovery days and focus on the main workouts
> [perhaps going out for some recovery runs if feeling ok, but I'd rather
> spend the time doing upper body weight training than slogging along]
>
> Any ideas?

There are some pgms designed that way as mentioned above. Consider your
running goals and priorities in life as well as benefits of a solid
training pgm. In particular, recognize the value of building a good
aerobic base (go slower to go faster). Also keep in mind that recovery
days should be recovery days - not necessarily hard weight days IF you
need the recovery for running the next day.

In the end, just do what works for you. I'll admit I attack things from
the low mileage perspective, and I don't find their mileage expectations
unrealistic, esp. for an intermediate pgm.

Dot

--
"Often, quantity of miles is not the answer, but rather quality, i.e.
making your traiing specific to your goals.... The key was specificity
of training balanced with the volume." - Scott Jurek (quoted in Trail
Runner 49:16, Dec 2007)

Dot:
> ...Scott Jurek may do 100+mi in some weeks...

And Kaz's favorite ultra guy, Taco Krupicka, may do 200+ most weeks:
http://runningtimes.com/rt/articles/print.asp?id=12461

Charlie Pendejo wrote:
>
> - You don't need to follow anyone's schedule.
>
> - If you do follow someone's schedule, you're allowed to modify it.

Those are two points I forgot to make. Forgot them before I hit send.
Thanks.


>
> - If you're like the ADD wreck.ultra-runners who're always talking
> about their total lack of motivation to run a single stride unless
> immersed in the most unspoiled jaw-dropping natural scenery on the
> face of the earth, and if your running is important to you, cancel
> your move!

Hey, I resemble that.;) Jealous? ;) But if we can get our training in
without having to resort to non-scenic routes, why should we. ;) And the
quality of the run is higher.

Seriously, I did run my old bike path route the Wed before T-day since
the trails were either really slushy, water on top of ice, or otherwise
hazardous. 'Twas next to a busy hwy around rush hour before holiday. I
knew there was a reason I switched. I couldn't even hear my own
breathing and was surprised when I looked at my hrm download. It was
kinda interesting to see progress in last 5 yrs (almost 6 since I last
ran that route).

Dot

--
"Often, quantity of miles is not the answer, but rather quality, i.e.
making your traiing specific to your goals.... The key was specificity
of training balanced with the volume." - Scott Jurek (quoted in Trail
Runner 49:16, Dec 2007)

Charlie Pendejo wrote:

> Dot:
>
>>...Scott Jurek may do 100+mi in some weeks...
>
>
> And Kaz's favorite ultra guy, Taco Krupicka, may do 200+ most weeks:
> http://runningtimes.com/rt/articles/print.asp?id=12461

He's pretty low mileage for him right now though as recovering from injury.
http://www.antonkrupicka.blogspot.com/

Something interesting about all these blogs is you see a more detailed
look than what you get in some of the mag interviews or articles. The
articles are good for the big picture, and the blogs show "the rest of
the story".

Dot

--
"Often, quantity of miles is not the answer, but rather quality, i.e.
making your traiing specific to your goals.... The key was specificity
of training balanced with the volume." - Scott Jurek (quoted in Trail
Runner 49:16, Dec 2007)

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:23:20 +0000, Dot wrote:

First of all, thanks for the reply.
>>
>> However, the site's recommended mileage for beginner runners, posits that
>> you do at least 15 miles per week, which is beyond my current mileage. Hm.
>
> including before skiing started, it looks like you may only be running 2
> hr or less a week - but may do some hiking, biking, and skiing besides
> the weights and running. 2 hrs of hilly runs does not equal 2 hrs of
> flat runs. The hilly runs may be shorter and good leg strengtheners, but
> they don't have the repetitiveness of flat runs - so it's hard to equate
> things.
>

Indeed. However I am not expecting to be able to do a lot of XT
year-round next year. At least nothing aerobic. If guess I might be able
to replace the XT stuf with easy runs, but the fact is that after a hard
run I frequently am sore in places and while I can still do some XT,
running would be uncomfortable.

> So you may need to take some time to figure out where you really are
> running-wise in terms of what canned pgms speak, if that's the route you
> want to go. And to clarify your goals. You apparently like weight
> training so aren't willing to put all your effort into running. That's
> ok. Just an observation on priorities and goals.
>

I think that since I won't be able to do many other aerobic activities
than running, at least not year-round, it'd be a chance for me to focus on
some specific running goal. In my case, I think I'd be most interested
in improving my times in the distances 400m to 5000m. I have
negligible interest in longer distances on flat courses. I also think
that focusing on the shorter distances is more compatible with weight
training.

>
> The easy runs may be building your aerobic base as well as some muscle /
> tendon / ligament adaptations. You might have some adaptations from your
> xt, but, iirc, you tend to do most things "hard", so you may need more
> cardio development. This is one of the main goals of running volume. 5k
> and longer are mostly aerobic events.
>

Looking at my logs, my runs tend to be at around 70-80% of my maximum
heart rate (average). I was recently doing one somewhat faster effort,
one moderate effort, and one long run each week. In the summer, sometimes
I'd substitute a very long hike for the long run. Should I go back to a
very low intensity cycle? (Less than 70%)? I like doing one faster
effort per week or so: one of a) 5k near race pace, b) short fast
steep hills, c) strides.


I guess that my thinking was that since I was not training for a marathon
I did not need a lot of mileage and that XT was a good enough substitute
for recovery runs. Of course it's not specific enough.. but maybe it's
better injury-wise? (Studies?)

>
> There are some pgms designed that way as mentioned above. Consider your
> running goals and priorities in life as well as benefits of a solid
> training pgm. In particular, recognize the value of building a good
> aerobic base (go slower to go faster). Also keep in mind that recovery
> days should be recovery days - not necessarily hard weight days IF you
> need the recovery for running the next day.

Yes, heavy squats is a definite no-no before a running day.

Again about the mileage: It just struck me as strange that their minimum
recommended mileage for a guy doing 5k in 20-25 minutes was more than
double what I am doing. But probably if I added easy recovery runs I'd be
getting that type of mileage.

Cheers,
Christos

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:22:46 +0000, I2Run wrote:

> "Christos Dimitrakakis" wrote
> | However soon I will be moving to an extremely flat place and I was looking
> | for ideas about what to do with my training. One idea was to do training
> | for middle distance. So, I looked at www.coolrunning.com's schedules.
> |
>
> I live in the hills, but relish any opportunity I get
> to run on a flatter surface where I can go faster and longer.
> I go out of my way for flat surfaces to do 20+ milers
> during a marathon training.
> Enjoy the flatness of your new location. :)

Thanks! You never know I might turn into a marathoner :)

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:11:08 -0800, Charlie Pendejo wrote:

> Christos:

> - You don't need to follow anyone's schedule.
>
> - If you do follow someone's schedule, you're allowed to modify it.
>

Suddenly moving to a flat place made me think I should gather some ideas
from people.


> - Question: what sounds "far too ambitious" about 15 MPW? Worried about
> injury? Exhaustion? Just uninterested in investing 2.5 hours per week?
> Something else?
>

None of the above. Simply looking at my mileage and times, it seems as
though there's a discrepancy (15mpw is the minimum beginner
recommendation - the guys that finish a 5k under 25min are supposed to be
doing 25-50 miles per week, which is really much more than anything
I've done). But perhaps if I insert some imaginary recovery runs in my
mileage and multiply by some 'hill factor' I'd get somewhere in that
region.

> - What's your ultimate motivation(s) here?

I am not sure. I enjoy running, and particularly where I am now. Not
interested in running long unless in the wilderness, so I'd like to try
and focus on the shorter distances, starting with the 5k and perhaps
working my way down over the year to even shorter stuff. But this is all
just wishful thinking at the moment.

Thanks for the advice,
Christos

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:00:10 -0800, rick++ wrote:

I might be able to do more mileage if I switch from 2-3 to 4-5 times a
weeks runs. With my easy pace on the flat, 2k takes 12 minutes, (as
opposed to 16 minutes on the hills). so I should be able to do 12k for
each hour I put in the week. I am not sure how to split it though. Two
45min, one 60+ some 30 min jogs if feeling lucky?

>
> Also you'd be suprized at the bits of topography in supposedly flat
> places.
> And I dont mean stair climbing which has the danger of tripping.
> I lived in Houston for a while once. They had these river channels
> with 20 foot slopes along them. What city are you looking at?
> Some runners may know of topography.

Is Houston flatter than Amsterdam? :) I think I may be resorting to the
dreadmill for long hill efforts.

Christos Dimitrakakis wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:23:20 +0000, Dot wrote:
>
> Looking at my logs, my runs tend to be at around 70-80% of my maximum
> heart rate (average). I was recently doing one somewhat faster effort,
> one moderate effort, and one long run each week. In the summer, sometimes
> I'd substitute a very long hike for the long run. Should I go back to a
> very low intensity cycle? (Less than 70%)? I like doing one faster
> effort per week or so: one of a) 5k near race pace, b) short fast
> steep hills, c) strides.

That's a good mix. While some pgms advocate training below 70% max hr, I
generally tend to gravitate to about 75% max (about 62% hrr) under
normal conditions (not icy, by headlamp, slushy, etc). At this point I
can probably run a little slower, but I don't get the benefits I'd like.
Some people can. A lot of my current thinking - do a mix of aerobic
efforts year round - stems from the way I learned which also follows
Lydiard and is consistent with tables of cardio benefits in Martin and
Coe. Lydiard advocated alternating slightly harder (but still aerobic)
hilly runs with flatter easier runs in base. Martin and Coe's table
suggests that different hr training zones are optimal different cardio
benefits - fuzzy edges to the zones to be sure, and benefit "x" may
still accrue in the other zones, but be better in a particular zone.

During the base part of periodization, most people focus on the 70-80%,
some lower, some maybe a little faster - but some go lower still. Many
will have at least one run / week (maybe 2) where they either go higher
(85-89%) or work on leg speed although some may just do strides in
conjunction with their easy runs. Whatever - but generally one run a
week to get the cobwebs out of legs from running slow.

>
>
> I guess that my thinking was that since I was not training for a marathon
> I did not need a lot of mileage and that XT was a good enough substitute
> for recovery runs. Of course it's not specific enough.. but maybe it's
> better injury-wise? (Studies?)

This is where experiment of one comes in. Many times xt is good for
beginners who are also overachievers and allows them to get more cardio
before their bodies can handle that much running without injury. People
who get serious about running eventually drop much of the xt
(progresssively, usually), unless it works for them in conjunction with
their running - in particular, helps provide cardio base, sometimes leg
strength in addition to their running.

I think elite 5/10k runners may do well over 60mpw, probably more. Not
sure. But most people can do 5/10k on 10-20mpw, probably. It's a
question of whether you're "doing" the races, "racing" the best you can
on what training you're doing, or wanting to improve your times and
"race" to the best of your abilities (whatever that is). Priorities and
"rest of life" get in the way of most (not all) people reaching their
abilities.


>
> Again about the mileage: It just struck me as strange that their minimum
> recommended mileage for a guy doing 5k in 20-25 minutes was more than
> double what I am doing. But probably if I added easy recovery runs I'd be
> getting that type of mileage.

Actually, 15 mpw / couple hours is pretty low, even by my standards when
I could barely get 10mpw in (snow, only running 3 days/wk). I also
suspect that's why you only got one response on CR (and it asked about
goals) - just way below what most people consider a running pgm other
when first starting out. You might be one of those "talented" runners
that can go those speeds on less, partly because of your xt. But you
might see more of a difference at 10k. And if you build a base, you
might be able to go much faster than where you are now. It sounds like
in your new location there may be fewer opportunities for desirable xt,
and you may tend to run more. or not. Strictly up to you on what you want.

Yea, the mileage from those recovery runs adds up.

Dot

--
"Often, quantity of miles is not the answer, but rather quality, i.e.
making your traiing specific to your goals.... The key was specificity
of training balanced with the volume." - Scott Jurek (quoted in Trail
Runner 49:16, Dec 2007)

Christos:
> Simply looking at my mileage and times, it seems as
> though there's a discrepancy (15mpw is the minimum beginner
> recommendation - the guys that finish a 5k under 25min are supposed to be
> doing 25-50 miles per week, which is really much more than anything
> I've done). But perhaps if I insert some imaginary recovery runs in my
> mileage and multiply by some 'hill factor' I'd get somewhere in that
> region.

Yeah, and as you and others have written, running plans tend to assume
running is the sole or primary exercise one is doing. 15mpw = 2-3
hours/week for most, not so much if that's the sum total of one's
efforts. If pursuing training for multiple sports all in the same
week, one would expect each slice of the pie to be proportionally
smaller.

The whole mileage vs. race time mindset strikes me as grossly
misguided to the point of uselessness. Some guys and dolls will be
able to run a 5k under 25' on zero running training, others may
require 15 or 40 or 80 mpw (1) to hit that mark, and some will never
achieve 3.1 eight minute miles no matter what they do.

But they will all improve from appropriate training.

A more reasonable (than "25' 5k runners run 25-50 miles") but still
deeply flawed first order approximation / caricature would be
something like: several months of N mile weeks with such-and-such
workouts improves runners' untrained 5k times by, oh, let's keep it
simple and say ten percent. So the guy who runs 20' untrained becomes
an 18' runner, 30' -> 27', 40' -> 36', etc.


> I'd like to try and focus on the shorter distances, starting with the 5k
> and perhaps working my way down over the year to even shorter stuff.

Though you'd never know it from reading this group where 26M seems
like "middle distance", in the world of competitive running (and of
physiology) 5000m ain't "short stuff". Even a mile race is mostly
aerobic and good milers aren't built like and don't train like
sprinters. Physiology and training requirements for 5k vs. marathon
look virtually identical compared to 800m or shorter.

Pendejo:
> The whole mileage vs. race time mindset strikes me as grossly
> misguided to the point of uselessness. Some guys and dolls will be
> able to run a 5k under 25' on zero running training, others may
> require 15 or 40 or 80 mpw (1) to hit that mark, and some will never
> achieve 3.1 eight minute miles no matter what they do.


Oops, I dropped the footnote, which was to be:

(1) and mileage ain't the only variable in training; just keeping it
simple here

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:53:25 +0000, Dot wrote:

> Some people can. A lot of my current thinking - do a mix of aerobic
> efforts year round - stems from the way I learned which also follows
> Lydiard and is consistent with tables of cardio benefits in Martin and
> Coe.

I have that book and was more keeping their advice in the back of my mind
when 'designing' my program.

> Lydiard advocated alternating slightly harder (but still aerobic)
> hilly runs with flatter easier runs in base. Martin and Coe's table
> suggests that different hr training zones are optimal different cardio
> benefits.

The mixing is nice. But another question is where to focus the effort each
week. Let's say I run thrice, each time at different speeds. If I were
to run for longer than usual on any speed, I will need some extra
recovery. So sometimes I run a bit more/harder on my fast runs, sometimes
I push my long runs. I don't know if there exists a good method for
choosing which workouts to focus on though.

> before their bodies can handle that much running without injury. People
> who get serious about running eventually drop much of the xt
> (progresssively, usually), unless it works for them in conjunction with
> their running - in particular, helps provide cardio base, sometimes leg
> strength in addition to their running.

I see myself moving towards that route.

> might be able to go much faster than where you are now. It sounds like
> in your new location there may be fewer opportunities for desirable xt,
> and you may tend to run more. or not. Strictly up to you on what you
> want.

Yup, it seems like it. I might have to be more careful about how much I
push on each workout.. if I am going to run more frequently.

Thanks for the interesting thoughts.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:50:50 -0800, Charlie Pendejo wrote:

> The whole mileage vs. race time mindset strikes me as grossly
> misguided to the point of uselessness.

I could not agree more.

> A more reasonable (than "25' 5k runners run 25-50 miles") but still
> deeply flawed first order approximation / caricature would be
> something like: several months of N mile weeks with such-and-such
> workouts improves runners' untrained 5k times by, oh, let's keep it
> simple and say ten percent. So the guy who runs 20' untrained becomes
> an 18' runner, 30' -> 27', 40' -> 36', etc.
>

Seems possible - again, this of course does not consider that you are
doing anything other than running.

So, what we would actually want would be some kind of dose-response
model for training variables and running performance. There have been
some dose-response studies for weight training which are interesting.
There seems to be a different response depending on the level of each
trainee; workout frequency, volume and relative intensity give optimal
gains at different values depending at which level one is.

>
>> I'd like to try and focus on the shorter distances, starting with the
>> 5k and perhaps working my way down over the year to even shorter stuff.
>
> Though you'd never know it from reading this group where 26M seems like
> "middle distance", in the world of competitive running (and of
> physiology) 5000m ain't "short stuff". Even a mile race is mostly
> aerobic and good milers aren't built like and don't train like
> sprinters. Physiology and training requirements for 5k vs. marathon
> look virtually identical compared to 800m or shorter.

Yes, of course. Seb Coe comes to mind. I think I will be trying with
shorter distances if I find that increasing mileage is not really going to
be my forte. However I not only I will not be particularly fast, but I
also will have trouble finding running partners..

but as far as I know the sprinters still do longish runs (30-60min) or
long walks, if only for tendon/joint/bone health reasons.

On 6 joulu, 23:39, Christos Dimitrakakis <oleth...@olethros-
desktop.info> wrote:
> (...)
> The mixing is nice. But another question is where to focus the effort each
> week. Let's say I run thrice, each time at different speeds. If I were
> to run for longer than usual on any speed, I will need some extra
> recovery. So sometimes I run a bit more/harder on my fast runs, sometimes
> I push my long runs. I don't know if there exists a good method for
> choosing which workouts to focus on though.

What to do and what to focus on when you have the time and the
motivation for "only" three endurance (i.e. non-strength) training
sessions per week is a familiar puzzle to many semi-serious available-
time athletes. How you begin to approach a possible solution will of
course depend on what your main sport and event will be, on what the
fashion of the day is and, last but not least, on what sort of
training you enjoy doing. However, there is what we could call a
"classic solution":

(1) An V02max session
(2) A LT session
(3) An aerobic session

(1) could be 4 x 4 minutes (at 90-95% of your HRmax or 10-20 beats
below it) with 3 minutes of active recovery; it could also be a Billat
session of up to 20 x 30s with 30s recoveries (at paces based on a
test of your pace at V02max)

(2) could be 10-20 min repeats (at around 85%) with 5 min recoveries
or 8-10 min repeats with 2 min recoveries;

(3) could range from one hour to two+; it would be shorter for
recovery every four weeks (or when needed), and harder if your goal is
in an event lasting longer than 90 minutes.

The general idea and the accepted notion is that you don't really have
to do any recovery sessions, because you have all the time in the
world to recover on the days between; you'd probably have a rest day.
i.e. you'd also keep off the weights - after the LT and the two hour+
aerobic session.

You could also put emphasis on any of the three and do two sessions
for four weeks in a row (while alternating the other two), but here
opinions vary both on whether there's any point to doing so and on
whether it is at all advisable

The latest but not undisputed fashion in Nordic skiing circles is the
training (at this level) philosophy pushed by Hoff and Helgerud, two
Norwegian chaps: since V02max is by far the most important single
determining factor of performance in athletic endurance sports, it
pays for the wanna-be athlete to concentrate his time and efforts on
improving it and for that purpose they advocate skipping pretty much
else and doing (at least) two of the above 4x4 sessions each week and
cutting the long ones, if any, shorter.


Anders

Christos Dimitrakakis wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:53:25 +0000, Dot wrote:
>
>
>>Some people can. A lot of my current thinking - do a mix of aerobic
>>efforts year round - stems from the way I learned which also follows
>>Lydiard and is consistent with tables of cardio benefits in Martin and
>>Coe.
>
>
> I have that book and was more keeping their advice in the back of my mind
> when 'designing' my program.
>
>
>>Lydiard advocated alternating slightly harder (but still aerobic)
>>hilly runs with flatter easier runs in base. Martin and Coe's table
>>suggests that different hr training zones are optimal different cardio
>>benefits.
>
>
> The mixing is nice. But another question is where to focus the effort each
> week. Let's say I run thrice, each time at different speeds. If I were
> to run for longer than usual on any speed, I will need some extra
> recovery. So sometimes I run a bit more/harder on my fast runs, sometimes
> I push my long runs. I don't know if there exists a good method for
> choosing which workouts to focus on though.

I just do what works and monitor my efforts and recovery. Over time,
you'll find that you need less recovery for any particular workout, so
you can lengthen it or run more frequently or whatever.

When I was running 3 times a week, I generally cycled through some key
workouts - one each week with 2 easy runs. My "key" workouts usually
involved some flavor of hills - either power hiking the mtns or running
the intermediate ones repetitively or long run with hills.

When I'm running 4-5 times per week (2 on / 1 off, 8 days in 12-day
microcycle) with a little larger base and more experience, I'll tend to
do a long run, rolling hills, and hill "repeats" (same hill run
repetitively as "hard" as I can for that duration and conditions that
day, usually below LT) and repeat in each 12-day cycle. (I generally
dropped the big hill powerhikes since they weren't that specific to
current races and my long runs had some run/hike hills over 1000ft.)

The advantage of a larger base and more frequent running is that my
recovery times decreased, and I can do more kinds of workouts in a
shorter time span so I can build on the conditioning from that
particular type of workout.

But my priorities are longer trail races, and something I've been
building toward for 5+ yrs. That's how I chose what workouts to focus
on. I may also insert "workouts" into the middle of what started as an
easy run - if my body thinks it can handle it, esp. if the last
"workout" wasn't of the quality I wanted.


If you're more interested in shorter stuff or multi-sport, then you'd
have different priorities. But you can use your goals decide what
workouts to focus on. If you've got Martin and Coe or Daniels or Pfitz,
they may help you focus on what benefits there are for different
workouts. There's also 3-day/wk plans that may have a long run, "speed",
and easy, and cycle through various workouts for "speed" - like tempo,
fartleks, whatever. But a lot will depend on your frequency of running.

Dot

--
"Often, quantity of miles is not the answer, but rather quality, i.e.
making your traiing specific to your goals.... The key was specificity
of training balanced with the volume." - Scott Jurek (quoted in Trail
Runner 49:16, Dec 2007)

anders wrote:
>
> The latest but not undisputed fashion in Nordic skiing circles is the
> training (at this level)

Does "this level" refer to "wanna-be" or "elites" or "casual"?

philosophy pushed by Hoff and Helgerud, two
> Norwegian chaps: since V02max is by far the most important single
> determining factor of performance in athletic endurance sports, it
> pays for the wanna-be athlete to concentrate his time and efforts on
> improving it and for that purpose they advocate skipping pretty much
> else and doing (at least) two of the above 4x4 sessions each week and
> cutting the long ones, if any, shorter.

Hmmm, interesting. Most of the running stuff I've been reading puts
VO2max as lowest priority workouts - except when doing race prep - and
usually considers VO2max a poor predictor of endurance performance (I'm
sure there's some exceptions in literature).

Assuming we're talking base period in "traditional" periodization (vs
some periodization where they do speedwork year round, think it might be
called "wave"), I think tempo / LT is about as hard as most go in base.
Some (like Maffetone) may avoid all hard efforts at all, while most (at
least that I've been reading) seem to do mostly easier stuff spread
across the aerobic range. At least strides or something similar worked
into at least one workout a week.


I should have posted this in my response to CD, but Owen Anderson, I
think, puts more emphasis on VO2max than some others, but I think his
article on workout benefits is somewhat useful.
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0966.htm
I'm sure other authors have a similar page, but I just happened to have
this one bookemarked.

Dot

--
"Often, quantity of miles is not the answer, but rather quality, i.e.
making your training specific to your goals.... The key was specificity
of training balanced with the volume." - Scott Jurek (quoted in Trail
Runner 49:16, Dec 2007)