Sprinting vs Endurance what gives?
Discussion
Sorry this is long! And I didn't know whether to put it here on in sports so sorry if its in the wrong place also.
A friend of mine has recently done a 10k run and with "just a bit" of training. He's a fit, athletic bloke, but not someone who is doing regular, prescriptive running training. He's just monstered it in a time I think would take me a few more years to achieve and it's given me some pause for thought. For background neither of us are runners so it's not like he's coming from a background in running. I myself am a swimmer and I am coming from a history of training 8-10 times a week, 70km a week, week in week out in my teens. Obviously that has decreased over the years, but I've never not been training for swimming.
I started running maybe 2 years ago. I did a 10k as my first race, in about 48 mins. I then did a half marathon in 1 hr 42 mins. Both of these after following 12 week training programs for each. I found both runs to be challenging, particularly around 3/4 in, but at the same time I did the training and ran to a plan and it worked. I actually beat my 10k time by a minute or so during the half, which was surprising. I am now aimed on a 20 min 5k (and after that I was going to move to 40 minute 10k).
However, I feel like I've bitten off more than I can chew. I cannot for the life of me, maintain the kind of speed required in the training program. For example "Tempo" runs are calling for around 4:15/km and "race" is just the other side of 4/km. Generally I'd have to hold that tempo pace for 3km and I just find it way too tough to manage. I am half way done with the program and I feel way off.
It reminds me much of my swimming, I have always been poor at the kind of events that require very high exertion for a medium amount of time. Think 200m or 400m events. My 50m sprint times were matching my peers, but as the distances increased my times dropped away somewhat disproportionately. I'd be there or thereabouts on the 100s, then suddenly 10s adrift on 200s and on 400s I was 20s or more away. I did exactly the same training as everyone else, but could never swim those distances at the same pace. But I've always been good at sprinting. I am not a massively built guy (75kg, 6ft 3 and struggle to put weight on) so probably never looked like a sprinter and never really had the raw power for the ultimate speed. I never did get any better at the middle distance stuff despite trying. However when I focused on training 25s, 50s, 75s sprints I made pretty big improvements. I didn't do any of the usual swimming stuff ( 40 x 100s, 20 x200s, 8 x 400s etc none of that. that kind of training never did anything for me).
Over this 5k training program I've noticed the same thing happening. 10 x 300m with a target of 3.50m/km? Absolutely no problem. In fact, I'll be down under 3.30/km pace for most and it's not an issue. I could do 20 of them. But 4.15min/km for 3km? No chance. I fold like a cheap suit, just like in the 200s and 400s in the pool. My legs just die, the commands are being sent, but there is no response. They're burning hard.
So what is going on? Why is someone like my friend able to just belt out a 10k time I can only dream about at the first time of asking with not a lot of prep? Whereas I've done 2 years of training, following well regarded training patterns and would be lucky to be 5 minutes off? He can do a 20 minute 5k as well without much prep and as I am finding out, that kind of pace actually feels completely out of reach. I found this with my training partner as well before he left for sunnier climes. My legs couldn't comprehend is 3hr marathon time. Yet running 20s blasts or "strides" I had no problem keeping him behind me. The difference there though is he's been 8 years of running/training. So I expected him to just be better at everything.
I've done a hell of a lot of "zone 2" running. The kind of running they all say you need to do to get faster, but I don't seem to get that much out of it, just as I never got much out of endless laps in the pool. I have improved at least initially, don't get me wrong, but the improvement wasn't huge and I seem to have plateau'd quickly.
I can't figure out if it's cardio vascular thing or just the muscles themselves aren't geared for this kind of exertion and simply never will be. It often feels like the two are not in sync. Maybe it's diet? or maybe its just the way I was made and not to worry about it?!
A friend of mine has recently done a 10k run and with "just a bit" of training. He's a fit, athletic bloke, but not someone who is doing regular, prescriptive running training. He's just monstered it in a time I think would take me a few more years to achieve and it's given me some pause for thought. For background neither of us are runners so it's not like he's coming from a background in running. I myself am a swimmer and I am coming from a history of training 8-10 times a week, 70km a week, week in week out in my teens. Obviously that has decreased over the years, but I've never not been training for swimming.
I started running maybe 2 years ago. I did a 10k as my first race, in about 48 mins. I then did a half marathon in 1 hr 42 mins. Both of these after following 12 week training programs for each. I found both runs to be challenging, particularly around 3/4 in, but at the same time I did the training and ran to a plan and it worked. I actually beat my 10k time by a minute or so during the half, which was surprising. I am now aimed on a 20 min 5k (and after that I was going to move to 40 minute 10k).
However, I feel like I've bitten off more than I can chew. I cannot for the life of me, maintain the kind of speed required in the training program. For example "Tempo" runs are calling for around 4:15/km and "race" is just the other side of 4/km. Generally I'd have to hold that tempo pace for 3km and I just find it way too tough to manage. I am half way done with the program and I feel way off.
It reminds me much of my swimming, I have always been poor at the kind of events that require very high exertion for a medium amount of time. Think 200m or 400m events. My 50m sprint times were matching my peers, but as the distances increased my times dropped away somewhat disproportionately. I'd be there or thereabouts on the 100s, then suddenly 10s adrift on 200s and on 400s I was 20s or more away. I did exactly the same training as everyone else, but could never swim those distances at the same pace. But I've always been good at sprinting. I am not a massively built guy (75kg, 6ft 3 and struggle to put weight on) so probably never looked like a sprinter and never really had the raw power for the ultimate speed. I never did get any better at the middle distance stuff despite trying. However when I focused on training 25s, 50s, 75s sprints I made pretty big improvements. I didn't do any of the usual swimming stuff ( 40 x 100s, 20 x200s, 8 x 400s etc none of that. that kind of training never did anything for me).
Over this 5k training program I've noticed the same thing happening. 10 x 300m with a target of 3.50m/km? Absolutely no problem. In fact, I'll be down under 3.30/km pace for most and it's not an issue. I could do 20 of them. But 4.15min/km for 3km? No chance. I fold like a cheap suit, just like in the 200s and 400s in the pool. My legs just die, the commands are being sent, but there is no response. They're burning hard.
So what is going on? Why is someone like my friend able to just belt out a 10k time I can only dream about at the first time of asking with not a lot of prep? Whereas I've done 2 years of training, following well regarded training patterns and would be lucky to be 5 minutes off? He can do a 20 minute 5k as well without much prep and as I am finding out, that kind of pace actually feels completely out of reach. I found this with my training partner as well before he left for sunnier climes. My legs couldn't comprehend is 3hr marathon time. Yet running 20s blasts or "strides" I had no problem keeping him behind me. The difference there though is he's been 8 years of running/training. So I expected him to just be better at everything.
I've done a hell of a lot of "zone 2" running. The kind of running they all say you need to do to get faster, but I don't seem to get that much out of it, just as I never got much out of endless laps in the pool. I have improved at least initially, don't get me wrong, but the improvement wasn't huge and I seem to have plateau'd quickly.
I can't figure out if it's cardio vascular thing or just the muscles themselves aren't geared for this kind of exertion and simply never will be. It often feels like the two are not in sync. Maybe it's diet? or maybe its just the way I was made and not to worry about it?!
There's probably an element of fast twitch vs slow twitch fibres. Some people have more of one than the other. If you're struggling with endurance but find sprinting easier, then you have more fast twitch fibres. It's just how it is and you will never beat someone who's better at endurance stuff because they have more slow twitch fibres, and can reach a higher ceiling in this activity. That's how I understand things.
I think your last para is the key.
Not everybody is built the same.
I don't think it's a case of him enduring more pain that you. It's that he is physiologically different to you.
I've run with probably fifty different people and we were all different. Some were fast over 100m (sub 12), but not over distances longer than 400m. Others, like me were slow over 100m (20s), but could keep up a steady pace for a half marathon (1:45). Others were very fast half marathon (1:20) and moderate full marathon (3:10). Others were fast full marathon, but not the fastest half marathon runners, but they were able to keep their sub1:30 going for sub3 hours.
There's a reason that Mo Farah doesn't do the 100m and that Usain Bolt doesn't run the marathon
Not everybody is built the same.
I don't think it's a case of him enduring more pain that you. It's that he is physiologically different to you.
I've run with probably fifty different people and we were all different. Some were fast over 100m (sub 12), but not over distances longer than 400m. Others, like me were slow over 100m (20s), but could keep up a steady pace for a half marathon (1:45). Others were very fast half marathon (1:20) and moderate full marathon (3:10). Others were fast full marathon, but not the fastest half marathon runners, but they were able to keep their sub1:30 going for sub3 hours.
There's a reason that Mo Farah doesn't do the 100m and that Usain Bolt doesn't run the marathon
Agree with above. You're probably hitting the limit of the potential of your personal make up.
However I wonder if your swimming background means you are using pace to define intensity with the aim of getting to a particular race pace. This is probably ignoring your physiology. If you base your training around your physiology you might be able to move your thresholds a little.
You might be better of using heart rate based off a 20 minute threshold test or perceived exertion to define intensity.
I'm similar pace to you. Always use hill sprinting as part of a training plan - for slower runners it's more about developing biomechanical resilience rather than pure speed.
I highly rate Matt Fitzgerald's training plans in 80/20 running but as you mention Z2, you might be aware of this.
I wonder if your Z2 is really Z2. If not your 'Z2' runs will be wasted mileage. It's a really difficult threshold to define without lab work; varies a lot between individuals and can change with training.
However I wonder if your swimming background means you are using pace to define intensity with the aim of getting to a particular race pace. This is probably ignoring your physiology. If you base your training around your physiology you might be able to move your thresholds a little.
You might be better of using heart rate based off a 20 minute threshold test or perceived exertion to define intensity.
I'm similar pace to you. Always use hill sprinting as part of a training plan - for slower runners it's more about developing biomechanical resilience rather than pure speed.
I highly rate Matt Fitzgerald's training plans in 80/20 running but as you mention Z2, you might be aware of this.
I wonder if your Z2 is really Z2. If not your 'Z2' runs will be wasted mileage. It's a really difficult threshold to define without lab work; varies a lot between individuals and can change with training.
I wonder if you're doing enough slow distance work.
I don't pretend to understand the science - i just obediently follow a plan, like you - but the plan I'm doing at the moment includes what seem to be disproportionately long and slow runs about once a week, with the underlying theory being something to with the effect these have on the size and number of mitochondria, ultimately allowing you to run faster for longer.
I raise this only because in your original post you mention alot about sprints, tempo runs and race pace, but nothing about long & slow runs.
I don't pretend to understand the science - i just obediently follow a plan, like you - but the plan I'm doing at the moment includes what seem to be disproportionately long and slow runs about once a week, with the underlying theory being something to with the effect these have on the size and number of mitochondria, ultimately allowing you to run faster for longer.
I raise this only because in your original post you mention alot about sprints, tempo runs and race pace, but nothing about long & slow runs.
oddman said:
Agree with above. You're probably hitting the limit of the potential of your personal make up.
However I wonder if your swimming background means you are using pace to define intensity with the aim of getting to a particular race pace. This is probably ignoring your physiology. If you base your training around your physiology you might be able to move your thresholds a little.
You might be better of using heart rate based off a 20 minute threshold test or perceived exertion to define intensity.
I'm similar pace to you. Always use hill sprinting as part of a training plan - for slower runners it's more about developing biomechanical resilience rather than pure speed.
I highly rate Matt Fitzgerald's training plans in 80/20 running but as you mention Z2, you might be aware of this.
I wonder if your Z2 is really Z2. If not your 'Z2' runs will be wasted mileage. It's a really difficult threshold to define without lab work; varies a lot between individuals and can change with training.
However I wonder if your swimming background means you are using pace to define intensity with the aim of getting to a particular race pace. This is probably ignoring your physiology. If you base your training around your physiology you might be able to move your thresholds a little.
You might be better of using heart rate based off a 20 minute threshold test or perceived exertion to define intensity.
I'm similar pace to you. Always use hill sprinting as part of a training plan - for slower runners it's more about developing biomechanical resilience rather than pure speed.
I highly rate Matt Fitzgerald's training plans in 80/20 running but as you mention Z2, you might be aware of this.
I wonder if your Z2 is really Z2. If not your 'Z2' runs will be wasted mileage. It's a really difficult threshold to define without lab work; varies a lot between individuals and can change with training.
Fullook said:
I wonder if you're doing enough slow distance work.
I don't pretend to understand the science - i just obediently follow a plan, like you - but the plan I'm doing at the moment includes what seem to be disproportionately long and slow runs about once a week, with the underlying theory being something to with the effect these have on the size and number of mitochondria, ultimately allowing you to run faster for longer.
I raise this only because in your original post you mention alot about sprints, tempo runs and race pace, but nothing about long & slow runs.
I am currently following Ben Parkes 5K Level 3. I followed his 10k and half marathon programs and they seemed to work. For the 10 I trained to his "50min" pacing and for the half the 1 hour 45 pacing. In both cases I managed a few minutes faster than these. So I think they work as programs. I was given a book called "Fast 5k" by Pete Magill, who is apparently some super sI don't pretend to understand the science - i just obediently follow a plan, like you - but the plan I'm doing at the moment includes what seem to be disproportionately long and slow runs about once a week, with the underlying theory being something to with the effect these have on the size and number of mitochondria, ultimately allowing you to run faster for longer.
I raise this only because in your original post you mention alot about sprints, tempo runs and race pace, but nothing about long & slow runs.
t hot 5-10k runner and coach from California. So I will probably have a go at one of his programs after.I know I didn't mention longer slower runs but they are in the Ben Parkes program for sure. No hill runs though in this one which I think might be an omission and I might look to work some in. The BP program, the weeks tend to look like 1 hard day with either Tempo level or "3K" pace intervals and then the rest of the week will be "easy" 5-8Ks or "mediums" 5K with some 20s sprints or 30 mins of gym. They usually build up to the weekend where the runs will be 8K-12K "easy".
For "easy" he has around 5:10 to 5:40/km in the 20min 5K level. This shifts out to 6min/km for the 21min 5K. When I first started running 6min/5k was about right if I was trying to stick in that "Zone2", but these days I do tend to find that kind of pace just too difficult to run. I will naturally hit 5:30-5:40/km and usually find that very easy and if I feel quite good and I don't check myself I'll comfortably run at 5:20/km for 10K or nearer 5min/km for 5k. I did recently start focusing more on picking my feet up higher and whilst I had to actually think consistently about doing this, it has made a noticeable difference to how fresh my legs feel over time. It seemed a bit counter-intuitive but once I'd watched a few videos on what it means for the mechanics, I was sold.
But whether this kind of speed is "zone 2" is a good question. I do find this quite difficult to do. Based on my %HRR on my Garmin I've got a 45 resting HR and 185 max HR (the watch sorts the former, I know what to do to find the latter). They put zone 2 as 60-70% of your HRR which works out 130-144bpm. However this doesn't translate to their "Training Effect" charts that clearly. I think Zone 2 lies somewhere between blue (Maintaining) and green (improving). The vast majority of my runs do end up in the green zone and usually further towards the orange zone (highly improving). Checking back on my avg HR over some of my last easy runs, it's more like 145-150bpm (though its wildly variable with spikes to 165), so I am perhaps maybe running too hard for zone2 and encroaching into zone3.
Thing is I did get frustrated with this because running with a HR < 140 seems like having to run way way too slow, like barely moving and I eventually gave up checking the watch every 5 mins and just checked my pulse on the neck every now and then. I then just ran at a pace where I could hold a conversation with my pal very easily and that seemed to be a bit more workable. I don't know if it's because of my swimming, but even when running with a HR >160bpm I tend to feel quite comfortable, even though we're getting into Zone4 or Zone5. The heavy breathing, inability to talk etc really only comes in once into the 170s.
I do often wonder in running if it's like swimming where for some people, it simply makes more sense to practice at the pace you want to race. I never dropped so much time on my 50s and 100s as when my training sessions were purely focused on sprint 25s and 50s. It might be different in swimming as the stroke mechanics are quite different for sprinting vs longer distance. So doing lots and lots of meters easy is essentially practicing the wrong technique for what you want to race and also the wrong energy system as most 50m sprints will be swum with little to no breathing.
Otispunkmeyer said:
I can't figure out if it's cardio vascular thing or just the muscles themselves aren't geared for this kind of exertion and simply never will be. It often feels like the two are not in sync. Maybe it's diet? or maybe its just the way I was made and not to worry about it?!
Set yourself a specific goal. 12 weeks from some internet training guide is not long enough to achieve much except a race finish above the bottom 5%. To radically improve your time for, say, 13.1 milers I'd recommend at least six/eight months training. Build a base first, work in tempo runs later, lastly work on fartlek/sprints.I'm not a good runner, but ran competitively for 15 years and got my half down from 2 hours to 1.38. And that was a hilly half that nearly killed me.
It'll be as much about your relative backgrounds as genetics etc, you need 10 years of training before your genetics are going to really limit you, quiz your friend and compare your long term aerobic histories and I bet he's well ahead.
I haven't ran for 10 years, but I have 15 years work banked, I can run a 26 minute Parkrun off nothing, which is a normalish time for people my age at Parkrun, but 2 months training I get to 20 minutes, which is the same thing you're seeing with your comparison I think.
Off my running background I was able to pedal a bike to a good club standard in 12 months, if I'd done my running time on a bike I'd have been faster, but the cross-over from aerobic training in general is good enough that you respond really well to specific training because you're learning to tap into your base in a different way rather than building the base from scratch.
I haven't ran for 10 years, but I have 15 years work banked, I can run a 26 minute Parkrun off nothing, which is a normalish time for people my age at Parkrun, but 2 months training I get to 20 minutes, which is the same thing you're seeing with your comparison I think.
Off my running background I was able to pedal a bike to a good club standard in 12 months, if I'd done my running time on a bike I'd have been faster, but the cross-over from aerobic training in general is good enough that you respond really well to specific training because you're learning to tap into your base in a different way rather than building the base from scratch.
Otispunkmeyer said:
For "easy" he has around 5:10 to 5:40/km in the 20min 5K level. This shifts out to 6min/km for the 21min 5K. When I first started running 6min/5k was about right if I was trying to stick in that "Zone2", but these days I do tend to find that kind of pace just too difficult to run. I will naturally hit 5:30-5:40/km and usually find that very easy and if I feel quite good and I don't check myself I'll comfortably run at 5:20/km for 10K or nearer 5min/km for 5k. I did recently start focusing more on picking my feet up higher and whilst I had to actually think consistently about doing this, it has made a noticeable difference to how fresh my legs feel over time. It seemed a bit counter-intuitive but once I'd watched a few videos on what it means for the mechanics, I was sold.
But whether this kind of speed is "zone 2" is a good question. I do find this quite difficult to do. Based on my %HRR on my Garmin I've got a 45 resting HR and 185 max HR (the watch sorts the former, I know what to do to find the latter). They put zone 2 as 60-70% of your HRR which works out 130-144bpm. However this doesn't translate to their "Training Effect" charts that clearly. I think Zone 2 lies somewhere between blue (Maintaining) and green (improving). The vast majority of my runs do end up in the green zone and usually further towards the orange zone (highly improving). Checking back on my avg HR over some of my last easy runs, it's more like 145-150bpm (though its wildly variable with spikes to 165), so I am perhaps maybe running too hard for zone2 and encroaching into zone3.
Garmin algorithm calculates zones for a population not individuals. We're all familiar with how 220 minus age is an unreliable estimate of max HR. Aerobic threshold and lactate threshold are also tricky to estimate. The zones calculated by Garmin may work for you but pretty fair chance they are garbage. Garmin treats Z1 and 2 as more or less unproductive which is unhelpful if uou're using the device as a coaching guide and like to see your numbers going up.But whether this kind of speed is "zone 2" is a good question. I do find this quite difficult to do. Based on my %HRR on my Garmin I've got a 45 resting HR and 185 max HR (the watch sorts the former, I know what to do to find the latter). They put zone 2 as 60-70% of your HRR which works out 130-144bpm. However this doesn't translate to their "Training Effect" charts that clearly. I think Zone 2 lies somewhere between blue (Maintaining) and green (improving). The vast majority of my runs do end up in the green zone and usually further towards the orange zone (highly improving). Checking back on my avg HR over some of my last easy runs, it's more like 145-150bpm (though its wildly variable with spikes to 165), so I am perhaps maybe running too hard for zone2 and encroaching into zone3.
Z2 can't be easily based on pace or even as a % or HR max or HRR. It's a measure of the heart rate at which lactate begins to accumulate. The only way of accurately doing this is to go to a lab or buy a lactate meter and conduct your own tests. It's a physiological measure based on work rate. This will vary dependent of the gradient, surface, wind and weather and how well rested you are. Cycling zones based on power meter data are more closely matched to physiological zones because it's a more direct measure of output.
If you read any accounts of Z2 training it is very slow and many have problems with keeping down to the pace required (slower runners need to walk at times) or HR drifting up because they are deficient in aerobic systems. The benefit of increasing aerobic capacity is that once in the threshold zone for 5k/10k/HM the body is more efficient at using lactate as a fuel.
The basis for Z2 comes from analysis of the training profile of elite endurance athletes, runners, cyclists, rowers XC skiers by sports scientists in the 70s and 80s. Elite successful athletes across disciplines were shown to be spending 80% plus in Z2 with only 20% at threshold or doing intervals. The coaches who took used this training profile as the basis for their athlete programmes became very successful. For amateurs who want to train 5 days a week or 5 plus hours 80/20 makes sense.
When posters who are saying you need much longer to see gains in speed a significant component of this is having long term metabolic adaptation that is developed with long steady distance. Another area is efficiency where gains are also pretty hard won.
ETA. If your easy stuff is easier, it's less likely you'll fail the long intervals at threshold (TBF if you can' complete intervals there's a mismatch between you and your plan - training should be about doing the minimum required to produce an adaptation)
Edited by oddman on Tuesday 28th May 08:44
Someone aiming for a 20 minute 5k doesn't need to think about any of that stuff though, the quickest way to hit that time is simply to spend more time training, whether that's running further or more often, pace doesn't matter because that time is so closely related to total time training.
I suspect for most the best way to get there is to ride a bike around the running they're doing now because a bike will take you from an hour long run to 3 hours aerobic work very quickly.
I suspect for most the best way to get there is to ride a bike around the running they're doing now because a bike will take you from an hour long run to 3 hours aerobic work very quickly.
I have a 5k pb of 18:46 (it was 20 years ago but I'm still trading off it!).
Are you doing a proper warmup? It's something people neglect but was key for improving my time. It should include a a few sprints and a few 60 race pace intervals. Basically when you start the race your speed shouldn't be a 'surprise' to your body.
Are you doing a proper warmup? It's something people neglect but was key for improving my time. It should include a a few sprints and a few 60 race pace intervals. Basically when you start the race your speed shouldn't be a 'surprise' to your body.
Simply genetics. Some people are naturally gifted at distance running. Two different types of genetics at play too - one is pure ability (I'm no sports scientist but presumably more low-twitch muscle fibres) but the other is strength/resistance to injury, which allows you to train at higher volume and intensity without breaking down.
I started running in 2013, still in my late 20's. I only ever played football for exercise and certainly don't fall into the naturally gifted category, so my baseline was 27:30 on my first 5k. I got down to 21 minutes and like yourself I was running 3-4 times a week, doing all the recommended sessions, 1x tempo, 1x long run, 1 speed/hill work, you name it, but I couldn't crack 20 minutes before I ended up with an injury of some sort and setting me back a few months.
I would recommend adding in some lower leg strength work. Calf raises are a good one to focus on - I only did them as a reactive measure after struggling with achillies tendonitis but I swear they make me quicker too.
I started running in 2013, still in my late 20's. I only ever played football for exercise and certainly don't fall into the naturally gifted category, so my baseline was 27:30 on my first 5k. I got down to 21 minutes and like yourself I was running 3-4 times a week, doing all the recommended sessions, 1x tempo, 1x long run, 1 speed/hill work, you name it, but I couldn't crack 20 minutes before I ended up with an injury of some sort and setting me back a few months.
I would recommend adding in some lower leg strength work. Calf raises are a good one to focus on - I only did them as a reactive measure after struggling with achillies tendonitis but I swear they make me quicker too.
ILikeCake said:
I have a 5k pb of 18:46 (it was 20 years ago but I'm still trading off it!).
Are you doing a proper warmup? It's something people neglect but was key for improving my time. It should include a a few sprints and a few 60 race pace intervals. Basically when you start the race your speed shouldn't be a 'surprise' to your body.
Good advice. It feels counter productive when you're new to running, 'wasting' a KM of energy at high intenstity, but when I broke my 10k PB 8 years ago I did a 1.5km warm up at various speeds, including a full KM at race pace.Are you doing a proper warmup? It's something people neglect but was key for improving my time. It should include a a few sprints and a few 60 race pace intervals. Basically when you start the race your speed shouldn't be a 'surprise' to your body.
To warm up for any evening race I would normally exercise at something like 40% effort, usually on a bike, in the morning for 30 minutes, just to start the day with everything loose and unstressed, then I would keep moving a little and often throughout the day to keep everything loose.
Before the race I would do probably 2-3 miles at 50ish% race pace, so a decent amount and I would do some short faster efforts, but nothing like a km or 60s sprints. You'll use whatever anaerobic effort you have in you over the last quarter of the race at best and closer to the last 5% for people running 20+ minutes for 5k. So the race itself will have warmed up that engine for you before you need it. The warmup is about your body realising it's about to run and that it needs to release whatever hormones it does to get all your metabolic thingies going as you trained them to and doing whatever you need to do to make sure everything is stretched off so your muscles can all pull like they're supposed to.
But like I said, you need to be a solid way under 20 minutes before your time isn't 99% determined by a mix of your long-term aerobic training and your short-term running training. Genetics simply isn't a meaningful factor in this question, the difference will be in the long-term aerobic background for sure.
Before the race I would do probably 2-3 miles at 50ish% race pace, so a decent amount and I would do some short faster efforts, but nothing like a km or 60s sprints. You'll use whatever anaerobic effort you have in you over the last quarter of the race at best and closer to the last 5% for people running 20+ minutes for 5k. So the race itself will have warmed up that engine for you before you need it. The warmup is about your body realising it's about to run and that it needs to release whatever hormones it does to get all your metabolic thingies going as you trained them to and doing whatever you need to do to make sure everything is stretched off so your muscles can all pull like they're supposed to.
But like I said, you need to be a solid way under 20 minutes before your time isn't 99% determined by a mix of your long-term aerobic training and your short-term running training. Genetics simply isn't a meaningful factor in this question, the difference will be in the long-term aerobic background for sure.
popeyewhite said:
The OP's new to competitive running Paul. He's not going to start with mile long warmups. I think probably all he needs, as another poster has said, is to build a decent endurance base and stick to building it up.
A mile at 60% race pace is somewhere around 10-12 minutes, which seems to be in the right ball-park to me, but my broader comment was aimed at people suggesting that warming up at race pace would be useful to the OP, it won't.It was me that said the difference they see is pretty much all aerobic base and that to get faster they just need more time under their belt.
paulrockliffe said:
But like I said, you need to be a solid way under 20 minutes before your time isn't 99% determined by a mix of your long-term aerobic training and your short-term running training. Genetics simply isn't a meaningful factor in this question, the difference will be in the long-term aerobic background for sure.
Really interesting post. Do you genuinely think any able bodied person is able to run a sub-20 min 5k with the right advice and training? I struggled to do it, probably won't now I'm in my late 30s.
If nothing else, 'm sure genetics must play a part in adaptability? For example, let's say you take 10 people with very similar profiles (age, gender, height, weight & aerobic backgrounds) and put them on a structired diet and running training plan. I still think some would progess significantly quicker than the others.
resolve10 said:
paulrockliffe said:
But like I said, you need to be a solid way under 20 minutes before your time isn't 99% determined by a mix of your long-term aerobic training and your short-term running training. Genetics simply isn't a meaningful factor in this question, the difference will be in the long-term aerobic background for sure.
Really interesting post. Do you genuinely think any able bodied person is able to run a sub-20 min 5k with the right advice and training? I struggled to do it, probably won't now I'm in my late 30s.
If nothing else, 'm sure genetics must play a part in adaptability? For example, let's say you take 10 people with very similar profiles (age, gender, height, weight & aerobic backgrounds) and put them on a structired diet and running training plan. I still think some would progess significantly quicker than the others.
On the 5k time itself, it's obviously more complicated if you say 'any' rather than 'most' because there's more to it that broad-brush aerobic background. The main think I didn't go into was weight, it's a significant factor in race times, simply because it all has to be moved. If you take two people with the same underlying aerobic history, but one has put on 10 stone in the last 2 years, then they would need to lose that to get to the same starting point and there may be underlying health aspects to that that limit you to some extent. Drinking a lot, taking drugs, smoking, all sorts of daft stuff you might have already done that are skewing where you're starting from and/or might limit what you can do.
There's lots of life-style things that get ignored too, because they're just normal every day things that limit training, or limit motivation to train; they're your normal so it's hard to see that they're not everyone else's and that actually your body could be trained a lot harder. To get past that you might need to be really really motivated to beat 20 minutes, but then how many people really are? It won't feel much different to running a few minutes slower and you won't suddenly be up near the sharp end of races, yet it might need a lot of lifestyle changes and probably over many years too.
But fundamentally, if you've not done anything daft already, have the time and motivation to put the work in, most people's bodies will cope with the training and be able to run under 20 minutes. I wouldn't like to put numbers on it exactly, but I think you'd be looking to average 5 hours a week for 5-10 years (2,500 to 5,000 hours). Until you're firmly in that ball-park I think the basic rule of more = faster is what will make the biggest difference, though if you did that I also think most people would be comfortably under 20 minutes, it's more of an idea of what you need to do to start seeing your potential, rather than what you need to do to break 20 minutes.
The coaching advice isn't really complicated I don't think, at that level success or failure is as much about working out how you can best get as much training in as you can. For example, I would argue to join a club if having a fixed session twice a week and people to train with will get you exercising more rather than argue that you should join because having structured training set by a decent coach will make you faster. The reality is that both make a difference, but training more is much more important until you're a decent chunk faster.
I think I might argue that most people would run faster quicker if they started off on the bike, simply because 5 hours cycling a week is much much easier than 5 hours running and you'd quickly find yourself doing 10 hours a week and your lungs don't know much difference. Though you might also never break 20 minutes because you'd have worked out that bikes are really cool and skipped the running thing entirely. And honestly, if you enjoy running then running for the sake of running is far more important than running for a particular time target too.
To put 20 minutes in some sort of perspective, the fastest time in the UK this year is currently 13.31, so it's 50% slower almost to the second. It's not slow, but it's definitely not quick.
On the rate of adaptability thing, I agree with that for sure, but I also think that what you normally see as 'natural ability', is often just not seeing a load of work that's there in the background.
At the most basic level, genetic advantage is a self-fulfilling prophesy; kid discovers they're a bit faster than their mates, enjoys winning sports day, more likely to do sport, you meet them when you're both 30 and start running together and wonder why they get faster so much quicker than you. Similarly, if you have a sibling a couple of years older than you, they're not so far ahead that you can't just about keep up if you've got a competitive streak and it's a pain as a parent to take the kids out on their bikes or whatever if you don't beast the younger one a bit. If you see my daughter in the Olympics in 15-20 years time, you'll think she's naturally gifted, but it's 90% the older sibling thing for her!
For sure you won't get to the Olympics without a huge genetic factor coming in to play, but 20 minutes is far enough away from that that it just isn't a particularly significant factor in most circumstances.
paulrockliffe said:
To put 20 minutes in some sort of perspective, the fastest time in the UK this year is currently 13.31, so it's 50% slower almost to the second. It's not slow, but it's definitely not quick.
Lol, no, it's definitely quick. Took me about 7 years to get a 10k down to 45 minutes! Put it this way - if someone runs 8 minute miles they'll do 5k in about 25 minutes and 8 minute miles aren't terrible by any means.Interesting questions.
My first attempt at a 5K was 18:55 at the age of 40 and I then did only slightly slower on trail 5Ks. I have never run big weekly mileage, although I have run for training fairly consistently since the age of 15.
I'm not a running specialist (and carrying leg muscle mass), but I was obviously not new to training or running. I have been active in various sports and activities since I was a child and a fairly consistent weight (averaged about 81Kg at 183cm) throughout my adult life.
I have done a range of strength and aerobic training, but little running, in the past year, but I have been able to do hilly 5 mile off-road runs this week comfortably with no stiffness.
Good running form is under-rated. Many/most people run in an apparently inefficient way. Real core strength is also under-rated
When I was younger I was reasonably quick at a sprint on the rugby or football pitch, but sprinting speed appears to drop away quickly with age and lack of practice.
Oddly, with cycling I was always slower than I would have expected, even when I trained a lot -possibly due to body dimensions/bike fit issues?
My first attempt at a 5K was 18:55 at the age of 40 and I then did only slightly slower on trail 5Ks. I have never run big weekly mileage, although I have run for training fairly consistently since the age of 15.
I'm not a running specialist (and carrying leg muscle mass), but I was obviously not new to training or running. I have been active in various sports and activities since I was a child and a fairly consistent weight (averaged about 81Kg at 183cm) throughout my adult life.
I have done a range of strength and aerobic training, but little running, in the past year, but I have been able to do hilly 5 mile off-road runs this week comfortably with no stiffness.
Good running form is under-rated. Many/most people run in an apparently inefficient way. Real core strength is also under-rated
When I was younger I was reasonably quick at a sprint on the rugby or football pitch, but sprinting speed appears to drop away quickly with age and lack of practice.
Oddly, with cycling I was always slower than I would have expected, even when I trained a lot -possibly due to body dimensions/bike fit issues?
Edited by MC Bodge on Tuesday 28th May 22:51
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff