Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Chasing the Kona dream and a Mai Tai cocktail
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I mean, the general rule is run your fast runs fast and your slow runs slow.
Your race pace on Sunday was about 3.50? Your marathon pace, if you were to do a marathon around now, would be 4.10? (just checked, 4.09 for a 2.55 marathon) Your easy runs seem to be too fast, too close to those race paces, and maybe you are pushing yourself too hard on runs that should be easy. I don't understand the point of 30 minutes at 4k pace after an hour easy, for example. It seems like you're pushing yourself too much, to try to make fast gains? But you need to factor in recovery too (and 4.50 is not recovery pace:))
I realise I'm coming at this from a runner's perspective, and your training is different because you also have the swims and cycles, but maybe your peaks would be higher if you let yourself ease off more in between?
I'd be inclined to agree. Your easy pace would seem to be far too fast. Your easy pace is not 4:30. Your races times don't support that. How do you measure the ease of this pace? HR? Feel? As Ray says, based on your race at the weekend your easy pace, I would expect, would be closer to 4:45/4:50 on a good day, while recovery pace 5:00 or thereabouts. Which would be similar to where I am at the moment.
On the otherhand, you know you better than I ever will, and presumably there is a reason behind the paces you are running. We don't all give every detail of our training sessions, and targets within them and instead use vague words like easy/steady/moderate (I've never understood the difference between steady and moderate
). Have you another session planned for this eve? And in your opinion how will this mornings run affect that session. A proper easy run would have little influence on this evening, but then 4 weeks out from a big race increasing the workout and operating when tired is part of the plan too. 0 -
I mean, the general rule is run your fast runs fast and your slow runs slow.
Your race pace on Sunday was about 3.50? Your marathon pace, if you were to do a marathon around now, would be 4.10? (just checked, 4.09 for a 2.55 marathon) Your easy runs seem to be too fast, too close to those race paces, and maybe you are pushing yourself too hard on runs that should be easy. I don't understand the point of 30 minutes at 4k pace after an hour easy, for example. It seems like you're pushing yourself too much, to try to make fast gains? But you need to factor in recovery too (and 4.50 is not recovery pace:))
I realise I'm coming at this from a runner's perspective, and your training is different because you also have the swims and cycles, but maybe your peaks would be higher if you let yourself ease off more in between?
Pace on Sunday was 3:45/KM. Mcmillan gives a 2:59 marathon based on this (4:14/km Pace)
I'd tend to agree with Ray and BTH here in general in that I reckon to be around the same kind of time for 5 miles (based on 31:30 in the same race last year and improvement since) but my 'easy' runs would always be 4:55-5:15/km and recovery 5:20+ (had to google those to get the french figures
). To be honest JB, based on current easy and LR paces I figured you would run low 29 in Raheny...
All that said it is probably wrong to compare directly as I or Ray would run a lot more while JB would do more cross training so i guess his legs aren't as fatigued in general. I have also noticed from running logs that a lot of runners just tend to do their easy runs a lot faster than others at the same level and it doesn't seem to be a problem. A lot of said runners have often ended up injured when heeding others advice to slow down their easy runs so I guess in many ways everyone is just different... 0 -
(I've never understood the difference between steady and moderate).
Punter: Haha yiz all look like a bunch of ill-bred spandex-wearin' hooker-donkeys on this forum!
BTH: Steady...
Punter: Haha yiz all look like a bunch of ill-bred spandex-wearin' hooker-donkeys on this forum! And yiz all dope!
BTH: moderate0 -
Advertisement
-
Agree fully with this.I mean, the general rule is run your fast runs fast and your slow runs slow.
Race pace was around 3.47km pace for Raheny 5 mile. I take your point but let me flip this around a little for some healthy debate:) Have you considered my race at the weekend is not something I specifically trained for, not a key race in the overall scheme of my race plans? Also worth noting i have not worked or trained my anaerobic system to enable me to go faster? Hence the issue is not that 4:35 is too fast for my easy runs but 3:47 pace is too slow but about where it should be given training focus and lack of speed work? Surely a marathon focussed runner (talented at that distance) will perform better at that distance than someone who is primarily 5k/10k focussed and vice versa?Your race pace on Sunday was about 3.50? Your marathon pace, if you were to do a marathon around now, would be 4.10? (just checked, 4.09 for a 2.55 marathon) Your easy runs seem to be too fast, too close to those race paces, and maybe you are pushing yourself too hard on runs that should be easy.
Easy runs should be a run at a pace you can hold a full conversation, are we in agreement on this? Always the case for me any way when doing easy runs. Sure even when back running with a HRM paces tied back into easy/steady zones so feel matched effort. I think people can get hung up on x pace rather than run by feel. I know in the past i would have been as guilty. Plug in that 5 mile race to McMillan though and you will find my training paces are not far off considering i am endurance focussed rather than a speedster!!
Recovery Jogs
5:00-5:26
Long Runs
4:23-5:08
Easy Runs
4:20-4:56
endurance runner
Steady State Run
4:00-4:10
Tempo Run
3:49-3:59
As you can see not far off. As a matter of interest what would you expect to see as a drop off between easy pace and race pace given what i have stated above? Interested to hear.
On the 30mins again i would forget about pace and focus on the effort, it was a steady effort albeit rising towards the end of the 30mins due to heat so pace dialed back to match effort. As for its purpose i have my own opinion on why its done and i am sure my coach has it there for a reason. Nothing to do with fast gains at all, bear in mind timing of these sessions. Volume and intensity will of course increase in these peak weeks given my first A race is only 4 weeks away. Every session has a purpose.I don't understand the point of 30 minutes at 4k pace after an hour easy, for example. It seems like you're pushing yourself too much, to try to make fast gains? But you need to factor in recovery too (and 4.50 is not recovery pace:))
I would agree with you here, the one thing i would note is that these peaks should come when i need them in my A races, which for me is Abu Dhabi & IM FF and not for a 5mile road race for me which in all honesty was done for the enjoyment of just doing a race.I realise I'm coming at this from a runner's perspective, and your training is different because you also have the swims and cycles, but maybe your peaks would be higher if you let yourself ease off more in between?
I enjoy the debate, its all good, some valid points raised and an interesting discussion.
Run with me for 90mins and you would probably change the bit in bold. You have to realise that i am now in my third year of doing training, mostly all endurance/mid aerobic effort and in some way i have conditioned myself in that way. All i can say to support my argument is my point on holding a conversation whilst running. Have a look back at some of my old long runs when running with a hrm, all in the "easy hr" and those zones and that hr was not calculated on a whim. Take you as an example, you would kick my ass in a 5k/10k/possibly even a half, i guarantee that would not happen in a marathon if we were both to run one now...why because your training is not geared towards that and vice versa. Add in the fact some people are more naturally suited to shorter and some to longer distance.I'd be inclined to agree. Your easy pace would seem to be far too fast. Your easy pace is not 4:30. Your races times don't support that. How do you measure the ease of this pace? HR? Feel?
As i mentioned earlier on pace, easy does not always come out at 4:30 pace exactly, some days it can dip lower (rare) and some days it can drift up to 4.40/50. I will conceed i could do with running specific recovery runs at 5.15 plus...i do find this hard though.As Ray says, based on your race at the weekend your easy pace, I would expect, would be closer to 4:45/4:50 on a good day, while recovery pace 5:00 or thereabouts. Which would be similar to where I am at the moment.
Re the bolded bit, this is the thing everyone is different and talents are in different areas. We are doing this long enough to know what easy should feel like and what steady should feel like. The good thing is with having a coach its a second set of eyes, you can be damn sure he would pull the reigns in if needed to do and rightfully so.On the otherhand, you know you better than I ever will, and presumably there is a reason behind the paces you are running. We don't all give every detail of our training sessions, and targets within them and instead use vague words like easy/steady/moderate (I've never understood the difference between steady and moderate).
I can easily differentiate between easy & steady but like you steady and mod can be a fine line
Core and an easy 20min run planned for later. Of course there will be some fatigue from this mornings session, not a machine after all:). Again timing of these sessions in the overall plan needs to be considered and with Abu Dhabi coming up. Agree on your last point, there is a time and place for the body needing to learn to train when tired.Have you another session planned for this eve? And in your opinion how will this mornings run affect that session. A proper easy run would have little influence on this evening, but then 4 weeks out from a big race increasing the workout and operating when tired is part of the plan too.
That was a lot of typing but worth it to get my own viewpoint across:)0 -
-
Pace on Sunday was 3:45/KM. Mcmillan gives a 2:59 marathon based on this (4:14/km Pace)
I'd tend to agree with Ray and BTH here in general in that I reckon to be around the same kind of time for 5 miles (based on 31:30 in the same race last year and improvement since) but my 'easy' runs would always be 4:55-5:15/km and recovery 5:20+ (had to google those to get the french figures). To be honest JB, based on current easy and LR paces I figured you would run low 29 in Raheny...
All that said it is probably wrong to compare directly as I or Ray would run a lot more while JB would do more cross training so i guess his legs aren't as fatigued in general. I have also noticed from running logs that a lot of runners just tend to do their easy runs a lot faster than others at the same level and it doesn't seem to be a problem. A lot of said runners have often ended up injured when heeding others advice to slow down their easy runs so I guess in many ways everyone is just different...
I was half expecting to run 29:xx something in Raheny but big difference in expecting and actually doing. Not making excuses (even though it sounds like one) but a big training camp the week before would hardly leave you race fresh:o
Oi don't underestimate that cross training:), whilst 8hrs running is tough on the legs as running takes longer to recover from do not forget about tough cycles thrown in there. They can really zap your legs and that "cross training" can tally up to a lot of training hours in the week;)
I agree with you on the bolded bit.
Perhaps i just don't race hard enough!!0 -
-
-
sorry, cutting about randomly here, don't have time for proper structureAliya Wailing Bench wrote: »Race pace was around 3.47km pace for Raheny 5 mile. I take your point but let me flip this around a little for some healthy debate:) Have you considered my race at the weekend is not something I specifically trained for, not a key race in the overall scheme of my race plans? Also worth noting i have not worked or trained my anaerobic system to enable me to go faster?
A 5 mile race is aerobic, your anaerobic system is used for efforts of less than a minute.
I know Sunday wasn't a target race for you, but if you weren't sick or fatigued on the start line, and didn't get your pacing or race strategy spectacularly wrong, it should be a good indicator of your current abilityAliya Wailing Bench wrote: »Easy runs should be a run at a pace you can hold a full conversation, are we in agreement on this?
yes, that's a good indicator. Are you running with other people regularly?Aliya Wailing Bench wrote: »Plug in that 5 mile race to McMillan though and you will find my training paces are not far off considering i am endurance focussed rather than a speedster!!
You seem to be right at the bottom of every zone McMillan givesAliya Wailing Bench wrote: »As a matter of interest what would you expect to see as a drop off between easy pace and race pace given what i have stated above? Interested to hear.
Anywhere between 45 and 85 seconds, off the top of my head, with the average somewhere near the middle of that zone and a lot of fluctuation depending on the sessions that were done earlier in the day/the day before. Just for comparison, I tend to do my easy runs somewhere between 4.35 and 4.50/km, Krusty Clown seems to be 4.20/4.30km.Aliya Wailing Bench wrote: »I would agree with you here, the one thing i would note is that these peaks should come when i need them in my A races, which for me is Abu Dhabi & IM FF and not for a 5mile road race for me which in all honesty was done for the enjoyment of just doing a race.
I don't mean the annual training cycles, I mean weekly. (Same principle for monthly too, I guess) Again, coming from a running background, but if a training plan has one tough session a week, it will be on the same day each week so you have a week recovery. If you have two sessions, or three sessions, they'll be spaced out as much as possible so you can peak properly for each and recover properly in between. (I do Tuesday fast/Wednesday long, Saturday fast/Sunday long, and easy in between. )
Obviously you're balancing three sports so you have to consider how each one peaks and each is recovery from the others. But the underlying principle is that you can't keep grinding through your training on a medium-hard setting because you'll lose your higher gears. (if I did Tuesday long/Wednesday fast my Wednesday would not be fast, and if I don't run fast midweek I won't be able to run faster in a race)0 -
I would be of the understanding (incorrectly maybe) that whilst the 5mile is mainly high end of aerobic effort the training required to go faster in such a race would require a higher level of anaerobic work to improvesorry, cutting about randomly here, don't have time for proper structure
A 5 mile race is aerobic, your anaerobic system is used for efforts of less than a minute.
I know Sunday wasn't a target race for you, but if you weren't sick or fatigued on the start line, and didn't get your pacing or race strategy spectacularly wrong, it should be a good indicator of your current ability. For 5 mile i am thinking some work doing 400s/600s/800s/1k which would incorporate some anaerobic effort. I suppose you have a point, it was a marker of current ability.
Not enough as i would like but occasionally i do talk aloud:)yes, that's a good indicator. Are you running with other people regularly?
Fair point, should be able to race faster given i know i am running my easy runs easy:)You seem to be right at the bottom of every zone McMillan gives
Would it be fair to assume that you run by pace rather than hr/feel? I know if i ran that pace in my easy runs my hr would hardly make it out of recovery. I know everyone is different.Anywhere between 45 and 85 seconds, off the top of my head, with the average somewhere near the middle of that zone and a lot of fluctuation depending on the sessions that were done earlier in the day/the day before. Just for comparison, I tend to do my easy runs somewhere between 4.35 and 4.50/km, Krusty Clown seems to be 4.20/4.30km.I don't mean the annual training cycles, I mean weekly. (Same principle for monthly too, I guess) Again, coming from a running background, but if a training plan has one tough session a week, it will be on the same day each week so you have a week recovery. If you have two sessions, or three sessions, they'll be spaced out as much as possible so you can peak properly for each and recover properly in between. (I do Tuesday fast/Wednesday long, Saturday fast/Sunday long, and easy in between. )
Obviously you're balancing three sports so you have to consider how each one peaks and each is recovery from the others. But the underlying principle is that you can't keep grinding through your training on a medium-hard setting because you'll lose your higher gears. (if I did Tuesday long/Wednesday fast my Wednesday would not be fast, and if I don't run fast midweek I won't be able to run faster in a race)
Gotcha now, understand what you mean. Yes sessions are planned carefully by coach to ensure one does not impact on the other (as much as possible as life gets in the way sometimes) Agree on going hard all the time will see no improvement and in fact will send you backwards. You need to allow the body to absorb the training. I often work off a 2 and 1 or 3 and 1 ease back week. It is hard balancing the 3 sports though.
So in summary do we rigidly stick to pace or go by hr/rpe? You make very valid points but if my easy running feels easy and is proven to be easy based on extablished hr zones then surely i am getting the training benefit from the prescribed session. Trust me i do have enough hard sessions scattered around the place to take full advantage of the easy runs when they are there:). I might go back to using the hrm for a week to ensure all checks out with what i am saying.0 -
-
Aliya Wailing Bench wrote: »I would be of the understanding (incorrectly maybe) that whilst the 5mile is mainly high end of aerobic effort the training required to go faster in such a race would require a higher level of anaerobic work to improve. For 5 mile i am thinking some work doing 400s/600s/800s/1k which would incorporate some anaerobic effort. I suppose you have a point, it was a marker of current ability.
If you do one 400 (or 600/800/1k) and recover fully before the next, that's going to work your anaerobic system, but if you do 5k worth of intervals with short/jog recoveries it's an aerobic workout. Sprinters will do fewer reps with full recoveries between each one.Aliya Wailing Bench wrote: »Would it be fair to assume that you run by pace rather than hr/feel? I know if i ran that pace in my easy runs my hr would hardly make it out of recovery. I know everyone is different.
No, I run by feel, I don't show the pace on my watch these days. I'll look at the pace afterwards. Usually in the low 4.40s, depending on how many traffic lights I get stuck at:). (I run with other people about once a week, before/after a session)
It's got to be hard to run by feel on a treadmill, isn't it? Outdoors, I slow down or speed up without thinking about it, on a treadmill you're more likely to adjust your pace to the machine.Aliya Wailing Bench wrote: »So in summary do we rigidly stick to pace or go by hr/rpe? You make very valid points but if my easy running feels easy and is proven to be easy based on extablished hr zones then surely i am getting the training benefit from the prescribed session. Trust me i do have enough hard sessions scattered around the place to take full advantage of the easy runs when they are there:). I might go back to using the hrm for a week to ensure all checks out with what i am saying.
I think it would be worth trying the HRM for a while, just to see. To me, your estimate of easy pace is too close to your hard paces to really be 'easy' - it looks more like a 'steady' pace, a pace you can maintain for the length of the session without feeling like you are killing yourself, but still more work than it should be. Maybe I'm just lazy
but I think easy should be easy, 20/30 minutes later you feel no real after-effects. (and recovery is no more effort than walking) 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Aliya Wailing Bench wrote: »One last thought would you consider running (purely by hr) at 150 easy for someone who has a threshold hr of 175? and a recorded MHR of 193.
I've no idea, I've never trained by HR.
To be honest, I'm posting because I was reading this log about a month? ago, and was struck by your training paces. I started thinking that maybe I was taking my easy runs too easy, so I did a sanity check on my own training. It's not directly comparable because I'm just running, and you have a higher training volume that includes swimming and cycling... but I think you're the one whose training paces don't align well with race performances. (at least for running, I've no idea about the splashing and wheel-spinning ) Something to think about anyway. 0 -
-
I've no idea, I've never trained by HR.
To be honest, I'm posting because I was reading this log about a month? ago, and was struck by your training paces. I started thinking that maybe I was taking my easy runs too easy, so I did a sanity check on my own training. It's not directly comparable because I'm just running, and you have a higher training volume that includes swimming and cycling... but I think you're the one whose training paces don't align well with race performances. (at least for running, I've no idea about the splashing and wheel-spinning ) Something to think about anyway.
I 100% agree although tbf we are taking a very limited running specific sample size. Sure i have hardly ran any road races in the last year or any type of races being fair. I agree with what you are saying on training pace not aligning well with race performances. I am the first to put my hand up and have even mentioned it previous on here that i have been training well but not racing well last year and its something that has got to change.
Being honest i cannot remember any one race performance of late that i can safely say "yes fulfilled my potential in that one" apart from Barcelona marathon last year but that was more to do with pulling that 3:05 out of the bag when really i probably should have pulled up at the early stages as i knew i was not 100% for it. It was not fulfilling potential but certainly gave it every ounce of effort, it took me a good 6 months to be very proud of that result for what it was.
Plenty to think about any way with what is being said.0 -
-
-
Ok hopefully this will raise a big red flag based on feedback if in fact i do run my easy runs too fast.
First a look at hr,
LTHR - 175bpm
Zones (using Friel)
0-142bpm - recovery
143-154bpm - easy/aerobic
155-163bpm - tempo/steady
164-174bpm - sub TH
175-179bpm - sup TH
Secondly a look at threshold pace/speed, assuming 3:45 based on recent 5mile race as old test from over a year ago was 3:55.
4.50+ - recovery
4.50-4.17 - easy/aerobic
4.17-3.58 - tempo/steady
3.58-3.45 - sub TH
3.45-3.38 - sup TH
On those hr's and paces everything does not seem to far out, comments on above
I used to be very anal when tracking hr against long runs and taking a look at a similar time (fitness wise) hr/pace relationship data would have been around mid 4:30s pace for an AHR of 151 on those "long easy runs". Slightly on high side of easy but i would not thought extreme.
One thing i will point out is the last while you will have seen faster long runs, a case in point being the one on Thursday at 4.21km pace. You need to factor in that half an hour of this run is steady or "race pace" what Raycun and LB might not be aware of is my next race in Abu Dhabi will only consist of a 20k run so training intensity changes when comparing to training for an IM marathon....that should be factored in.
So as i said comments welcome, i hope the above does not come across as challenging/dismissing, more doing a sense check after what has been mentioned in previous posts...its been a very worthwhile discussion so far.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement