Chasing the Kona dream and a Mai Tai cocktail

BTH · 01-02-2013 3:50pm

JB, I haven't contributed to this discussion for a while now, and I'm going to stay out. As is the usual case, these things gone to a level or analysis where I no longer understand what anyone it talking about. My brain exploded.

RayCun · 01-02-2013 3:51pm

Aliya Wailing Bench wrote: »

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.
0-142bpm - recovery
4.50m/km+ - easy/aerobic
4.17-4.50 - tempo/steady
3.58-4.17 - sub TH
3.45-3.58 - sup TH

Can't comment on the HR stuff, it means nothing to me.
Doesn't the quoted bit say that under 4.50 you are running tempo/steady and easy/aerobic pace is 4.50+ ?

(but listen to Larry Brent more than me, he knows what he's talking about

)

pgibbo · 01-02-2013 4:26pm

Some interesting reading and like BTH I'm a bit lost with the science of it all.

I assume you averaged 3:45/km in the 5 mile last weekend. Given that, what formula or site did you use to determine the paces?

Personally I like to keep it simple and base easy off HR & RPE. I rarely look at pace. This week in particular would have been very hard to work off pace solely with the winds that were blowing. If I can sing "we're going on an adventure - yacki yacki yoggi - Doo doo dee! etc then I know I'm running easy. The important thing in my mind is having more than one reference point as so many things can influence how you feel day to day.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 01-02-2013 4:35pm

RayCun wrote: »

Can't comment on the HR stuff, it means nothing to me.
Doesn't the quoted bit say that under 4.50 you are running tempo/steady and easy/aerobic pace is 4.50+ ?

(but listen to Larry Brent more than me, he knows what he's talking about )

Interesting you hold more weight towards pace rather than hr, any particular reason why. For me pace only comes into it when doing specific session with numbers to hit all other running is RPE.
Sorry Ray, i fudged up those paces should make more sense now
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

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 01-02-2013 4:37pm

BTH wrote: »

JB, I haven't contributed to this discussion for a while now, and I'm going to stay out. As is the usual case, these things gone to a level or analysis where I no longer understand what anyone it talking about. My brain exploded.

You can blame Larry Brent for that:) i only jest. This is why i like having a log, creating some discussion from time to time.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 01-02-2013 4:46pm

pgibbo wrote: »

Some interesting reading and like BTH I'm a bit lost with the science of it all.

I assume you averaged 3:45/km in the 5 mile last weekend. Given that, what formula or site did you use to determine the paces?

Personally I like to keep it simple and base easy off HR & RPE. I rarely look at pace. This week in particular would have been very hard to work off pace solely with the winds that were blowing. If I can sing "we're going on an adventure - yacki yacki yoggi - Doo doo dee! etc then I know I'm running easy. The important thing in my mind is having more than one reference point as so many things can influence how you feel day to day.

Averaged 3:47 rounding down:). This is based off the auto calculation on TrainingPeaks using Friel. Same here never worry about pace unless it's a specific session. All other runs are based off RPE as stopped wearing hr due to me being sliced open numerous times with the strap:o Placing of sessions would also impact if sticking to a pace band rather than running by feel. I often have off & on days were the pace picks up even though effort in comparison remains the same.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 01-02-2013 5:18pm

Some stats for the month of January, it will be Xmas soon

2013/2012/+ or -

Swim – 39,775mtrs/24,900mtrs/+37%

Bike - 1099.8kms/707.3kms/+35%

Run - 251.5kms/269.3kms/-7%

TSS - 4554.6/4239.3

Hardly surprising that swim and bike volume are up on last year along with TSS (training stress score). A combination of the training camp in Lanza and the timing of my first A race of the year in Abu Dhabi (long course) coming up in 4 weeks. Overall a good month of training put down with some noticeable improvements in the pool with a 15sec improvement on my 400tt from December and steady progress on both bike and run. The training camp went very well and i picked up some tips from some of the more serious racers about. Plenty of tough bike miles in the lava fields of Lanza which will hopefully stand to me later in the season.

RayCun · 01-02-2013 5:19pm

Aliya Wailing Bench wrote: »

Interesting you hold more weight towards pace rather than hr, any particular reason why.
For me pace only comes into it when doing specific session with numbers to hit all other running is RPE.

Because the first few times I tried using a HR monitor it didn't work and now the strap is sitting on top of a bookcase gathering dust

Like yourself, I train on effort. I stopped displaying pace (and distance) on the watch to stop myself looking at it, now I run on time and effort and check the figures later. But I have a rough idea of what those figures should be, so if I found my pace was outside the 4.40-50 range I'd be asking myself why.
Pace is important though. Races are about time and distance (=pace), not HR, power output, or stroke count.

Aliya Wailing Bench wrote: »

Sorry Ray, i fudged up those paces should make more sense now
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

That's interesting, those zones look pretty fast to me.
I had a look around, and found this, which suggests that your base figure should be from a 30 minute time trial or a 60 minute race. see also. Pace/km would be 5-10 seconds slower in a 10 mile race, which would bump up all those figures to something more comparable to McMillan or Daniels.

HalfTri · 01-02-2013 6:32pm

I actually don't think your running too fast. As my coach said - your long run pace should be faster than your pace in an Ironman marathon. For me - I would have been running roughly 20 seconds per mile faster.

Long runs - don't mean Long Slow Runs.

Pace for shorter runs would have been similar.

But track sessions - were much faster - 5 or 6 by 1km reps at 10km pace. Building to 4 x 2 km and up to 3 x 3km.

You mentioned that you haven't been doing speed sessions - your training for an ironman.. 1km sessions are your speed sessions.

Recovery Runs - What are they?

Swimming, Long Biking recovers the muscles from the running.

Larry Brent · 01-02-2013 6:55pm

Aliya Wailing Bench wrote: »

0-142bpm - recovery
143-154bpm - easy/aerobic
155-163bpm - tempo/steady
164-174bpm - sub TH
175-179bpm - sup TH

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".

That seems about right then. One thing to look at maybe though - if average is 151, I'm presuming like most people your first mile is somewhere in the 130s, 2nd low 140s before you get up to a stable HR. So are you sightly higher than 151 for the bulk of the run, but those early miles bring down the average? When looking at the average HR, no harm to ignore the first couple of miles. Whether you're at 151 or 155 for the bulk of the run, I'd say it's probably no harm to have occasional runs at the lower end of the zone also, 145 or so. To train a greater variety of slow twitch fibres. The slowest twitch fibres will generate less force and so are slower. So you might think you're better off training a stronger and therefore faster slow twitch fibre by running a bit faster. But 2 of the slowest twitch fibres working together will produce more force than 1 of the typical slow twitch fibres. Hence the benefits of having as many fibres trained as possible, rather than having a smaller range of fibres very well trained.

Aliya Wailing Bench wrote: »

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

Am I missing something here? Are you taking 5m pace as threshold pace?

Your 5m race pace was 3:47/km. This would give a lactate turnpoint (1 hour race pace) of somewhere around 3:55-4:00/km, (based on the rule of thumb that you add 10s/km to your pace as the race distance doubles, and also fits in with your lab test figures). That in turn would put your marathon pace at about 4:10-4:15/km. A 3:05 marathon is 4:23/km. So I think the faster end of your easy/aerobic pace is maybe too close to your marathon pace whether you take the 4:10 figure or the 4:23 figure.

A 3:55min/km lactate turnpoint pace will give a 4:10ish marathon pace in an aerobically well trained runner, i.e. one who has as many muscle fibres as possible trained (i.e. full of mitochondria and ability to store glycogen). If there is a drop off in race pace greater than 10s/km or 16s/mile as the race distance doubles then the runner is not as well trained aerobically as they could be. If your 3:55 LTp figure and 4:23 MP figures are an accurate representation, it might be a sign that you could get some improvements in race times at longer distances by improving your aerobic conditioning, which might involve training at a greater variety of paces.

Mark Hadley is a big advocate of trainign at a wide variety of paces. He advocates 6 training pace zones:

1) 1500-3000m pace (Speed/Anaerobic)
2) 3k-10k pace (VO2 max)
3) 10k-HM pace (Lactate Turnpoint)
4) HM-M pace (Lactate Threshold)
5) Half way between M pace and easy pace (Steady state)
6) Easy pace (WTF is easy pace*, none of us know!!!)

For a 30min 5m / 2:55 marathon runner he gives the following zones.

1) 3:19-3:32
2) 3:32-3:47
3) 3:47-3:59
4) 3:59-4:09
5) 4:20-4:31
6) 4:42-5:26

He has his runners work at all these paces during a training cycle, but say you were HM training there would be greater frequency of zone 3 sessions and for marathon training greater frequency of zone 4. For marathon runners, for the weekly long run, he tends to alternate between a run of 20-22m in zone 6 one week and a 16m run in zone 5 the next. So based on these zones a lot of your running is probably done at the fast end of easy and maybe dipping into steady state, great places to train, but I think it might be no harm to have the odd lower end of easy also.

* Salazaar recently mentioned that runners run easy runs too slow. He gave the example of Farah running 7min mile pace on easy runs before joining Salazaar. He said that was a waste of time, all it was doing was burning calories and doing nothing for his running. So he has him now running easy runs at 5:40/mile pace. But he stressed that this was all relative to race pace, specifically about 30% slower than 10k race pace (~4:20/mile pace for Mo). So that's going to be around 5min/km for a 3:50/km 10k runner.

Larry Brent · 01-02-2013 7:06pm

Aliya Wailing Bench wrote: »

I am assuming only a lab test would give the answers to this?

You could get a lactate testing kit and do it yourself on the run, or have a running partner do it for you. Google Markus Bakken and you'll be able to read about he made big improvements once he started checking his lactate on runs.

Failing this, HR analysis can give an indication. Look at your HR after your run. Ignore the first couple of miles. After that, for an easy run, HR should stay the same for the same pace (or effort if course is hilly, windy). If say on a 10m easy run, HR does not rise from mile 2 to mile 10 by more than a few bpm this is an indicator that lactate levels are stable and not rising. If HR is slowly creeping up from miles 2-10, hardly noticeable mile to mile as it is only 1-2bpm, but by the end of the run that adds up to a 10+bpm increase between mile 2 -3 and mile 9-10, this is a sign that lactate levels were rising and so HR had to increase to deal with the extra lactate - a situation you don''t want in the marathon.

Larry Brent · 01-02-2013 7:24pm

BTH wrote: »

As is the usual case, these things gone to a level or analysis where I no longer understand what anyone it talking about. My brain exploded.

pgibbo wrote: »

I'm a bit lost with the science of it all.

Apologies for that. A lot of the confusion might be due to confusing terminology - people talk about lactate threshold when they mean lactate turnpoint etc. I suppose I'm just trying to ascertain if the best way to run an IM marathon is by using glycogen as sparingly as possible (as there won't be too much of this available due to the distance of the marathon, not to mind the preceding 6-7 hours of exercise). If so, then perhaps training the body to be good at running when using glycogen very sparingly would seem logical. Running at low efforts, by its nature uses glycogen more sparingly than harder efforts, so this might just be one way to improve IM marathon running. Running when fatigued, very long runs, running on empty might be other ways? Not sure if that makes things any clearer!

HalfTri wrote: »

I actually don't think your running too fast. As my coach said - your long run pace should be faster than your pace in an Ironman marathon. For me - I would have been running roughly 20 seconds per mile faster.

I'm coming at this as a runner, so perhaps I'm totally off the mark. But it makes me wonder, when I see a lot of IM lads rarely if ever running more slowly than 7:30-8:00/mile, but then they end up running the race at 8:30-9:00 per mile. Is it too simplistic to think that this is because they either a) went too fast and thus used up too much energy on the swim and cycle or b) were not as running fit as they could have been? If it's a case of b) I'm not surprised - if one was always training at 7:30 pace, you wouldn't expect to be able to race well at 6:30 pace. So why would you expect to race well at 8:30 pace? I may be totally wrong, but I'd have thought that some time spent at IM marathon pace would be beneficial?

RayCun · 01-02-2013 7:33pm

Larry Brent wrote: »

...lots of interesting analysis...

Come back to Athletics/Running!
(and do me next:D)

Larry Brent · 01-02-2013 7:49pm

RayCun wrote: »

Come back to Athletics/Running!
(and do me next:D)

You don't need to be done. You're the prototype. i.e. consistent upward trend, always running PBs. Consistent, smart training. If someone was looking for advice I'd tell them to follow your log. Once someone is consistently improving in races, they are doing the right thing. Well done on the 5m. Sub 60 10m next.

Shell to Run · 01-02-2013 8:10pm

RayCun wrote: »

(and do me next:D)

Is this an open invitation?!!!!!

HalfTri · 01-02-2013 9:08pm

Larry Brent wrote: »

I'm coming at this as a runner, so perhaps I'm totally off the mark. But it makes me wonder, when I see a lot of IM lads rarely if ever running more slowly than 7:30-8:00/mile, but then they end up running the race at 8:30-9:00 per mile. Is it too simplistic to think that this is because they either a) went too fast and thus used up too much energy on the swim and cycle or b) were not as running fit as they could have been? If it's a case of b) I'm not surprised - if one was always training at 7:30 pace, you wouldn't expect to be able to race well at 6:30 pace. So why would you expect to race well at 8:30 pace? I may be totally wrong, but I'd have thought that some time spent at IM marathon pace would be beneficial?

I suppose it depends on your aims. Are you aiming to finish the Ironman, go sub 12 ironman, sub 10 etc. Jackyback aiming for Kona. He has limited hours per week for training.

I might get shot down for this - but every single one of his run sessions should be faster than his Ironman Marathon pace! Why?

Because - on Ironman day - you will have swam 3.8km (or maybe 4 or less!), biked 180km before you start the run...

If you can't consistingly go faster than the pace your aiming for - big chance you end up being 45min to 1hour 30 off your pace. Running under your goal ironman pace should not be v hard.

However - for duration of long run - Hr should remain level and not be climbing throughout - if it is - then pace is wrong and you have to back off.

For Runners tho - I would agree it is alot different but they are more than lightly running every day and some days twice. They need recovery runs. Long Bikes and Swimming (plus physical therapist) helps the athlete training for an ironman recover.

CAUTION - May not work for everybody!!

RayCun · 01-02-2013 10:30pm

aw shucks

(puts compliment net away)

shotgunmcos · 01-02-2013 11:42pm

Pointless comparing straight long run pace to IM running pace. The only real comparison is RPE. As halftri pointed out you have the bones of 6 hours steady effort put down before you start out on your feet. Ideally you will train at similar condition, so long runs on tired legs. However the recovery cost is too high. I support the notion to do long runs at a faster pace than IM pace to tax the legs a little. Its NOT like regular marathon training. Long runs on an empty stomach is good too to simulate the low glycogen levels of that 6 hour + starting point.

The place for IM marathon paced runs is off a hard or long bike.

I agree that 'recovery runs' is a load of nonsense.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 02-02-2013 6:21pm

I will hopefully come back to the above posts later, just time for a quick training update for now.

Thursday PM 31st
45min core
Plenty of planks and various other efforts along with some foam rolling.

20min run
A short easy 2nd run for the day after the mornings long run. Legs felt ok and kept the pace very very slow:)
20mins,4.2kms,4.46m/km

Friday 1st
Easy bike
Up at 5am and straight onto the bike for 45mins, i think i was half asleep for most of it as seen from how easy i took it!!
45mins,AP152w/NP153w,CAD:87

4km swim set
A quick coffee, juice drink and a slice of toast before hitting the pool for 6:30am. 600 of a warm up and into 200 of balance drills before kicking things off. Up first was 4x50 descending off 70secs in 59,57,53 and 50 secs. Then the main set was a pyramid of 100/200/300/400 going up & coming down
1.50/3.45/5.47/7.41 times going up
7.40/5.43/3.41/1.50 times going down
Then 6x100s in on 1.50/50/43/49/48/49
4x50 fast on 49,52,53,52 (tiring on these) and 200 choice warm down.
These longer sets really take a bit of focus to get through. Exclude the recoveries and balance drills my moving time was 1:17 through 3.8km of work so happy enough with that. I only really tired on the fast 50s at the end but times coming down the pyramid were actually slightly better which was good.
1:33,4km,swolf 80

Lunchtime recovery run
Nothing else to do at lunch so just headed out for an easy trot. Did not even bother with a shower when i got back...that easy:)
26:22,5.11kms,5.10m/km pace

Saturday 2nd
4.5hr brick session, 4hr bike/30min run
I will not dress this up, it was horrible, no enjoyment and time stood still. When the alarm went off at 5.30am i lost count of the number of times i hit snooze. Just struggled through this, felt tired and those 4hrs dragged in on the turbo and i really struggled mentally.
Workwise i had an hour easy before 3x40mins around 225w, held that on first two and 222w on the 3rd. I required some HTFU words from Michelle who reminded me my first big race is around the corner and stop being a b1tch and get on with it...payback perhaps for the times she struggles on her runs:rolleyes:
Legs felt like sh1t getting off and i was not looking forward to running. Straight onto the treddie and you know what it was not so bad. I had 10mins steady before bringing it back to easy for the last 20mins.
I literally had a lie down on the treddie for a few minutes when finished as i just felt so bloody tired. At least i enjoyed the popcorn and sweets with the kids at the flicks after:)
Bike: 4hr,AP209w/NP212w,Cad:84rpm,138.8kms
Run: 30mins,6.9kms,4.21m/km pace

Might go for a short swim with the eldest lad in a while. I am now reminded of how tired you can get in these last weeks before race day, one session just seems to blend into the other. I intend to hit the road tomorrow on the bike, no way am i sitting on that bloody turbo again:)
This week, probably coming out at 17/18hrs is actually more tiring than the 37hrs in Lanza. No real surprise.

El Director · 02-02-2013 11:11pm

Dude despite the negative feelings/comments you fairly nailed that session and the number look very very impressive. Bodes well for 2nd of March

Solobally8 · 03-02-2013 9:17pm

4 hours on the turbo! You have unbelievable mental strength, fair play. 2 hours last Sunday nearly tipped me over the edge:D

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 04-02-2013 11:01am

Saturday PM 02nd
Swim
Just an easy 1.5k in the pool with pull buoy stuck between the legs. Kept things nice and handy and came in on 1.50 pace for little or no effort.
27:31,1500mtrs

Sunday 03rd
3hr brick session, 2hr bike/1hr run
Another brick session. After my far from enjoyable experience on the turbo on Saturday i got out on the road for this. Session called for 45mins and into 5x10 around 90% ftp. The easy section turned into a slog into very strong headwinds and i was having to push 220w to be making any sort of inroads, if you can call 25kmph inroads!!
Hit the following on the 10min efforts and felt strong on each one of them.
253w/35.8kmph
253w/34kmph
257w/38.7kmph
256w/27.1kmph
254w/30.7kmph
Felt good getting off the bike and had left a dry top and my run gear ready so it was a quick change and out the door within 2 minutes. Run had some easy running building into 30mins of steady effort and pushing into 5mins moderate effort at the end. This was done by feel as the garmin battery died about 2k into it. Not sure on pace but it felt like a strong run and the legs felt good as i was using markers on the run loop which is about 15k.
Bike: 1:59,59.5kms,30kmph,AP226w/NP232w,CAD:79
Run(est):1:06,14.9kms,4.26m/km pace

Weekly Totals
28th Jan-03rd Feb-Wk5|# sessions|Time hh:mm|Distance kms|YTD totals|Weekly avg
Total|16|17:15|320.62kms|1645.28kms|329.05kms
Swimming|4|3:32|9.6ms|45.7kms|9.14kms
Cycling|4|7:47|251.76kms|1320.97kms|264.19kms
Running|6|4:26|59.26kms|278.61kms|55.72kms
Strenth/Core|2|1:30|N/A|3.15|39mins
TSS|N/A|1061.3.|N/A|5262.5|1052.5

Solid weeks work and a tiring one all the same, the pros really have it handy:). Really struggled with Saturdays sessions but i think some of that might have been down to heat acclimatization. Building it up too quickly over 14 days rather than gradually adding it in to my sessions. I should have adjusted my fluid intake (upwards) to compensate for it and i actually think i left myself a little lot dehydrated on Saturday which would have impacted the session and how i felt. Yesterday was a good finish to the week and its only when you are out on the road do you feel how strong you are on the bike and the run from all the recent indoor efforts.
Legs feel nice and light this morning and it will be more of the same for this week. The weight has just creeped under 68kg as well which is good.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 04-02-2013 11:06am

El Director wrote: »

Dude despite the negative feelings/comments you fairly nailed that session and the number look very very impressive. Bodes well for 2nd of March

Whilst i hit the prescribed set and numbers it was the physical cost of the session and the effort required to hit those numbers. Hydration issues were likely a factor and i was acting like a bit of a ballerina as well:)

Solobally8 wrote: »

4 hours on the turbo! You have unbelievable mental strength, fair play. 2 hours last Sunday nearly tipped me over the edge:D

Rather than saying mental strength perhaps just "mental" might be an apt description!!

BennyMul · 04-02-2013 11:26am

Im starting to think about not reading your log anymore, I was happy enough with my training and then I read your week, and feck me.

some solid stuff JB, bolds very well for the season.

pgibbo · 04-02-2013 11:35am

BennyMul wrote: »

Im starting to think about not reading your log anymore, I was happy enough with my training and then I read your week, and feck me.

some solid stuff JB, bolds very well for the season.

LMFAO....I know how you feel!

Great stuff Fran. I have to admire your determination and the support you get from Michelle and the family. :cool:

pgibbo · 04-02-2013 11:39am

@LarryBrent - thanks for the simplified explanation. 2 things I saw and heard recently:

1. Brett Sutton has his athletes do their intervals at IM race pace - specificity. I know they're PROs and train differently but I believe you asked earlier
2. Most good runners wind up walking on the run because they went too hard on the bike - Crowie

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 04-02-2013 11:42am

RayCun wrote: »

That's interesting, those zones look pretty fast to me.
I had a look around, and found this, which suggests that your base figure should be from a 30 minute time trial or a 60 minute race. see also. Pace/km would be 5-10 seconds slower in a 10 mile race, which would bump up all those figures to something more comparable to McMillan or Daniels.

There seems to be a few different ways to calculate zones, those ones i use are actually Friels.

HalfTri wrote: »

I actually don't think your running too fast. As my coach said - your long run pace should be faster than your pace in an Ironman marathon. For me - I would have been running roughly 20 seconds per mile faster.

Long runs - don't mean Long Slow Runs.

Pace for shorter runs would have been similar.

But track sessions - were much faster - 5 or 6 by 1km reps at 10km pace. Building to 4 x 2 km and up to 3 x 3km.

You mentioned that you haven't been doing speed sessions - your training for an ironman.. 1km sessions are your speed sessions.

Recovery Runs - What are they?

Swimming, Long Biking recovers the muscles from the running.

Yep, the thing about an IM paced run is it should feel really easy as a standalone training pace. The other thing about the IM marathon especially the back end of it turns more into a mental test rather than a physical one...IMO any way!!

Larry Brent wrote: »

That seems about right then. One thing to look at maybe though - if average is 151, I'm presuming like most people your first mile is somewhere in the 130s, 2nd low 140s before you get up to a stable HR. So are you sightly higher than 151 for the bulk of the run, but those early miles bring down the average? When looking at the average HR, no harm to ignore the first couple of miles. Whether you're at 151 or 155 for the bulk of the run, I'd say it's probably no harm to have occasional runs at the lower end of the zone also, 145 or so. To train a greater variety of slow twitch fibres. The slowest twitch fibres will generate less force and so are slower. So you might think you're better off training a stronger and therefore faster slow twitch fibre by running a bit faster. But 2 of the slowest twitch fibres working together will produce more force than 1 of the typical slow twitch fibres. Hence the benefits of having as many fibres trained as possible, rather than having a smaller range of fibres very well trained.

Am I missing something here? Are you taking 5m pace as threshold pace?

Your 5m race pace was 3:47/km. This would give a lactate turnpoint (1 hour race pace) of somewhere around 3:55-4:00/km, (based on the rule of thumb that you add 10s/km to your pace as the race distance doubles, and also fits in with your lab test figures). That in turn would put your marathon pace at about 4:10-4:15/km. A 3:05 marathon is 4:23/km. So I think the faster end of your easy/aerobic pace is maybe too close to your marathon pace whether you take the 4:10 figure or the 4:23 figure.

A 3:55min/km lactate turnpoint pace will give a 4:10ish marathon pace in an aerobically well trained runner, i.e. one who has as many muscle fibres as possible trained (i.e. full of mitochondria and ability to store glycogen). If there is a drop off in race pace greater than 10s/km or 16s/mile as the race distance doubles then the runner is not as well trained aerobically as they could be. If your 3:55 LTp figure and 4:23 MP figures are an accurate representation, it might be a sign that you could get some improvements in race times at longer distances by improving your aerobic conditioning, which might involve training at a greater variety of paces.

Mark Hadley is a big advocate of trainign at a wide variety of paces. He advocates 6 training pace zones:

1) 1500-3000m pace (Speed/Anaerobic)
2) 3k-10k pace (VO2 max)
3) 10k-HM pace (Lactate Turnpoint)
4) HM-M pace (Lactate Threshold)
5) Half way between M pace and easy pace (Steady state)
6) Easy pace (WTF is easy pace*, none of us know!!!)

For a 30min 5m / 2:55 marathon runner he gives the following zones.

1) 3:19-3:32
2) 3:32-3:47
3) 3:47-3:59
4) 3:59-4:09
5) 4:20-4:31
6) 4:42-5:26

He has his runners work at all these paces during a training cycle, but say you were HM training there would be greater frequency of zone 3 sessions and for marathon training greater frequency of zone 4. For marathon runners, for the weekly long run, he tends to alternate between a run of 20-22m in zone 6 one week and a 16m run in zone 5 the next. So based on these zones a lot of your running is probably done at the fast end of easy and maybe dipping into steady state, great places to train, but I think it might be no harm to have the odd lower end of easy also.

* Salazaar recently mentioned that runners run easy runs too slow. He gave the example of Farah running 7min mile pace on easy runs before joining Salazaar. He said that was a waste of time, all it was doing was burning calories and doing nothing for his running. So he has him now running easy runs at 5:40/mile pace. But he stressed that this was all relative to race pace, specifically about 30% slower than 10k race pace (~4:20/mile pace for Mo). So that's going to be around 5min/km for a 3:50/km 10k runner.

Once again LB a very good post, please post more around these parts. Generally my runs spike at the start and then hr would settle so at those runs where avgs coming out at 151, generally speaking i would not be spending a huge amount of time over 154 which is top end of easy.

Hadley training paces look interesting.

Take your point about dropping to the lower end of easy rather than top end all the time.

Yes i was taking the 5mile as threshold pace, mistakingly so? I would have considered (bear in mind i would have used Friels method of the 30min LTHR test previously) that a 30min race would be a good indicator.

Larry Brent wrote: »

You could get a lactate testing kit and do it yourself on the run, or have a running partner do it for you. Google Markus Bakken and you'll be able to read about he made big improvements once he started checking his lactate on runs.

Failing this, HR analysis can give an indication. Look at your HR after your run. Ignore the first couple of miles. After that, for an easy run, HR should stay the same for the same pace (or effort if course is hilly, windy). If say on a 10m easy run, HR does not rise from mile 2 to mile 10 by more than a few bpm this is an indicator that lactate levels are stable and not rising. If HR is slowly creeping up from miles 2-10, hardly noticeable mile to mile as it is only 1-2bpm, but by the end of the run that adds up to a 10+bpm increase between mile 2 -3 and mile 9-10, this is a sign that lactate levels were rising and so HR had to increase to deal with the extra lactate - a situation you don''t want in the marathon.

The only way i would see hr rising is on one of my progression runs, building pace at the back end. My hr would have been stable enough on runs when using a hrm in the past. Will google Markus Bakken.

Larry Brent wrote: »

Apologies for that. A lot of the confusion might be due to confusing terminology - people talk about lactate threshold when they mean lactate turnpoint etc. I suppose I'm just trying to ascertain if the best way to run an IM marathon is by using glycogen as sparingly as possible (as there won't be too much of this available due to the distance of the marathon, not to mind the preceding 6-7 hours of exercise). If so, then perhaps training the body to be good at running when using glycogen very sparingly would seem logical. Running at low efforts, by its nature uses glycogen more sparingly than harder efforts, so this might just be one way to improve IM marathon running. Running when fatigued, very long runs, running on empty might be other ways? Not sure if that makes things any clearer!

I'm coming at this as a runner, so perhaps I'm totally off the mark. But it makes me wonder, when I see a lot of IM lads rarely if ever running more slowly than 7:30-8:00/mile, but then they end up running the race at 8:30-9:00 per mile. Is it too simplistic to think that this is because they either a) went too fast and thus used up too much energy on the swim and cycle or b) were not as running fit as they could have been? If it's a case of b) I'm not surprised - if one was always training at 7:30 pace, you wouldn't expect to be able to race well at 6:30 pace. So why would you expect to race well at 8:30 pace? I may be totally wrong, but I'd have thought that some time spent at IM marathon pace would be beneficial?

All i can say LB that an IM marathon really has to be experienced to be truly understood. A lot of the time it just comes down to surviving it and it becomes a more mental game than a physical one, especially coming towards the end of it. In training you need to get the body used to training tired, training when under stress and training on empty. I have often head people say IM racing is 70%mental/30%physical and i would tend to agree so training should be focussed on building the mental side rather than just the physical.
IM marathons are really not pretty and its about keeping moving forward at whatever pace you can:)

HalfTri wrote: »

I suppose it depends on your aims. Are you aiming to finish the Ironman, go sub 12 ironman, sub 10 etc. Jackyback aiming for Kona. He has limited hours per week for training.

I might get shot down for this - but every single one of his run sessions should be faster than his Ironman Marathon pace! Why?

Because - on Ironman day - you will have swam 3.8km (or maybe 4 or less!), biked 180km before you start the run...

If you can't consistingly go faster than the pace your aiming for - big chance you end up being 45min to 1hour 30 off your pace. Running under your goal ironman pace should not be v hard.

However - for duration of long run - Hr should remain level and not be climbing throughout - if it is - then pace is wrong and you have to back off.

For Runners tho - I would agree it is alot different but they are more than lightly running every day and some days twice. They need recovery runs. Long Bikes and Swimming (plus physical therapist) helps the athlete training for an ironman recover.

CAUTION - May not work for everybody!!

I agree, IM pace in a training run should feel real easy...not so easy however when as you say having done 3.8k swim and 180k bike:)
I often see reference to your IM run being roughly 20-30mins off a standalone marathon time although this can greatly depend on the individual.

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Pointless comparing straight long run pace to IM running pace. The only real comparison is RPE. As halftri pointed out you have the bones of 6 hours steady effort put down before you start out on your feet. Ideally you will train at similar condition, so long runs on tired legs. However the recovery cost is too high. I support the notion to do long runs at a faster pace than IM pace to tax the legs a little. Its NOT like regular marathon training. Long runs on an empty stomach is good too to simulate the low glycogen levels of that 6 hour + starting point.

The place for IM marathon paced runs is off a hard or long bike.

I agree that 'recovery runs' is a load of nonsense.

Agreed.

pgibbo · 04-02-2013 11:47am

Should that be Marius Bakken & not Markus Bakken?

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 04-02-2013 11:48am

pgibbo wrote: »

@LarryBrent - thanks for the simplified explanation. 2 things I saw and heard recently:

1. Brett Sutton has his athletes do their intervals at IM race pace - specificity. I know they're PROs and train differently but I believe you asked earlier
2. Most good runners wind up walking on the run because they went too hard on the bike - Crowie

Sutto also has them running marathon distance training runs once or twice a week and sometimes 60k in a day. I think his thoughts are throw eggs at the wall and see which ones don't crack. I am sure there is a high attrition rate in his camps as some people are just not able to handle or deal with the sessions & volume he puts his athletes through. Those are the eggs that are left scrambling on the floor:pac:

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 04-02-2013 11:55am

pgibbo wrote: »

LMFAO....I know how you feel!

Great stuff Fran. I have to admire your determination and the support you get from Michelle and the family. :cool:

I am a life winner:).
I have a highly addictive personality and everything i do is to the extreme, its part of my character and who i am. Michelle has learnt to keep me in check though and knows when the scales are tipping over. She sent me out for afternoon/evening beers yesterday and when i asked why she said you need to keep a balance. You are training hard at the moment but you need to have a little downtime/fun as well, it was a good well timed reminder. She was right, she always is.
She is my second coach:) Lucky little hobbit!!

Chasing the Kona dream and a Mai Tai cocktail

Comments