Improving my 3000m time

Hi cfitz,

First of all I had a look at your PB's and compared them below per 400m which can tell us where your strengths are and also your weaknesses:

4.21 (69.6 per 400m)
9.19 (74.5)
16.17 (78.1)
34.03 (81.7)

Looking at them your endurance is better than your basic speed. Im guesing you cant bang out a very fast 800m.

Your route forward is to keep developing your aerobic system while working on 1500m-5km pace in small doses. If you can improve your 1500m time your 3000m time will come down.

I suggest the following:
- Running 6 days a week with one rest day
- Never do more than 2 workous in a 7 day block
- 1 Long Run weekly starting at 70 mins and working towards 1 hr 40 mins on hills
- 1 weekly workout of CV reps (5km pace per km plus 10 secs) these work on both Vo2 max also also improving Lactate Threshold. Aim to do 6000m-8000m worth of reps. e.g. 6-8*1000m with 90 secs jog recovery and afterwards do 4*200m @ 1500m pace with 90 secs recovery
- Focus Dec-Mar on 1 hill session and 1 track session at 5km-10km pace every other week.
- The rest is easy running 50-60 mins with strides added twice weekly at roughly 1500m pace

Come Apr-Jul you can start adding workouts at 1500m-3000m pace.

Hope that helps a bit, remember the key is consistant training and staying injury/illness free. Theres no big secrets. Do this until the summer and you will improve.

Tergat

tergat wrote: »

Always do 4*200m at current 1500m pace after the CV reps. If you do this weekly you will see a dramtic improvement.

Great advice above, Tergat. Can I ask, what is the purpose/benefit of the 200s after the long reps? Thanks.

Racing Flat,

The purpose is to keep in touch with some 800m-1500m speed during the winter but only over 200m nothing longer. If you keep to this and keep 90 secs jog rec there will be little lactate built up.

I have my 800m guys do 6-8*1000m depending on their endurance followed by 3-4*150-200m

There is also the added benefit of getting the legs to turn over quicker when a little fatigued after the CV reps.

Tergat

With regard to weights etc I would much prefer a guy to run on hills to increase leg strength. This in turn will help increase basic leg speed.

Core Strength work and circuits are also very good at the right time. I am not a big fan of plyometrics as there is a big injury threat if not done correct and also can be hard to fit them in with mileage etc.

Tergat

cfitz,

I think you need to re jig your week a bit. When up to full fitness I would advise something like this:

Mon- 50-60 mins easy with 6*100m strides afterwards

Tue- am: 25-30 mins easy pm: CV Reps 6-7*1000m & 4*200m

Wed- 50 mins easy

Thur- Rest

Fri- am- 25-30 mins pm- Tempo Run folowed by 4-6*100m hills

Sat- 50 mins easy

Sun- Long Run on hills 80-100 mins

If you are in 16.30 5km shape today here would be the training paces:
5km pace per mile- 5.18
vo2 max- 5.03
CV- 5.32
Tempo- 6.05
Easy- 7.10
Recovery- 7.37

Tergat

Mr Mister wrote: »

I am just wondering why no one recommends more miles as a way to improve anymore? Why does everyone these days seem to recommend weights, plyos, core instead of just running a few extra miles a week. If you have the time and energy for these its all well and good but at the end of the day (I hate that phrase!) the best training for running IS running.

I'd say that most of the people who have responded to this thread would take it as understood that doing weights, plyos etc is done on top of an optimal mileage for that person - ie they are doing as much as they should be doing

Tingle wrote: »

Ignoring supplementary work is asking for trouble no matter what distance in my opinion

I agree with Mr. Mister that miles are important. Perhaps nobody suggested to the OP to do more mileage because they think his current mileage of about 60 is sufficient for 3k training? Whether this is true or not I don't know. If he ups it to 80, will he automatically improve his 3k time? And if so, how high should he go? I don't know, but I'd have thought 60-80 was enough. Also though, while somebody might advise on 100 miles a week, for us working amateurs, that's not always possible.

In relation to supplemetary work, I know you've based your statement above on your opinion, Tingle, but without any evidence that I'm aware of that supplementary work helps prevent injury or improve performance, I'm reluctant to advise people on this, or spend time on it myself, that if I had it I could spend running. It struck me recently when reading Eamon Coghlan and Sonia's books, that the people who do the most of this stuff, massage nearly daily, stretching sessions, core work, ice baths etc etc seem to get injured a lot and often miss or underperform in major competitions as a result of injury. Now perhaps this is becuase they are doing more mileage and greater intensity, but it makes you wonder...if the people spending maybe hours a day on supplemetary work alone still get injured!

Ice baths is a great example - you hear people saying it helps speed recovery, but is this purely anecdotal and not evidence based? I'd imagine that if ice baths were a nice experience, they wouldn't be half as popular! People are quick to tell you they had an ice bath, or did some core, or stretching after training, you never hear them saying 'I had a fantastic 60minute sleep session after training today, felt it really did me good and helped my recovery'!!! Cue all the training partnmers running home to squeeze a quick sleep in to catch up!

On core, I read an interesting study the other night on core exercises around the neck. These were developed to help with neck pain. They got people with neck pain to do either core neck exercises or traditional neck strengthening exercises. Both groups had reduced pain afterwards and the group that did core could activate their core muscles better than the other people afterwards. This you would hope would mean that they would use their core postural muscles for daily activities rather than their powerful movement muscles. Unfortunately this was not the case. When tested using a computer afterwards, neither group used their core muscles any differently than the other or than they did beforehand. so there was no transfer of training, ie even though may have improved their ability to activate their core muscles, these were not automatically activated during functional activities.

I bring this up, because I imagine, doing a plank or other core exercises might improve your ability to activate your core muscles and, do a plank, but this does not necessarily mean that your core muscles will automatically be activated when running. But doing core work whilst running or perhaps lunging, hopping type exercises etc. might work better. So I'd recommend running type plyometrics (with due caution as they are tough) rather than floor type core.

Interestingly, Catherina McKiernan, who I imagine would have done all the stretching etc in her career advocates that since she started doing Chi running, which is essentially running with correct posture (using 'core' muscle effectively while running) she gets lots less niggles etc. Now I know she wouldn't be training as hard now and may have a vested interest, but it makes sense to me.

Mr Mister wrote: »

it is important for maintaining strength and posture in the latter half of races. Is it? Without the evidence how do we know?

While there might not be reems of studies advocating its benefit, if it is done by most of the top athletes in the world it must have some place. Not necessarily - they may all be douing it just because everyone else is! 'Core' is relatively new, so (a crude example) Haile might have only done stretching at the start of his career, but did stretching and core in the latter stages of his career. Is he a better runner (all other things remaining equal) for the addition of core? We need to get the research done.


There was a recent study out saying that ice baths have no real effect on recovery but there benefit may be in their placebo effect. That is, if people think they are doing them good it is half the battle

Very interesting. I suppose some athletes need the placebo more than others. I wonder if the athletes with really strong belief, who don't need the placebo are better equipped. Johnny Walker comes to mind, when he'd go to the track to do a session, but after 2 or 3 intervals he'd know he was in such great shape he'd not bother finishing the session - he felt he'd done all he had to do, he was at peak, so he needed to do no more. Whereas many athletes keep trying to do more and more.

Tingle wrote: »

The starting point for most middle-distance athletes is floor based core which cfitz is doing and maybe needs to do more. No point starting at the top of the pyramid. I have seen it with athletes who are so weak when they attempt to do a weighted squat for example are terrible. 6 weeks of floor based core and bodyweight circuits they can do a proper squat on their first visit back. They can do a proper squat ultimately they can do proper plyos and so on.

Are you sure there are no studies to back up having a strong core area benefits you while running? From my experience, being able to squat 50% more means the old lead ass at the end of a run when tired has all but disappeared.

I agree that you would want to build up to and gradually progress any strengthening work including plyometrics. But I'm not sure if floor based work will transfer over to running type plyometrics. Perhaps they could start off with gentler plyometrics - doing them more slowly, through smaller ranges, jumping less high etc.

I'm not sure about whether there are studies supporting the effect of a strong core on running, but I imagine if they were out there we'd know about them. Doing something like a squat to the extent that you improve the amount you can lift 50% will mean you have improved the neural pathways involved in this activity as well as increasing your muscle strength. I would imagine for a power activity such as squat, you will have predominantly recruited and hypertrophied Type 2B muscle fibres, the fast powerful ones. Certainly for sprint distances and for sprint finishes at the end of longer races improved recruitment and hypertrophying of these fibres could only be of benefit. But I think endurance runners would want to weigh up the benefit of this against training to improve recruitment and endurance of Type 1 fibres, the long distance endurance fibres.

cfitz wrote: »

I'm going to work through the responses one at a time, otherwise I won't be able to take it all in. Also, my questions aren't just directed at the person I quote, so feel free to chip in. Thanks again for all the help.



Often when I run on hills my body seems to take a long time to recover. When I do hill reps I'm fine, so I think it's the downhills that hurt me. Bearing this in mind, would I be better to do one of the shorter runs on hills for a while first?

cfitz,

If you are in base phase and just building mileage and not doing workouts running easy on hills twice a week will be of huge benefit. Along with increasing leg strength it will also help prepare your legs for the pounding they will take on the introduction to workouts/races etc. This is where the downhill bits help.

Tergat

cfitz wrote: »

Well I suppose if you have your target paces set out then you wouldn't need to worry about holding back or not.

Having said that, 4 x 200m at 1500m pace with 90 seconds recovery doesn't sound that easy after doing a session.

Cfitz,

It is of paramount importance that people set paces for workouts at todays pace. By this I mean what you think you could run on that particular day taking into account how you feel, the weather, the terrain etc.

CV reps are not a 'hard' workout. On a scale of 1-10 CV reps lie about 7 whereas a workout of 1500m-5km pace stuff is 8-9.

Tergat

On the topic of hills I believe most runners are stuck on plateaus because they lack leg strength and power. They work and work on intervals and tempos and race-pace or faster than race-pace, but they don't move off a plateau; until they do hill reps, which improve power output.

Tergat

Stupid_Private

You are spot on, it really isnt very complicated. Too many people over complicate things. Keep it simple but structured and be consistent.

Tergat

getfit wrote: »

Great thread with a lot of good advice. My (and many others in the thread) take on things is that the OP has a very good aerobic base already and that a mojor limiter to his good 3k time is his 800/1500m times which basically means his speed and speed endurance.

I came from the opposite end to the OP. My pbs for 800m/1500m were 2.03 and 4.12, whereas I doubt I could have kicked out a 5k close to his times. Obviously my basic aerobic fitness was poor. Whereas most here refer to 6-8*1k as speed work, to me that was my endurance session. My typical 6 session week involved -
>6-8*1k with 120 secs rec
>8*600m with 90 secs rec
>3*10*100m hill sprints, jog back rec
>1 long easy run
>2 rec runs of 5-6 miles
>2-3 sessions of weights/circuits

Some weeks may have had 2*3m tempo intsead of one of the above 1k or 600m sessions.

As the year wore on sessions like 10*300m with 90secs rec and then 10*200m with 90 secs rec would kick in and steeper hill sprints with a lower volume.

I wouldn't recommend this training for the OP looking to do a good 3k time, but to improve his 1,500m (and thus his 3k) he will have to look at sessions like 8*600m - hard with only 90 secs rec and 10*300m with 90 secs rec and really get the lactic flowing and get the body moving at speed. I wouldn't agree with some of the advice based on more mileage and more vo2 max sessions he obviously has a lot of that fitness developed. He should focus on the anaerobic side of things more, to improve his 800m/1500m capabilities...

getfit,

What you have advised above is what too many people do and pay a huge price for this. If you say to yourself, ok my aerobic system is in good nick lets crank out lots of fast anaerobic work to get faster, you will crash and burn in races.

You can erode away a good aerobic base by over doing the anaerobic stuff and you end up not being able to hold a certain pace in the race. Speed doesent get you through a 3000m, its the endurance that does so.

Simply put; strength = speed. Focusing on speed gets you injured, more times than not. Strength-endurance is the key to success in all events; at least from 400m and upward.


Think of it like this: every day you work on stamina/endurance work you are putting money in the bank. Overtime you are depositing more and more. When racing season comes around you will be looking to make a major withdrawal. If there is no deposits during the season there will be no withdrawal come summer time.

The anaerobic system can be brought to a high level in 4-8 weeks, whereas the aerobic system takes time to build. It takes much, much longer to acquire all the gains in aerobic capacity than it does in anaerobic capacity.

Tergat