Correlation between 5K ,10K, HM and Marathon times

average_runner

Thought this might be an interesting thread for some.

Some people would have a strong 5k time but their longer distance might struggle or vice versa.

How do you go about improving your longer distances ? What is the correlation between the 5k up to the marathon?

Peterx

I think you can bluff your way to a half marathon with insufficient training and the full marathon will rip your legs out.

Ceepo

Peterx wrote: »

I think you can bluff your way to a half marathon with insufficient training and the full marathon will rip your legs out.

Of course this is pace relative.

But you could bluff around a marathon and a 5k or 10k could RIP your legs off..

dublin runner

average_runner wrote: »

Thought this might be an interesting thread for some.

Some people would have a strong 5k time but their longer distance might struggle or vice versa.

How do you go about improving your longer distances ? What is the correlation between the 5k up to the marathon?

The correlation is essentially ZERO in my opinion. Granted, a 1.40 HM runner won't run a 3.05 marathon but outside those obvious caveats, my point stands. The best way to improve your marathon time is to a) train for a marathon b) run marathons c) learn from each experience d) realise it is just a distance; not particularly short, not particularly long e) running miles will only get you so far - focus on s&c

The most important thing with marathon running? Never EVER run at a pace used by a generic pace calculator. Training indicates marathon pace, races indicate form and can improve race day preparation and overall mental approach and development.

Nothing prepares you for a marathon like running one and training for one. Let yourself make mistakes (I call these good mistakes), don't let yourself be afraid of the distance - it is just a distance, like a 400m or 5km race.

*** Train - Race - Recover - Learn - Repeat ***

TFBubendorfer

Peterx wrote: »

I think you can bluff your way to a half marathon with insufficient training and the full marathon will rip your legs out.

All my running life my 5k to half marathon times have lined up very well but my marathon time was always up to 5 minutes slower, and that's despite the fact that I was always training first and foremost for the longer distances. I definitely was not undertrained for the marathon.

average_runner

What about between 5k -10k and onto half.

I mean if a runner runs 25 min for 5k, what would you expect them to do the 10k in ? 51 mins?

I always thought that 5k/10k training could go together but then sometimes I see a big difference between their 5k and 10k times.

This is not from a personal aspect but more of information aspect and hearing different views on it.

Itziger

How many people have really spent a decent amount of time training for these different distances? In my case, I have run a grand total of one serious 5k and hadn't done specific training for it. The other 3 distances being mentioned here, yes. I have trained and applied myself relatively seriously to them. This would suggest that the Half is probably my optimum distance but even then it's not that clear. Times below: (all of which I like to think I can improve)
5k - 17.50 
10k - 36.48
Half - 1.21.06
Full - 2.59.10

TFBubendorfer

Itziger wrote: »

5k - 17.50 
10k - 36.48
Half - 1.21.06
Full - 2.59.10

Your full PB is soft

average_runner

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Your full PB is soft

Here are mine:

5k 19:38
10k 42:07
1/2 1:39:30
Full 3:41 (long time ago)

But in reality over the last three years which is better to go on its:

5k 19:38
10k 42:13
1/2 1:41:20

Murph_D

Which of those distances have you trained for? The HM is obviously relatively slow. I have similar 5 and 10k times but a 1:34 half, 3:22 full. Most people seem to have relatively poor Marathon times compared to their 5k and below.

Cona

My times from 5k to half marathon usually are fairly close to what the McMillan calculator estimates...Have run two sub 1.29 halfs but I've always made a balls of the marathons I have run so can't say for sure what my Marathon PB would be...estimate 3:15

average_runner

Murph_D wrote: »

Which of those distances have you trained for? The HM is obviously relatively slow. I have similar 5 and 10k times but a 1:34 half, 3:22 full. Most people seem to have relatively poor Marathon times compared to their 5k and below.

Trained for the half this year. Followed hanson program. My 5k time and 10k time this year was about 40 secs slower than pbs.

Itziger

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Itziger wrote: »

5k - 17.50 
10k - 36.48
Half - 1.21.06
Full - 2.59.10

Your full PB is soft

You're right!!!! I do be scared of the long stuff.

Swashbuckler

dublin runner wrote:

The correlation is essentially ZERO in my opinion. Granted, a 1.40 HM runner won't run a 3.05 marathon but outside those obvious caveats, my point stands. The best way to improve your marathon time is to a) train for a marathon b) run marathons c) learn from each experience d) realise it is just a distance; not particularly short, not particularly long e) running miles will only get you so far - focus on s&c

I've made a habit of telling marathon runners on here they should include 5k/10k blocks in their training during the year. Do you think that's needed or can someone train all year round for marathons alone and maximize their potential at the marathon distance ? Possibly derailing the thread with that question.

Tigerandahalf

Itziger

It is interesting that you hit such a good 5k time off little specific training. Are you a fast guy over 50 - 100m?

I'd be slow over very short distances but I tend to have good endurance.

I'd say most lads good over the 5k have a light frame too. Weight can have a big say, every kg is worth about 5 or 6 secs a mile I think.

Peterx

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

All my running life my 5k to half marathon times have lined up very well but my marathon time was always up to 5 minutes slower, and that's despite the fact that I was always training first and foremost for the longer distances. I definitely was not undertrained for the marathon.

I think we are saying the same thing but using different words.
The full marathon is objectively harder than the shorter distances to get right.
It's just that little bit too far to run at a "fast" pace.
You get less goes at it.
The weather has to play ball on the day.
You can't get sick and yet you are on the edge of falling apart for all the hard weeks of training.

Knowing how fast to go can be the hard part. All that training, the marathon training cycle, you are as fit as the proverbial, of course you want to get a super pb, and then bang, leg ripping walls of lactic death as the average pace starts dropping and then falls off a cliff with 9km to go.
Slight hyperbole on my part:)

MY BAD

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Itziger

It is interesting that you hit such a good 5k time off little specific training. Are you a fast guy over 50 - 100m?

I'd be slow over very short distances but I tend to have good endurance.

I'd say most lads good over the 5k have a light frame too. Weight can have a big say, every kg is worth about 5 or 6 secs a mile I think.

I think the longer the race the lighter you are the better it is for racing. Look at elite level and compare middle distance runners to marathon runners.

Testosterscone

Peterx wrote: »

I think we are saying the same thing but using different words.
The full marathon is objectively harder than the shorter distances to get right.
It's just that little bit too far to run at a "fast" pace.
You get less goes at it.
The weather has to play ball on the day.
You can't get sick and yet you are on the edge of falling apart for all the hard weeks of training.

Knowing how fast to go can be the hard part. All that training, the marathon training cycle, you are as fit as the proverbial, of course you want to get a super pb, and then bang, leg ripping walls of lactic death as the average pace starts dropping and then falls off a cliff with 9km to go.
Slight hyperbole on my part:)

On the other side of that coin how many people have ever ran on the edge over the shorter distances. I think blow ups in shorter distances can be a little more subtle to the point where people don't always acknowledge them as much as the bonking you might see over the course of a marathon. You may get more opportunities to race shorter distances but at the same time there is a smaller margin for error.

I think main demographic of marathoners quickly learn an element of self preservation which is needed in the marathon that can be detremental at the shorter distances where pain tolerance (bit of a cliché) becomes more of a factor physically and mentally

I have ran 100s if not 1000s of races at this stage and yet I can count on my two hands the numbers of times I can honestly say I have gotten it right in the race and ran to my absolute limit.

In terms of correlation I would have to say the same as most there are very little with context of training, background etc

To give you an example one of the the lads I coach ran 78 min for the Half at the weekend in build up to the marathon. Despite the performance and similar mileage to some of the others I coach my expectation would be more conservative for him than some of the other guys who ran a little slower than him. Focus for all these athletes is the marathon and sessions have been designed that way but still there is a difference in how the runs are approached based on the individuals.

Murph_D

average_runner wrote: »

Trained for the half this year. Followed hanson program. My 5k time and 10k time this year was about 40 secs slower than pbs.

Did you base the Hanson paces on current 5-10k paces as suggested? Was training manageable at those paces or did you adjust? How did result compare with target?

average_runner

Murph_D wrote: »

Did you base the Hanson paces on current 5-10k paces as suggested? Was training manageable at those paces or did you adjust? How did result compare with target?

I went for 1:35 target at first but after kilcock 10 miler i readjust my target to 1:37 or so. Got to 15k in race and then wheels came off.

Result was 1:41 in the end.

Safiri

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

All my running life my 5k to half marathon times have lined up very well but my marathon time was always up to 5 minutes slower, and that's despite the fact that I was always training first and foremost for the longer distances. I definitely was not undertrained for the marathon.

What constitutes undertrained though?

The vast majority of people here will see huge improvements in their shorter distance times from marathon training because the nature of posters here are late to life runners who are underdeveloped aerobically. So even if they never concentrated on specific 5/10k training, their times in those events may never translate to a marathon equivalent. This in turn could be down to many reasons. A speed biased runner will never match up the longer the distance goes. Most will train harder for a marathon than they do for a 5k even if this shouldn't be the case. The marathon training will be by far the highest mileage they have hit at any point in training so many will actually improve more at 5k off marathon training than they would off 5k training. Sounds ridiculous but that how important aerobic training is for late to life runners.

And even at that, many are not running near enough mileage to convert those shorter distance times into good marathon endurance. 99% of runners in this forum and out on the roads are undertrained in the bigger picture outside of just one single block of training. Then you take into account the training structure of most runners and it is non-existent. Very few books or plans properly structure training and most people skip out on the important parts. Aerobic training in the form of base phases are nowhere to be seen and many who implement them do not understand fully what base training is. The most critical part of training.

Look at a log like Krusty's or Jebuz and all the elements of good marathon training are there. Structured phases with a lot of mileage.

How many here have actually dedicated 10-12 weeks to base training alone before starting specific training? And by base, I mean high volume/low intensity training. The answer is probably very few even though this structure is held as the magical elixir of training for the last 50 years?

* Not talking about you here TBF, just drawing a tangent from your post

Murph_D

average_runner wrote: »

I went for 1:35 target at first but after kilcock 10 miler i readjust my target to 1:37 or so. Got to 15k in race and then wheels came off.

Result was 1:41 in the end.

95 sounds about right based on your 10k. How did you find the sessions/tempos/LRs at the prescribed paces (as opposed to the 10m race)? Sounds like there’s something missing in terms of how training played out?

average_runner

Murph_D wrote: »

95 sounds about right based on your 10k. How did you find the sessions/tempos/LRs at the prescribed paces (as opposed to the 10m race)? Sounds like there’s something missing in terms of how training played out?

Intervals were grand and i hit them. Tempos i was working too hard to be honest after 5 miles. Lr's i wasnt as comfortable when hitting 13 miles, pace between 5:20 - 5:30 per k. Long runs were just not clicking.

Murph_D

average_runner wrote: »

Intervals were grand and i hit them. Tempos i was working too hard to be honest after 5 miles. Lr's i wasnt as comfortable when hitting 13 miles, pace between 5:20 - 5:30 per k. Long runs were just not clicking.

That’s revealing, and possibly comes back to what Safiri is talking about above. Possible lack of a good base phase before starting the HM phase. What had you been doing before, ie over the past few years? Average mileage etc? You are in a club - how has that affected day to day routine?

average_runner

Murph_D wrote: »

That’s revealing, and possibly comes back to what Safiri is talking about above. Possible lack of a good base phase before starting the HM phase. What had you been doing before, ie over the past few years? Average mileage etc? You are in a club - how has that affected day to day routine?

Past few years i focused on 5k to 10k. Got sub 20 5k for the first time in those few years a good few times. 5 mile races were between 33:00 to 33:10. 5 day week training with 10 mile long run with pace between 5:05 to 5:15. Took december off last year due to minor injury and times were off since. But on average i do 40 miles a week with usually 10 mile long run.

Murph_D

average_runner wrote: »

Past few years i focused on 5k to 10k. Got sub 20 5k for the first time in those few years a good few times. 5 mile races were between 33:00 to 33:10. 5 day week training with 10 mile long run with pace between 5:05 to 5:15. Took december off last year due to minor injury and times were off since. But on average i do 40 miles a week with usually 10 mile long run.

You’d imagine 40/week over a reasonably long period would be enough base to successfully tackle that HM programme alright. Must be another issue - I think I recall you posting a while
back about some training difficulties - did you ever get to the bottom of that (if it was you)?

The LR is a bit faster than I would normally be doing outside of specific training, I wonder does that have anything to do with it - the old, and often most obvious flaw - insufficient recovery? Not that the long run always has to be slow, but 5:10ish is a good steady pace for LR at this level.

dublin runner

Swashbuckler wrote: »

I've made a habit of telling marathon runners on here they should include 5k/10k blocks in their training during the year. Do you think that's needed or can someone train all year round for marathons alone and maximize their potential at the marathon distance ? Possibly derailing the thread with that question.

Swings and roundabouts! My opinion on that very matter has changed a lot times, flipping from the mantra of 'improve your shorter distances first.....' to 'it's a marathon, who cares about your 5km time'. I think I have finally served on the latter (well not quite!) I do think you need to train for 5km/10km, not just bash out constant marathon cycles BUT the big issue for most runners is the distance not the pace, right? I think it's fair to say that, based on extensive anecdotal evidence. Every athlete is completely different so YOUR approach should be individual to YOUR strengths and weaknesses, not some generic calculator.

I guess it really boils down to one thing: do what you enjoy doing. Do what makes you put on the runners, race and train. For me, much to detriment, I am chasing a certain marathon time(s) - nothing else really motivates me!

The great thing about the marathon is just when you think you have mastered it, it comes back to bite you and you crash and burn. That's part of the attraction. It's not accepting failure, it's embracing the learning curve. Swing and roundabouts!

Itziger

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Itziger

It is interesting that you hit such a good 5k time off little specific training. Are you a fast guy over 50 - 100m?

I'd be slow over very short distances but I tend to have good endurance.

I'd say most lads good over the 5k have a light frame too. Weight can have a big say, every kg is worth about 5 or 6 secs a mile I think.

Fast! Me? Nah, my 'top speed' would be about 3 min km I reckon. Absolute max and I've never done that. The 5k was a few weeks after a Half I had trained for so I was in decent shape. The Half time was 1.22.xx if I recall. As a lot of fellas who do marathon training affirm, you'll get good shorter distance times from the base. What I'm not sure about is how much I'd take off that with specific 5k training. I'd like to think 20 seconds, whatever that works out as %-wise.

average_runner

Murph_D wrote: »

You’d imagine 40/week over a reasonably long period would be enough base to successfully tackle that HM programme alright. Must be another issue - I think I recall you posting a while
back about some training difficulties - did you ever get to the bottom of that (if it was you)?

The LR is a bit faster than I would normally be doing outside of specific training, I wonder does that have anything to do with it - the old, and often most obvious flaw - insufficient recovery? Not that the long run always has to be slow, but 5:10ish is a good steady pace for LR at this level.

I got to the end of my other training issues. What would your pace lrs be?

Murph_D

average_runner wrote: »

I got to the end of my other training issues. What would your pace lrs be?

Well, outside of a specific training phase, it would vary a bit, with some LRs in the range you mention but also a lot of LRs in the 5:30-5:50/k range, some even easier than that.

TFBubendorfer

Testosterscone wrote: »

I have ran 100s if not 1000s of races at this stage and yet I can count on my two hands the numbers of times I can honestly say I have gotten it right in the race and ran to my absolute limit.

That's the nature of racing, isn't it?

I've run approximately 250 races to date and can name exactly 3 where I think I got the optimum out of myself, when I managed to pace it well and arrived at the finish line just about at the point of collapse. One was a 5k, one a marathon, one a 24 hours race, so basically covering the entire spectrum of distance running.

In shorter races I just don't seem to have the desire to push myself to the limit; in longer races the difference between just right and too fast is so fine it's very hard to get it right.

_brendand_

Itziger wrote: »

How many people have really spent a decent amount of time training for these different distances? In my case, I have run a grand total of one serious 5k and hadn't done specific training for it. The other 3 distances being mentioned here, yes. I have trained and applied myself relatively seriously to them. This would suggest that the Half is probably my optimum distance but even then it's not that clear. Times below: (all of which I like to think I can improve)
5k - 17.50 
10k - 36.48
Half - 1.21.06
Full - 2.59.10

These times are interesting actually because your 5k is actually about half your 10k time. This indicates that you ran the 5k at your 10k pace when you could have ran it much quicker. Your other times check at as they are all a bit more than twice the lower distance.

ultrapercy

_brendand_ wrote: »

These times are interesting actually because your 5k is actually about half your 10k time. This indicates that you ran the 5k at your 10k pace when you could have ran it much quicker. Your other times check at as they are all a bit more than twice the lower distance.

His 10 k tine is his 5k doubled plus 68 seconds. Thats about right given he claims to be an endurance based runner.
The 5k 10k half are in line but marathon is about 5 or 6 mins weaker. More easy miles longer longr runs etc will bring marathon tomes down.

crisco10

Interesting question, and really hard to answer, mainly because training effort/intensity/discipline has varied across distances. My PBs are:

5k: 19:07 (No specific training, but some sharpener sessions in 2 or 3 weeks before)
10k: 40:01 (Very little specific training, some sessions thrown in over preceeding 6 weeks or so)
HM: 1:27:00 (Lots of specific training, concerted effort over 12 weeks to follow a plan with a target time etc)
Full: 3:24:00 (First and only Full Mara, Lots of specific training, concerted effort over 18 weeks to follow a plan)

when I say no specific training, I would have been doing ~25km a week in an ad hoc manner. The marathon time looks really soft when i use Mcmillan, not sure why! I'm sure I would have a quicker time if I did another with that experience behind me.

BeepBeep67

I'm firmly in the camp where my relative performance deteriorates as the distance increases, partially physical, partially mental.
I ran marathons for a few years for 2 reasons, 1) just to break 3 hours and 2) endurance was a weakness in my shorter events that needed addressing.
I now don't think twice about heading out for a 2hr run, but I've no immediate desire to run another marathon in the near future.

Master's PB's
5k: 16:52
10k: 36:00
HM: 1:19:55
Mar: 2:55:52

The article below (if you ignore the not so subtle sales pitches) touches on the importance of aerobic development across the distances and the benfits of easy days.

Source: Jeff Gaudette, runnersconnect.net

I recently finished writing a training plan for new athlete that signed up for our custom training plans.
As soon as I sent the plan, I got an email back from (her name is Cathy)
Cathy: It looks like there is a lot of easy running in my plan? How is am I supposed to run my marathon at 9 minutes-per-mile if I'm doing all my easy running and even most of my long runs at 10:30 pace?
I am almost certain you've had this question.
I mean, logically, it would make sense that pushing the pace of your easy days as close to race pace as possible would help you get fitter quicker and ultimately run faster.
After all, the harder you work the better you get, right?
So, I started writing Cathy back and then I realized since you probably had the same question, I should put together the research and write you an email.
Now, the answer to Cathy's (and hopefully yours too) questions lies in what coaches call the aerobic system.
The aerobic system, and thus aerobic development, is the one true secret to training and it's the key to unlocking your potential.
In fact, even for the 5k and 10k, your aerobic system is far more important than speed.
This is the #1 mistake runners make when training for all races.
All it takes is one simple tweak to your training and you'll be absolutely crushing your next race - guaranteed, it works every time.
But, before I show you those workouts (I will in a few weeks, I promise), you need to understand how the aerobic system works.
In this email, we're going to examine why the aerobic system is so important, what the aerobic system is, and how to target it in training.
Why is aerobic development important
The first step to understanding just how important the aerobic system is to distance running is to identify the percentage of energy contribution the aerobic system provides for races 5k and longer.
As you can see in this chart, even for a "short" event like the mile, over 80% of the energy required to run the race is produced via aerobic metabolism. (if you can't see the image, enable images in your email)




Looking at the research and the scientific data, we now know that the aerobic system is extremely important to distance running.
But, what is the aerobic system and how does developing it help you run faster (if you're always running so slow all the time).
What is "the aerobic system"
First, we need to understand exactly what the aerobic system is and how it relates to easy running.
At the heart of aerobic training is the scientific fact that to exercise, your body needs to break down sugar and convert it to glycogen so it can be used as energy or fuel.
In the presence of adequate oxygen, the body utilizes the aerobic system, also known as aerobic glycolysis, to power continuous running. In the aerobic system energy ATP is produced through Pyruvic Acid and Lipid/Protein fragments entering the Kreb Cycle and the Electron Transport Cycle.
Simply speaking, during aerobic respiration, you breathe in, the body efficiently uses all the oxygen it needs to power the muscles, and you exhale.
When you are "running aerobically" (or running easy), your muscles have enough oxygen to produce all the energy they need to perform.
Therefore, improving your capacity to transport and efficiently utilize available oxygen to produce energy will enable you to race faster since this makes up 85-99% of the energy needed to race.
Since running easy is aerobic development there's no better way to train the aerobic system.
Now that we understand what aerobic running is we can examine the specific physiological adaptions that occur when you develop the aerobic system.
Benefit 1: Capillary development
Capillaries are the smallest of the body's blood vessels and they help deliver oxygen and nutrients to the muscle tissues while shuttling waste products out. The greater the number of capillaries you have surrounding each muscle fiber, the faster you can transport oxygen and carbohydrate into your muscles.
Aerobic training (easy running) increases the number of capillaries per muscle fiber, thus improving how efficiently you can deliver oxygen and fuel to your working muscles and how quickly they can clear waste products.
Benefit 2: Increase myoglobin content of muscle fibers
Myoglobin is a special protein in your muscles that binds the oxygen that enters the muscle fiber. When oxygen becomes limited during exercise, myoglobin releases the oxygen to the mitochondria to produce more energy.
Simply speaking, the more myoglobin you have in your muscle fibers, the more oxygen you can sequester to the muscle under aerobic duress - like during a race.
Aerobic training increases the myoglobin content of your muscle fibers.
Benefit 3: Mitochondria development
Mitochondria are microscopic organelle found in your muscles cells that contribute to the production of ATP (energy). In the presence of oxygen, mitochondria breakdown carbohydrate, fat, and protein into usable energy.
Therefore, the more mitochondria you have, and the greater their density, the more energy you can generate during exercise, which will enable you to run faster and longer.
Aerobic training increases both the number and the size of the mitochondria in your muscle fibers.
There are a few other physiological benefits to aerobic training, but that discussion gets a little too scientific and likely only interesting to biology majors.
Suffice it to say that aerobic development is the single most important factor to long-term development.
Sure, track workouts, VO2max sessions, and tempo runs will increase your fitness and are still important to racing faster. However, nothing will consistently help you improve continuously like developing the aerobic system.
Why doesn't running faster on easy days develop the aerobic system more rapidly
Now, the million dollar question: Won't running faster and pushing harder on your runs develop the aerobic system more rapidly?
Nope.
Not only will running faster result in diminished aerobic development, but it increases the chances of injury and overtraining. Double whammy.
This is the single biggest mistake runners of all experience levels make in their training.
Since I firmly believe that understanding the "why" of training is critical to executing workouts and training correctly, and I don't expect you to take my word for it, let's look at why this is.
Optimal aerobic development pace
Scientific research as been able to identify exactly how the aerobic system responds and adapts to certain training paces. Physiologically, we know:
• Capillary development appears to peak at between 60 and 75 percent of 5k pace.
• Research has shown that maximum stimulation of myoglobin in Type I muscle fiber occurs at about 63-77 percent of VO2max. 63-77 percent of VO2max is about 55-75 percent of 5k pace.
• Two researchers, Holloszy (1967) and Dudley (1982) published some of the defining research on optimal distance and pace for mitochondrial development. In short, Holloszy found that maximum mitochondrial development when running at 50-75 percent of V02max. Likewise, Dudley found that the best strategy for slow-twitch, mitochondria enhancement was running for 90 minutes per outing at 70 to 75 per cent V02 max.
I know that's a lot of statistics and numbers, so if you're not as analytically inclined as I pretend to be, here is a neat chart to sum up the research:




The body of evidence is clear: your optimal easy run pace for aerobic development is between 55 and 75 percent of your 5k pace, with the average pace being about 65 percent.
[Insider Bonus: Hate math and want a "done for you calculator" to figure out your easy pace? Here's a calculator normally found in our Masters membership you can get for free now]
It's also evident from this research that running faster than 75% of your 5k pace on your long run doesn't provide a lot of additional physiological benefit.
In fact, the research indicates that it would be just as advantageous to run slower as it would be to run faster. 50-55 percent of 5k pace is pretty easy, but the research clearly demonstrates that it still provides near optimal physiological aerobic adaptation.
Overtraining and Injury
Ok, so we can clearly see from research that running faster isn't going to develop your aerobic system more rapidly.
But, what's the harm in running faster on those days you feel good? Why do coaches always harp on you to slow down?
The faster you run on your easy days, the more stress you place on the muscles, tendons, ligaments in bones.
For example, you may be able to head out the door and hammer out an easy day and feel fine with your breathing, but your hips might not be strong enough yet to handle the pace or the consecutive days of faster running and, as a result, your IT band becomes inflamed.
In addition to aerobic development, easy days can function as active recovery from your hard workouts - but not if you run them too fast.
After a hard workout, your muscles will have micro-tears from the forceful contractions which happen at fast speeds.
These micro-tears cause muscle soreness, and make training the day after a hard workout difficult. The body heals these small micro-tears through the circulatory system, which delivers the oxygen and nutrients to the muscles that need repair.
Easy running delivers oxygen and nutrients directly to the muscles used during running. When running easy enough, the stress and micro tears that result from running are virtually non-existent, so the recovery outweighs the slight muscle damage.
The reason these two realities are so difficult to understand is that they don't occur instantaneously. Meaning, you don't run slightly too fast one day and then immediately get hurt. The stress and fatigue compounds, so it's difficult to attribute it to one run.
Hopefully, this in-depth and scientific look at the aerobic system, easy runs, and optimal pacing has opened to your eyes to why easy running is critical to long-term success and why running too fast is doubly detrimental to your progress.
What's really cool is once you understand the importance of the aerobic system, you can see how to build it into your plan "secretly". Meaning, you can do workouts that help you get stronger and that don't seem aerobic, but will absolutely help you improve this system.
Until next time
Coach Jeff

Duanington

Swashbuckler wrote: »

I've made a habit of telling marathon runners on here they should include 5k/10k blocks in their training during the year. Do you think that's needed or can someone train all year round for marathons alone and maximize their potential at the marathon distance ? Possibly derailing the thread with that question.

Probably a personal thing really, plenty on here run 2 marathons a year with little time\focus in between for specific 5k\10k training, Krusty, DR ( If I recall correctly) etc have done it to good effect. Having said that, have they maxed their potential with that approach? Maybe, maybe not....

I find marathon training heavy on the mind and enjoy the break away to the shorter stuff, for me its definitely needed - for others, the obsession is over the marathon distance\challenge and that obsession is what fuels the training\results.

Swashbuckler

average_runner wrote:

How do you go about improving your longer distances ? What is the correlation between the 5k up to the marathon?

My own current situation;

5k - 17:37
10k - 36.05
HM - 1.19.48
FM - TBD!

I think my numbers line up pretty good. I guess I have no idea what I'm capable of at marathon distance yet.
How I go about improving the long distances is probably a timely question for me. I've just finished a HM block of training. It came off the back of some very specific 5k/10k training. The two worked together very well. Seemed to suit me anyway, flowing straight from a speedier block into the HM specific stuff.
A year ago would have been a very different story though. Decent 10k but HM way off the mark. Lacking endurance. 46 weeks later I'm in better shape.

Duanington

5k - 16.57
5 mile - 28.12
10k - 36.23
10 mile 61.23
Half 1.21 (2016)
Marathon - 2.58 (2016)

Bit of a mixed bag really, I felt at the time that the full PB was a tad soft and probably feel that now even more so, having said that, I haven't run a really good half in 2 years.

Endurance\strength has been my strong point traditionally but I spent a good bit of time on the shorter stuff this year to good effect, haven't quite managed to translate that into longer race results yet ( 10 mile Mullingar, 61 minutes and a disaster in the Tullamore half) but I know I'm in better shape than my last marathon in 2016

Swashbuckler

Duanington wrote:

5k - 16.57 5 mile - 28.12 10k - 36.23 10 mile 61.23 Half 1.21 (2016) Marathon - 2.58 (2016)

That's really interesting. If you hadn't had some bad luck with the hamstring this year I'd be confident your 10k and 10M would be much lower.

kerrylad1

Only ever raced at the 10K and marathon distances.
10K 36:35
Marathon 2:57:41
Think I need to grow a pair,and stop following the sub 3 pacers.Great tread bye the way.Very interesting.

Duanington

Swashbuckler wrote: »

That's really interesting. If you hadn't had some bad luck with the hamstring this year I'd be confident your 10k and 10M would be much lower.

10k yes, P - definitely, I had a poor race at the K club earlier in the year ( small PB) and then had to pull up and jog most of Dunshaughlin with a sore hamstring when I was really going for broke, that was the one that got away I feel....might get that one put right before Valencia though.
10 mile, I only raced one and just didn't really show up, can't blame the hammy on that one, just poor racing

OOnegative

5k- 18.25
10k- 38.46
10m- 64.19
1/2- 1.26.11
Full: 3.20.32

Big fall off when it comes to the marathon, I know endurance is my issue. Have worked on it during my current block of marathon training. Will see how it worked in less than two weeks.

yaboya1

5k- 17:15
10k- 37:07
10m- 61:39
1/2- 1.20:17
Full: 2:59:04

Marathon the outlier here too. Still slightly confused about why both of my sub 3's weren't faster. I can probably knock some time off all of the distances above, but the marathon is the only one I really care about that much. Haven't been in the shape to threaten any pbs for a while now, but unfortunately I've still been silly enough to try (and fail miserably).
When I do eventually get back into good shape and train for one properly, I'd expect to knock a few minutes off the marathon time. The others will probably improve too as a result of the training.

dublin runner

General point.

How can one expect to be 'equally' or 'relatively strong' at each distance, from 5km to marathon? Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. That doesn't stop you trying to improve at certain distances but comparing your 5km time to a distance 23 miles longer is, well, ridiculous. Even a relative comparison is rather pointless.

The one thing that really gets to me is when I hear 'I don't know what went wrong. I ran a 1.20 half so a 2.50 marathon was the least I was expecting', or such. Come on!

Expecting to be relatively equal across all distances is like expecting to be as good in soccer as you are in football, as you are in hurling, as you are in.......well you the idea! Each distance requires a very skill set - roll with it!

Train hard, race harder. That's all you can do.

MonkstownHoop

5k 18.26
10k 39.36
Half 1.26
Full 3.12 last week

Plan for Berlin was to run a 1.22-23 half/ 36/37 10k in the build up and sub 3 itself but was out for a month with a calf tear, so that'll be the agenda again next year, focus on shorter stuff first half of the year.

mr_bump

I definitely feel that i'm more suited to the shorter stuff. Surprisingly though when I line up my PB's they align reasonably well with the usual calculators:
5K - 19:40
10K - 40:41
10M - 1:11:31
Half - 1:35:27
Full - 3:32:31

This is probably a function of me only having targeted marathons in the past, with my performances at the shorter races (of which i have only tried a handful) benefiting directly from these training blocks. All four of my marathon attempts have ended in the dreaded death march, yet I always enjoy the occasions and am determined to get it right someday.

Some very interesting points made above which resonate with me, particularly Safiri's post on underdeveloped aerobic base coupled with the article Beepbeep posted about the importance of developing the aerobic system. While endurance is most obviously my biggest issue I think I generally need more structure to my training (my self-made plans tend to simply increase millage with most runs at similar and probably too fast a pace). I'm not too confident that I have the discipline to enact such a change myself so will probably look to join a club or seek out some personalised training in the future. I guess at my level I'm unlikely gonna get much attention form club coaches so the latter option might yield the greatest return, but not too sure what's available!

Safiri

You might be suprised with the club coaches mr_bump. I dont exactly light the world on fire performance wise either but I found my club coach hugely helpful and always there anytime I had a question or needed help(he still is and would coach me in the morning despite not being club coach anymore), the same goes for the older club vets who ran at a really high level but still hang around training and races. Most of those people are there because they just because they are hugely interested in helping out the club and members and generally have a huge passion for the sport. This may not always be the case with hhired personal coaches though no doubt some of them can be really interested and helpful as well.

Wottle

Over the last 9 months and targeting no race in particular and running lots of miles between 9 and 11 mins.
I've got a
1 mile - 5:42
3k - 11:27
5k - 20:23
Half - 1:40:36

Always felt I'm more suited to shorter and prefer it. Some great points being made

healy1835

5k: 18:52
5mile: 29:51
10k: 38:56
10mile: 60:33
Half: 1:19:59
Marathon: 2:59:45

I suppose mine are a bit skewed in the sense that my whole running career since I started 3 years ago has consisted of different marathon cycles (by choice!) and I haven't really raced that much outside of warm up races in a training block. I've ran faster splits for the shorter stuff in some longer races, but these would be my race PB's. Duanington was talking about those runners who enjoy going from marathon block to marathon block and I am certainly one of those. Having said that, I'm not running a Spring Marathon next year so I'm hoping to focus on some shorter stuff in the first half of next year and see how that works out for me. The above 10Mile & Half times have came in the last month so I'm hoping to improve the marathon time at DCM and i'll probably run a 10k a couple of weeks out which should see the 10k time brought more in line with some of the others. I don't know if I'll ever run another 5k again, have ran one and didn't enjoy it

TFBubendorfer

dublin runner wrote: »

How can one expect to be 'equally' or 'relatively strong' at each distance, from 5km to marathon? Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. That doesn't stop you trying to improve at certain distances but comparing your 5km time to a distance 23 miles longer is, well, ridiculous. Even a relative comparison is rather pointless.

In therory, yes, you are right of course, but ...

almost all my PBs at shorter distances were set while training for a marathon. For example, my 5k PB (17:51) was set a few weeks before my marathon PB (2:55:07) and in the middle of marathon training, so why is the 5k PB relatively better than my marathon PB? The same is true for all my other PBs, I never trained specifically for them and yet they are just that bit better than the PB for the distance I was specifically training for.

It didn't matter if I was new to running or a seasoned veteran, if I was trained by a coach or by myself, the marathon was always lagging a few minutes behind the "calculator". I know I had more shots at the 5k than the marathon but the pattern always remained the same.

dublin runner

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

In therory, yes, you are right of course, but ...

almost all my PBs at shorter distances were set while training for a marathon. For example, my 5k PB (17:51) was set a few weeks before my marathon PB (2:55:07) and in the middle of marathon training, so why is the 5k PB relatively better than my marathon PB? The same is true for all my other PBs, I never trained specifically for them and yet they are just that bit better than the PB for the distance I was specifically training for.

It didn't matter if I was new to running or a seasoned veteran, if I was trained by a coach or by myself, the marathon was always lagging a few minutes behind the "calculator". I know I had more shots at the 5k than the marathon but the pattern always remained the same.

Maybe you are more naturally strong at the shorter stuff?!

The marathon, 50km etc. is usually the main training target for many. It is no surprise that increased training, improved nutrition/diet, improved s&c etc. can, and often does, result in PB's over the shorter distances while training for the marathon or whatever.

If you take it for granted that most runners (including myself) are undeveloped, the room for improvement is far greater than compared to a developed athlete (often pro or elite). For that reason, the reasons above sometimes give you a false sense - attempting to equate 5km times with marathon goals. The room for growth is far bigger.

I have long since stopped basing PMP on marathon-cycle training races. My PMP comes from training, with races simply showcasing form and progression, if any! That's my approach.

Factors like: elongated taper, muscle tensioning, nutrition, fluid intake etc. become so much more pronounced in the marathon.

Essential listening:
https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2017/02/episode-49-mastering-the-marathon.html?v=d2cb7bbc0d23