I agree that everyone is going to be stronger in one discipline or another, but it's not really about VO2max at longer races. Being able to keep a higher percentage of your 5K pace for longer distances is all about the percentage of your VO2max you're able to use (i.e. Lactate Threshold). It may seem like a nitpick, but its a huge difference.Don't think it's an elite vs weekend warrior issue. It's faster twitch vs slower twitch with incredible VO2 max. I knew some 1:25 weekend warrior type Half marathoners who couldn't or would barely break 20 in a 5k yet 1:25 is repeating 20:20 5ks or so. Obviously to get to elite you have to have some speed. But incredible VO2 max more important in the long races. Some long distance elites can barely break 4:20 in a mile.
Steve has a good combo of both. Most of us have one or the other.
I knew it was the famous Hadd document before I clicked. Essential reading.I agree that everyone is going to be stronger in one discipline or another, but it's not really about VO2max at longer races. Being able to keep a higher percentage of your 5K pace for longer distances is all about the percentage of your VO2max you're able to use (i.e. Lactate Threshold). It may seem like a nitpick, but its a huge difference.Don't think it's an elite vs weekend warrior issue. It's faster twitch vs slower twitch with incredible VO2 max. I knew some 1:25 weekend warrior type Half marathoners who couldn't or would barely break 20 in a 5k yet 1:25 is repeating 20:20 5ks or so. Obviously to get to elite you have to have some speed. But incredible VO2 max more important in the long races. Some long distance elites can barely break 4:20 in a mile.
Steve has a good combo of both. Most of us have one or the other.
I've linked this a few times now (original credit goes to grue), but this is a fantastic read and worth the time if you want to fully understand how guys like Steve and your 1:25 buddy do it. My Link
Thanks. Yes I admittedly didn't use the correct terminology. I do go on LR occassionally too - who posted that? Anyway, a good read that I skimmed. It still seems to put too much emphasis on training, though. Obviously, training correctly is really important. But there will be some genetic differences because of the fast twitch and VO2 max capabilities a certain person has. If he read my best times for say, 400m-3000m at my peak, he would have maintained something ridiculous like that I could run a 29:30 10k. But I'm telling you that even if I had Alberto Salazar training me and a team of people watching how I trained/ate/slept around the clock, I wasn't genetically able to run a sub 30 10k. Call it V02 Max, my LT or whatever you want to call it, I wasn't capable of it. There's a reason why fewer middle distance guys excel with the leap from high school to college cross country. The gap between their ability to hold fast pace over a 5k vs the slower twich guy who thinks a 5k is fast is lessened as the distance moves up to 8k and 10k.I agree that everyone is going to be stronger in one discipline or another, but it's not really about VO2max at longer races. Being able to keep a higher percentage of your 5K pace for longer distances is all about the percentage of your VO2max you're able to use (i.e. Lactate Threshold). It may seem like a nitpick, but its a huge difference.Don't think it's an elite vs weekend warrior issue. It's faster twitch vs slower twitch with incredible VO2 max. I knew some 1:25 weekend warrior type Half marathoners who couldn't or would barely break 20 in a 5k yet 1:25 is repeating 20:20 5ks or so. Obviously to get to elite you have to have some speed. But incredible VO2 max more important in the long races. Some long distance elites can barely break 4:20 in a mile.
Steve has a good combo of both. Most of us have one or the other.
I've linked this a few times now (original credit goes to grue), but this is a fantastic read and worth the time if you want to fully understand how guys like Steve and your 1:25 buddy do it. My Link
I absolutely agree with you on the genetic capabilities piece of it, but the point of me posting the article was to show that most of us weekend warriors have weak relationships between our PRs. You may have skimmed by it, but he points out that not everyone is going to be able to hold up to the Horwill standard of 16sec/mi.koby925 said:Thanks. Yes I admittedly didn't use the correct terminology. I do go on LR occassionally too - who posted that? Anyway, a good read that I skimmed. It still seems to put too much emphasis on training, though. Obviously, training correctly is really important. But there will be some genetic differences because of the fast twitch and VO2 max capabilities a certain person has. If he read my best times for say, 400m-3000m at my peak, he would have maintained something ridiculous like that I could run a 29:30 10k. But I'm telling you that even if I had Alberto Salazar training me and a team of people watching how I trained/ate/slept around the clock, I wasn't genetically able to run a sub 30 10k. Call it V02 Max, my LT or whatever you want to call it, I wasn't capable of it. There's a reason why fewer middle distance guys excel with the leap from high school to college cross country. The gap between their ability to hold fast pace over a 5k vs the slower twich guy who thinks a 5k is fast is lessened as the distance moves up to 8k and 10k.I agree that everyone is going to be stronger in one discipline or another, but it's not really about VO2max at longer races. Being able to keep a higher percentage of your 5K pace for longer distances is all about the percentage of your VO2max you're able to use (i.e. Lactate Threshold). It may seem like a nitpick, but its a huge difference.Don't think it's an elite vs weekend warrior issue. It's faster twitch vs slower twitch with incredible VO2 max. I knew some 1:25 weekend warrior type Half marathoners who couldn't or would barely break 20 in a 5k yet 1:25 is repeating 20:20 5ks or so. Obviously to get to elite you have to have some speed. But incredible VO2 max more important in the long races. Some long distance elites can barely break 4:20 in a mile.
Steve has a good combo of both. Most of us have one or the other.
I've linked this a few times now (original credit goes to grue), but this is a fantastic read and worth the time if you want to fully understand how guys like Steve and your 1:25 buddy do it. My Link
I calculated mine out a while back and it came out to 0:23/mi from 5K to HM. I fall apart after 13.1mi. Which according to Hadd, I'm just not there aerobically, yet. If I had the aerobic training, that would equate to a 3:16 full.The point I want to stress is the existence of a relationship. I don’t hold hard and fast to Horwill’s 16 secs/mile (as I have shown, for better runners it might be 12-15 secs/mile or tighter still). But I do agree with his concept of a relationship between performances at all distances.
Tell the penis to HTFU, get into some running tights, and take you out running.So I'm finding it really hard to get out there and run in the cold. working 13-14 hours a day with a 2 year old and a 9 month old prolly doesnt help either.
I wouldn't get too hung up on the 0:16. Just that we should all have some sort of relationship across distances is all.Ok my math was a little off. Still, the 4 minute milers would all be running 62 Halfs and the 4:10-4:15 group would all be running 64-65 in Halfs.
Bike HR generally averages lower because you aren't supporting as much weight, but has higher variability (at least here with all our hills).Oh yeah Ned I'll try to get you some HR data too, probably from workouts or smaller races as I try to go as light as possible for my races. I am also curious how my HR from my bike workouts this summer lines up with my actual HR in running workouts
Closer to running as you really don't coast much on a stationary bike. But a tempo bike workout will be a bit lower HR than a tempo run. You are just using more musculature running as you are supporting all of your weight rather than ~half.Sand what if I was biking on an indoor stationary bike? I had it around the medium resistance levels so I don't know how well that would stimulate hills. I just wanted to do something that got my HR up to keep in shape.
This is an awesome post, appreciate you taking the time to analyze. Very good observation on the 171 number. It's right where I've always felt my limits were for MP'ing. When I run MP training runs, I always target mid 160s, but never let it go past 170. If anything, its a good confirmation.Ned, I recognize how tough it is to make early in-race adjustments. You saw the higher HR, but took the good gamble to give it a shot.2013 Philly Marathon
Miles 14-18: 7:39/172, 7:57/173, 7:51/175, 7:51/176, 9:30/176 30K split = 2:24:48 (3:23 pace)
Shortly after the 30K mat, we enter Manyunk. Energy levels fell off a cliff and I was instantly in survival mode.
Miles 19-26.2: 8:10/176, 8:28/175, 8:45/174, 8:38/173, 8:58/171, 8:52/168, 9:24/171, 9:25/175, final 0.2 'sprint' 8:17/175
Having recently bonked myself in mile 20 of my last marathon, I feel your pain! When the energy's gone ...it's just gone. I see signs here in miles 23-25 that your body was trying to stay at the 171 average HR you had been carrying along. With no fuel, your body was saying "that's the limit." So what's extremely impressive to me is how you fought through that in miles 17-22. Despite seeking external triggers from the runners around you, the battle was internal, as evidenced in miles 20-22 as the pace climbed and the HR slowly came down. That was a battle you could not win. But dang, you tried! And those last ten miles demonstrate what a fighter you are! Be proud of that great effort and solid time.
It also brings back a lot of the feelings I had yesterday while I was going through it. I'm just really stubborn and dumb when it comes to this, but the bolded part always pisses me off. I refuse to admit I can't win, to a fault. I got pretty damn angry at mile 17 when I realized I just didn't have it. I think Hang 10 might be able to attest to this since it seems to come out in his posts... But damn it man, I instinctively just want to hammer through it. But in the end we're human, not robots.
That's a big part of this game that I love - testing your limits. Pass or fail, its fun to try. We all have different levels of talent, but everyone's got the same end game. Find your limit.
Sorry I'm hogging the thread - this was just a big learning experience all around. Hope others benefit from my stubbornness.
This is like reading a foreign language....I simply cannot comprehend this.Rock n Roll Las Vegas Half-Marathon Report
Mile splits for miles 1-3, 5K: 5:22 - 5:16 - 5:14 (16:26 5K)
Miles 4-6, 10K: 5:16 - 5:17 - 5:26 (33:01 10K. 2nd fastest 10K ever)
Miles 6-10: 5:18 - 5:22 - 5:26 - 5:30 (53:27 10-mile. First PR of 2013!)
Miles 11-13.1: 5:31 - 5:38 - 5:39 - 34 (70:49 on my watch, 70:45 officially)
So I missed by A/B/C goals, but to be honest I was still pretty happy with the race. I went out hard and was shooting for a 60-90s PR and still managed to hang on and had a shot at a new PR with a mile to go, and to come all the way back from not even being able to handle this pace for more than 1.5 miles 3 months ago. I still don't know how it all happened, but I sure as hell hope I can close out the year with a PR or two before making some major breakthroughs in 2014.
Wow! Haven't you often had injury and weather issues with the marathon? I'll shocked at the jump there.The Hadd document and McMillan ratios for different distances are really interesting to me. If Greg McMillan ever met me he would hate me as the guy who makes his calculator look terrible.
I am primarily interested in the marathon and it is essentially all I train for. It's pretty much a year-round activity for me. Yet, as I add mileage and do many of the things Hadd suggests, my ratio from shorter races to the marathon gets further out of whack. I make more gains in the shorter distances than I do at the Marathon, even though I rarely train for specific shorter races. If I do, it's only briefly, like now when i have a half I am targeting in mid-December. It will end up being about 6 weekes in which i am training for the half, while at the same time maintaining my marathon peak mileage.
My PR paces (all in the last 2 years)
5k 7:20
4 Miles 7:17
5 Miles 7:38
10k 7:45
Half 8:05
Marathon 9:38
McMillan thinks I should run a marathon at a pace about a minute per mile faster than I can right now.
Now I see.... Your 0:39 gap from the earlier post was the total, not the actual relationship (0:20). Pretty damn good, IMO. So your 10K is most likely around a 5:57. You're selling your endurance way short!Old man pace PRs
5k - 5:37
10k - 6:05
HM - 6:16
M - NA
Obviously my 10k is the weak link. I've only raced it once and it was high heat and humidity on July 4th.
Right. But going by his 16 sec per mile per relationship - 5k to 10k and 10k to Half - I should have a 32 second total gap, not 39 seconds, right?Now I see.... Your 0:39 gap from the earlier post was the total, not the actual relationship (0:20). Pretty damn good, IMO. So your 10K is most likely around a 5:57. You're selling your endurance way short!Old man pace PRs
5k - 5:37
10k - 6:05
HM - 6:16
M - NA
Obviously my 10k is the weak link. I've only raced it once and it was high heat and humidity on July 4th.
I haven't raced a 10K in 3 years, but it should be around a 6:44ish.
5K: 6:21
HM: 7:05
FM: 8:04
He used Howill's 16 as the example. But yeah, it would be 32 based on that. You're muuuuch tighter than you led on! Wait, that sounds weird.Right. But going by his 16 sec per mile per relationship - 5k to 10k and 10k to Half - I should have a 32 second total gap, not 39 seconds, right?Now I see.... Your 0:39 gap from the earlier post was the total, not the actual relationship (0:20). Pretty damn good, IMO. So your 10K is most likely around a 5:57. You're selling your endurance way short!Old man pace PRs
5k - 5:37
10k - 6:05
HM - 6:16
M - NA
Obviously my 10k is the weak link. I've only raced it once and it was high heat and humidity on July 4th.
I haven't raced a 10K in 3 years, but it should be around a 6:44ish.
5K: 6:21
HM: 7:05
FM: 8:04
If home with the kids, you could still work on leg strength (lunges and squats) and building the core (pushups, situps, stretching, yoga).So I'm finding it really hard to get out there and run in the cold. working 13-14 hours a day with a 2 year old and a 9 month old prolly doesnt help either.
Buy a kettle bell.If home with the kids, you could still work on leg strength (lunges and squats) and building the core (pushups, situps, stretching, yoga).So I'm finding it really hard to get out there and run in the cold. working 13-14 hours a day with a 2 year old and a 9 month old prolly doesnt help either.
This is amazing to me and was what my original point was. No matter how much I trained, I'd never have a 20 second gap between 5k and Half. If I somehow got my Half pace down, I'm sure my 5k would improve also. So I think I'd always be around at least 35 seconds gap. And this goes to the type of runner I am which can't necessarily be changed with training. On the other end of the spectrum there are guys that no matter how hard they train, they can't run faster than a certain speed on short races. Example, there are sub 30 minute 10k runners who probably struggle to break 2 minutes in the 800. I was breaking 2 minutes junior year in high school but I don't think even at my peak I could've run sub 32 in a 10k.Mile - 4:41 / 4:23 (post-collegiate / 1500 equivalent from college)
5k - 5:03
10k - 5:14
HM - 5:23
MAR - 6:00
I guess the 16s rule give me hope for my next marathon attempt, although I "just" need to bring that 37s gap down to 20 to get under that next barrier.
So, on seeing these, or similar, numbers, I expect to hear at least one (and maybe both) of two things from the athlete concerned:
1. Low mileage background in training
2. Whatever mileage being done is being run “too fast” (for performance level)
I think this is likely true.Half marathon pace shouldn't be comfortable.That is a fascinating read, thanks for posting the link.
Bottom line for me, as I train for a trail marathon in March and ironman - I need to slow down.
To do so, as my comfortable pace in training (10 or less miles) is roughly the same as my half marathon pace, should I get a heart rate monitor and keep it lower than I probably will want to, or should I just consciously stay at a 8:15 or so pace?
Step right into my office....That is a fascinating read, thanks for posting the link.
Bottom line for me, as I train for a trail marathon in March and ironman - I need to slow down.
To do so, as my comfortable pace in training (10 or less miles) is roughly the same as my half marathon pace, should I get a heart rate monitor and keep it lower than I probably will want to, or should I just consciously stay at a 8:15 or so pace?
Most hate it and think it's hocus-pocus, but I fully believe in training by HR. I've saved this off for the times someone asks about HR. My Link The new board butchered the formatting, so I copied it below.:supernerd: I'm going to write this up and it'll get long winded, but I'm going to save this for future use since it comes up a lot. I'll caveat this with you should have a good understanding of all of the various workouts and the purpose of each one before worrying about training by HR. Since the basis of HR training is to help you get into the right zone for the prescribed workout, you need to understand what the workout is intended to do before you go worrying about your HR.Even if you're not going to run a marathon, I strongly suggest reading the first 4 chapters of Advanced Marathoning. It's an outstanding breakdown of how to train and the science behind it. Those 4 chapters are well worth the $10.Ran 7miles at 9:00 per today. This might have been my longest run ever. Yay to me. Since I started my 500 miles quest, any run over 5 miles has been around a 9:30 pace so I'm happy to see progress. Now I just have to try and keep running consistently with my 2nd child due in just 2 weeks. Questions: What do I need to know about my heart rate? Never have I ever paid any attention to it but it seems to be all the rage around here.
That said, HR is basically nothing more than an indicator of how hard your body is working at that point in time. The higher it is, the harder you're working. There can be other factors that can affect it such as hydration, stress, fatigue, etc, but generally speaking it's that simple. You can train by HR, based on certain ranges or zones. You can make it as simple or as complicated as you want it to be, depending on how accurate you want to get. The sole purpose of training by HR is to ensure you're in the correct zone for the workout you're doing. By staying in that proper zone, you're getting the most out of that workout. This is why it's important to understand what each workout is all about before diving into HR training.
There are a lot of theories out there, but I believe the best bang for your buck is to base it on your mHR and then tweak as you collect more data/learn about yourself. To go about this, you first need to get your max HR (mHR) and then calculate the training ranges based off of that. Most people don't realize how hard it is to find your true mHR and end up relying on the cheesy formulas out there. While those might work for the majority of people, I think its a major mistake. I always suggest wearing your HR monitor (HRM) at a 5K and go all out. If you aren't wanting to die and holding back puke at the end, you're probably not getting to your mHR. It may take a few tries, but you'll get to your mHR pretty quickly this way. Plus you get some race experience out of it.
Once you know your mHR, you can calculate the various training zones. The theories on these zones vary, but this is what has evolved for me. These are the upper limits of each range. I try to stay a shade below these, but too many factors come into play to hit on things perfectly every time.
Recovery = <70% mHR
Long Run = <75% mHR
General Aerobic = <80% mHR
Marathon Pace = <86% mHR
Lactate Threshold = <91% mHR
VO2max = >91% mHR
When you're running, your HR is going to vary a lot based on how hard you're pushing at the time, what you're thinking about (if I think about racing my HR will spike immediately), how hot/cold it is, hills, wind, etc. So you don't need to get hung up on it being exactly at a certain number. It's never going to happen. For example, my mHR is 195, so I target 147 or below for a long run. I like to keep it in the lower 140s and let it drift higher when conditions are affecting me.
A few links if you want to read more. Some are different opinions than what I've written...
HR Training Pitfalls (Pfitz)
Hadd's approach (Credit to Grue for giving this to me)
She's annoying, but hits it right on the nose. Lots will toss HR training because of what she talks about
It's not lactate levels in your blood or oxygen shortages in your muscles that force you to slow down, it's how your brain interprets those signals. In other words, the effort of running is only as hard as your brain perceives it to be.
Yeah..... I can see falling into the trap of running LRs @ MP since they're relatively easy at short distances, but HMP for 10mi would be a killer workout.Half marathon pace shouldn't be comfortable.That is a fascinating read, thanks for posting the link.
Bottom line for me, as I train for a trail marathon in March and ironman - I need to slow down.
To do so, as my comfortable pace in training (10 or less miles) is roughly the same as my half marathon pace, should I get a heart rate monitor and keep it lower than I probably will want to, or should I just consciously stay at a 8:15 or so pace?
I think my biggest problem (maybe it's just mental) is on race day I seem to lack the higher gear. Had the same problem in HS. I can get there for a 2 mile APFT, but beyond that I've had a hard time kicking it up.Half marathon pace shouldn't be comfortable.That is a fascinating read, thanks for posting the link.
Bottom line for me, as I train for a trail marathon in March and ironman - I need to slow down.
To do so, as my comfortable pace in training (10 or less miles) is roughly the same as my half marathon pace, should I get a heart rate monitor and keep it lower than I probably will want to, or should I just consciously stay at a 8:15 or so pace?
Try this as well. Neat exercise.tri-man 47 said:If home with the kids, you could still work on leg strength (lunges and squats) and building the core (pushups, situps, stretching, yoga).So I'm finding it really hard to get out there and run in the cold. working 13-14 hours a day with a 2 year old and a 9 month old prolly doesnt help either.
Finally something I can understand over the last few daysTry this as well. Neat exercise.tri-man 47 said:If home with the kids, you could still work on leg strength (lunges and squats) and building the core (pushups, situps, stretching, yoga).So I'm finding it really hard to get out there and run in the cold. working 13-14 hours a day with a 2 year old and a 9 month old prolly doesnt help either.
Not to derail the great conversation but has anyone done a Ragnar Trail Race centered around a village? First I'd seen, was sent to me by a co-worker who wants to put together a team.
http://www.ragnartrailrelay.com/locations/atlanta-ga/village
This looks ####### amazing and I love idea (Tri-Man, its like DWD without driving all over Hell). If we were not going on a family vacation the next week, I'd b BEGGING for a place on your team. Please do this and report back, I am mentally putting this on the list of want to do events.That race looks awesome! Too bad the timing sucks for me.Try this as well. Neat exercise.tri-man 47 said:If home with the kids, you could still work on leg strength (lunges and squats) and building the core (pushups, situps, stretching, yoga).So I'm finding it really hard to get out there and run in the cold. working 13-14 hours a day with a 2 year old and a 9 month old prolly doesnt help either.
Not to derail the great conversation but has anyone done a Ragnar Trail Race centered around a village? First I'd seen, was sent to me by a co-worker who wants to put together a team.
http://www.ragnartrailrelay.com/locations/atlanta-ga/village
Maybe next year.I'd fire the 9 month old and replace him with another 2 year old. They keep working harder into the late hours.So I'm finding it really hard to get out there and run in the cold. working 13-14 hours a day with a 2 year old and a 9 month old prolly doesnt help either.
I'd fire the 9 month old and replace him with another 2 year old. They keep working harder into the late hours.So I'm finding it really hard to get out there and run in the cold. working 13-14 hours a day with a 2 year old and a 9 month old prolly doesnt help either.