| |
Main
Date: 05 Sep 2006 15:55:42
From:
Subject: Race Pace Training
|
I know I'm not alone when i say I hate speed work and to be honest, I'm
pretty lazy when it comes to running outside my comfort zone too. so
over the space of a year i saw very little improvement in my 10k PB -
so a change of training was in order. Its very simple, basically just
involves running at a constant pace required to finish at your target
time - adding to the distance every week until you reach your goal. I
did this maybe 3 or 4 times a week, with a couple of easy runs in
between. i found it far easier to run well outside my comfort zone when
i was able to see exactly where i was in terms of my target 10k time.
anyone else tried this?
|
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 01:21:48
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Race Pace Training
|
<jo247101@googlemail.com > wrote
>I know I'm not alone when i say I hate speed work and to be honest, I'm
> pretty lazy when it comes to running outside my comfort zone too. so
> over the space of a year i saw very little improvement in my 10k PB -
> so a change of training was in order. Its very simple, basically just
> involves running at a constant pace required to finish at your target
> time - adding to the distance every week until you reach your goal. I
> did this maybe 3 or 4 times a week, with a couple of easy runs in
> between.
Yes, this approach works, but real speedwork (faster than target race pace)
will get you faster than pace work (running at race pace).
Most people do speedwork way too hard. It should be below the pain zone,
below the leg-burn zone, below the
form-falling-apart-and-slowing-down-at-the-end zone. It is emphatically
*not* all out effort.
In other words, 90-95% effort, not 99%.
Try it, you might like it...
-- Dan
If done this way, it actually works better, and hurts way less.
i found it far easier to run well outside my comfort zone when
> i was able to see exactly where i was in terms of my target 10k time.
> anyone else tried this?
>
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 16:51:00
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: Race Pace Training
|
jo247101@googlemail.com wrote:
> I know I'm not alone when i say I hate speed work and to be honest, I'm
> pretty lazy when it comes to running outside my comfort zone too.
I love speedwork. The only way for me to get a "runner's high" and feel
great is to knock out intervals, or at the very least to timed tempo
runs.
Comfort zone = > no high => boredom.
So I try to hit the track three times a week. Sometimes only two.
Doing that keeps me stimulated and interested in running.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 03:02:21
From: anders
Subject: Re: Measurements on marathoners /in situ/
|
steve common kirjoitti:
> They were then asked to run another 3000m at exactly that pace with no
> variation, but couldn't. "Logically" the second run shouldn't have been
> any harder, yet most runners bombed.
Were they told that the test would end once they'd run 3000m or were
they told that it would end once they'd run "as far as they could
manage" at that pace? I.e did they perceive it as a "run into
exhaustion" test (as Donovan seems to assume)?
> There are other papers with work on this theme (in English) on the site,
> one concerning 10000m efforts. For example (...)
>From my little subjective experience I would instantly and
wholeheartedly exclaim that these findings ring true! I believe I've
always done better when I've in turns allowed myself some slack and
worked harder to reel in and pass another runner.
But what amounts of pace variation are we talking about in these tests?
FWIW I once had reason to look up Haile Gebrselassie's km-splits in
this three WR races (with pacers): from 1st to 9th his pace varied 4-5s
per kilometer. I'm afraid I'm not really sure whether this was quite
little or quite a lot, or whether there was relatively greater
variation between his laps.
Anders
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 16:25:13
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Measurements on marathoners /in situ/
|
"anders" <hop.allez@suomi24.fi > wrote:
>Were they told that the test would end once they'd run 3000m
I believed that was the deal but...
> or were
>they told that it would end once they'd run "as far as they could
>manage" at that pace? I.e did they perceive it as a "run into
>exhaustion" test (as Donovan seems to assume)?
... the doubt is installed :-) I may well end up writing a mail to Ms.
Billat cos I don't have the answer and can't find it online.
That said, the results of average HR etc seem to indicate that the free
pace run was really "easier" than the fixed pace run (lower HR, lower VO2
etc...) and whether it went to exhaustion or not is neither here nor there
(I'm replying to you after Donovan and have been thinking about this in
the meantime :-) see footnote (1)
>But what amounts of pace variation are we talking about in these tests?
There is a graph by 5k "slices" I think (and I deduced, without checking
the actual values, that my marathons were all ridiculously even-paced and
thus sub-optimal, compared to what Paula did ;-)
>FWIW I once had reason to look up Haile Gebrselassie's km-splits in
>this three WR races (with pacers): from 1st to 9th his pace varied 4-5s
>per kilometer. I'm afraid I'm not really sure whether this was quite
>little or quite a lot, or whether there was relatively greater
>variation between his laps.
[See (1) also] We are getting into negative vs. positive split (and by how
much) territory: did I do better because I did a 60" negative or would I
have done better running a 10" positive... ie Maybe he could have run even
better without pacers but knowing the time he could physically achieve.
Maybe I'm wrong but that gives me a bubbly feeling in my tummy (hi Charlie
:oP ) that we have left the realms of practical use for most non
extra-lucid members of the r.r population, or at least those who are
non-geeks and who post :-)
(1) from the paper
In races, the choice and the variations of speed that will
maximize an endurance athlete’s ability to succeed in winning
a race involve a complex interplay of physiological
and psychological factors [1]. Although the concept of
even pacing is well accepted in athletics, the best performances
in middle-distance running (800–10,000 m) are
actually characterized by a speed variability.
If one considers
the most recent three world records for middle- and
long-distance running, within-race velocity varies by up
to 5% [2–4]. There is some evidence of a continual negotiation
carried out by the athlete designed to exhaust anaerobic
energetic reserves just at the end of the race to reach
critically low values for muscle glycogen and/or to reach
critical levels of homeostatic disturbances only at the end
[5–7].
This apparent monitoring of the magnitude of metabolic
disturbance compared with the expected requirements
of an exercise bout has recently been integrated into
a cohesive hypothesis labeled as the teleoanticipation, or
“central governor,” hypothesis [7, 8].
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 16:17:50
From: Robert Grumbine
Subject: Re: Race Pace Training
|
In article <1157496942.704980.286040@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
<jo247101@googlemail.com > wrote:
>I know I'm not alone when i say I hate speed work and to be honest, I'm
>pretty lazy when it comes to running outside my comfort zone too. so
>over the space of a year i saw very little improvement in my 10k PB -
>so a change of training was in order. Its very simple, basically just
>involves running at a constant pace required to finish at your target
>time - adding to the distance every week until you reach your goal. I
>did this maybe 3 or 4 times a week, with a couple of easy runs in
>between. i found it far easier to run well outside my comfort zone when
>i was able to see exactly where i was in terms of my target 10k time.
>anyone else tried this?
Running at race pace is speed work. You've just decided that you
don't want to do the faster than race pace stuff. That's fine.
It'll limit you some on your ultimate PB, but 10k pace work (and
maybe a touch faster) will get you pretty far. Probably not to
do it 3-4 times a week for 3-4 miles, but certainly to do it.
You can also disguise some speed work for yourself by running
hills at your regular jog pace up to 10k pace.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 16:44:53
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Race Pace Training
|
jo247101@googlemail.com wrote:
> Its very simple, basically just
>involves running at a constant pace required to finish at your target
>time - adding to the distance every week until you reach your goal. I
>did this maybe 3 or 4 times a week, with a couple of easy runs in
>between.
Seems like a good strategy. In a slightly disguised form, this is pretty
much what all training is like.
"Speed" sessions start at "n" x distance, then go to n+1 x distance then
n+2 x, all at the same pace, before reducing to "n" x again but at "a bit
longer distance", and start again.
Long runs go 2 hours, 2:20, 2:40, all at the same pace, and then back to
2:00 at a higher pace (or with 2 then 3 segments of faster running during
the run, lasting 15 then 20 then 30 minutes).
And so on. Do what makes you feel good about finishing the session as
planned.
PS I hate feeling asphyxiated, so I hate stuff which solicits VO2max for
more than about 40-60 seconds. Maybe I could do better by running myself
legless but I don't really care enough. Well not today anyway ;-)
|
|
