Is there a comparable pace ratio test for running similar to the Power Clinic 5/20 test?
All,
I find the 5'/20' ratio test used for determining whether the Power Clinic protocol is a good training tool for someone at a given point in time very interesting. I'm curious to know if anyone knows of a similar type of test which could determine the same thing for running. I'm personally trying to figure out if my current run roof/ceiling ratio is whacked or if I just haven't done enough TP work yet to see improvements in my running. Basically the point is to determine whether I go into the next couple of weeks of VO2 work for the run, or stay with TP work (I've missed quite a bit due to the snow & whatnot) for a while.
So anyone heard of anything similar?
Gracias compadres!
0
Comments
I personally like to compare my 5k vdot to Half Marathon vdot each year.
Before EN my half vdot was abour 4 points higher than my 5k vdot. After least years OS and all of the TP and IP work, I got them to just over a point apart which is the closets they have even been.
I've never done anything because of the results of the test, just collected data and observed so far. I've thought about trying to run a mile test but haven't got around to it yet.
I honestly know NOTHING about this, but here are two random thoughts anyway:
1. 5' and 20' of running equal about 1.6K (a mile) and a 5K, so putting those two back to back with 10' easy in between would be the comparable to the bike test? Then calculating the ratio between the paces would show a roof/ceiling.
2, Is there any VALUE in doing this for training/racing purposes? I'm the opposite of Matt A: my 5K derived VDOT is consistently higher than my HIM VDOT, indicating I have a relatively high roof, but room to raise the ceiling in my running. So if I emphasized TP pace training, worked harder at that, and Matt did likewise on IP pace training, would we each improve our IM result? It would be good to have an answer to that, I agree.
Al - Now that's really the $64 question! I'm proceding under the assumption that what's applicable to bike training would also be applicable to run training - not always true of course.
Using the power clinic protocol as a guideline one would think that your results, i.e. 5k vdot higher than hm vdot, would be more common than Matt's. But the theory of the vdot would argue that when properly trained for an event the vdots should be the same. I like your idea of the 1 mile / 5k kind of split, that seems to be pretty close to the 5'/20' - although at least in my case I think it would need to be more like 800m/2.5 mi.
But again, as you pointed out, if you did that would you actually know what to do with the result/answer? I guess that's what I'm trying to figure out, is there any objective way to know when someone is ready (in need of) doing VO2 work in running in order to see performance improvements?
I like this idea...let me think more about it...
What do you think ... potential 6-Week Run Hack?
5 years of traditional long slow distance stuff created a pretty flat power and pace curve for me. The one year of EN training helped a ton last year, but I would also like to know what else I could do to improve.
Gotta ask, Matt, is your 61 Vdot a 5k or a half-mary Vdot?
I would think that there is comparable value in looking at the difference between a 1mi Vdot, 5k Vdot, and something longer (10k, 15k, or 21k). Since we spend most of the OS focused on 0.5 - 2 mile intervals, we ought to be pushing up the left side of the curve. Then, in race prep, we are working to push up the right side. So, it seems like measuring the left side changes would be interesting.
As someone who responded quite well to the two blocks of run training, I do not know how predictive the ratio would be. I think that there is something to be said for just doing something different. You can only throw so much FTP or Z4 work at yourself before you need to do something to change it up, even for just a short period of time.
It would be equally interesting to look at whether or not doing any RP (the Daniels zone that we omit) would have an impact on the 1mi or 5k test. We dont do any work at that pace, but most of the running literature I know suggests that the fastest guys are just plain fast across all distances, down to the 400m or so. Watching some folks in the Nov OS (not naming names), a few particularly fast folks seem to like to exceed the paces quite a bit, and often hit numbers I would guess are in their RP range.
Interesting thread, Tony!
Mike
61 is from a half marathon last summer, but I also did a 60 in a 5k within a month of that race, and I did a 59.5 in a 5k this December, so my vdots have definitely leveled out significantly over the last two years.
I'm going to find a time to go crush myself for a mile and then I can compare that to an upcoming half marathon and 5k later this spring. I'll share the data once I get it.
Think I'll have to join you for that experiment, maybe in a week or two...
My first thought is, as Matt suggested, use a fixed distance such as 1200m or 1600m for the VO2 portion and something like 5k for the Threshold portion. This works great for someone who is a 6-7 min/mi miler, and 21-23 min 5k. But what about those who might be 8-9 min/mi miler and 30 min 5k'ers? They would be running almost twice as long for the mile and 50% longer on the 5k, so from the body's standpoint those are different workouts.
The second thought was to simply replicate the cycling protocol and have people run 5' and 20'. This fixes the problem in idea one, but introduces a new issue which is correct measurement of the distance of the effort. Even on a 1/4 mile track this will be an issue since very few people are going to finish exactly on a lap start/end point and getting an accurate measurement of how far one has gone from the start/stop point. This is functionally impossible for DIY testers, and even with someone there it seems unlikely to be able to get an accurate measurement of the offset distance. Accurate measurement is important because the distance traveled in 5'/20' is what's going to determine the pace for those sections.
So, would it be better to have different testing protocols based on ability? For instance if your 5k time is 18-24 min you do a 1600m/5k protocol, but if your 5k time is 25-30 you do a 1000m/2.5mi protocol, if your 5k time is >30 you do 800m/2.0mi protocol?
Another separate issue is whether to use paces or vdot's when doing comparisons. That point might be a minor stylistic one, or it might be important for getting a decent granularity of data.
Tony - The speed based protocol, setting the distance based on one's presumed speed, makes a lot of sense.
I'm still pondering how the infomration would be used. One way might be a "middle way" VDOT test, making it a little harder than a 5K, and a little easier than a 10K. But the VDOT derived training pace tables are pretty much based on those standard race distances, so I'm not sure that this method can be used to produce a VDOT for training or race purposes.
The other use might be to inform the self-coached athlete (or the coach for that matter) what length and speed of intervals make sense at a given time in the training program. Unless there is already some study out there, this might take some willing guinea pigs being in a season long "pace hack" to see if this level of granularity is needed and useful.
There's nothing to say that you (or anyone) can't try this for yourself and see what happens. I suspect it will probably work just as well as any other method for determining what type of training is needed. Good luck!
First off, when you do structured I pace sessions you are also substantially focusing on the adaptations that correspond to doing structured T pace sessions. The raise your roof-ceiling strategy is a good one (primarily for the bike), of course, but I truly believe the number of people who have limited upside in increasing their LT (ceiling) due to a (relatively) low VO2Max (roof) is quite small. The fact is that probably over 95% of us on this board could focus on either one and it won't make much of difference. IOW, whether you decide to do focused I pace or T pace sessions, the corresponding increase in VO2Max or LT will be about the same.
For those who are IM focused, I would argue that you're better served by focusing on structured T pace sessions since the challenge of balancing the volume required for IM vs the intensity associated with fast running increases dramatically as you go from doing focused T pace stuff to focused of I pace stuff. That challenge is reflected in the impact on your recovery, risk of injury, overreaching, etc. Now I'm not saying you all need to IM-specific volume early in the season but there's something to be said neglecting some amount of longer sessions at easy to mod intensity because you're so focused on doing I pace specific training. Again, for those who have a few successful IMs under their belt, I think that "raise the roof-ceiling" strategy could probably make some sense. For everyone else, it probably doesn't, imho.
I think running is way too risky at this level to structure it like we might on the bike. My focus on raising the left side of my pace curve involves some T pace sessions and some I pace sessions. It's never a structured set of I pace sessions. In fact, I almost never do two consecutive weeks at the track where I do I pace running. I tend to alternate them or I might do a couple of consecutive weeks of T pace running and then go back to I pace for a week. Keep in mind, I also have the same observation as Mike above. That observation is that most everyone, especially males, runs too fast when they do their track sessions.
Al, to answer your question: So if I emphasized TP pace training, worked harder at that, and Matt did likewise on IP pace training, would we each improve our IM result?
As always, I believe the answer is, "It depends." IM is about power/pace @ LT, not power/pace @ VO2Max. Matt's a little bit of a wildcard here. We know he's exceptionally talented but his area of growth is probably less understood than yours. Meaning, Matt probably just needs to focus on doing any type of fast running during OS/early season where you probably need to be more focused in your approach. So, I think Matt would do equally well by just focusing on T pace running. You, on the other hand, might benefit by being a bit more selective in your chosen intensity level.
Having said all of that, I honestly see very little benefit and huge risk by trying to determine whether your roof or ceiling is low when it comes to running. Sure maybe if we were pure 5k or 10k runners but we're not. We're apples compared to those oranges, imho.
Thanks, Chris
For this year, I'm not planning on modifying my actual training much at this time and will stick with the T and some IP running in the OS plans and then I will follow the HIM/IM plans as written.
I do think I am going to try and do a bunch of different races this spring from 1mi, 5k, 10k and Half Marathon just to get a few date points thought.
P