Fess Up - Who is adding more miles to the long runs?
Had another exit interview today. I love to hear what people think about EN and how we can improve...and today's caller let me know that they were not alone in finding the run volume for our training plans to be insufficient given a lower vDOT -- let's call it 10:00/mile or slower.
I pointed out that running by time, not distance, is on purpose. If I assign an 18 mile long run but it takes you 120 minutes but takes me 210 minutes...that's an "extra" 90 minutes that isn't accounted for in your training plan. IOW, if I limit you by time I know (or at least until this call I kinda thought I knew!) just how much you were running from week to week.
Before I brainstorm some ideas on how to fix this, I want to point out that I told the caller they could have posted to the forums or send me a PM or read the Wiki on how to modify the plans....but the basic point was that they shouldn't really have to read all that other stuff to use their plan. While that's not truly how Endurance Nation operates, I do agree that (1) the runs could be explained better by ability level/vDOT and (2) these macro level changes should be evident in the plan itself.
I am not going to fix this tomorrow. You might tell me it's not broken. You might scream hallelujah. Either way, I just want to know if you as a 10:00/mile runner or slower for you long runs have been modifying your long run volume and if so, how.
Thanks!
Comments
I subscribe fully to the principal that running by time ensures that everyone accumulates the same training stress regardless of their training paces. I get it, I understand it, and I love the logic. In particular for training to run faster and raise LT that makes total sense to me (notwithstanding the comment I made at the very end of this reply).
I also believe that for the most part there is "enough running" in the EN plans to ensure preparedness for a high level of performance. I have personally experienced the HIM plans and actually think for the higher VDOT runners there might be too much running (these contain some 120' runs that, for me, cover 16-17 miles…well over the HIM run distance that I typically run in ~95' during the race). For the IM plans I think the team has enough accumulated data to suggest that most folks run enough. Remember in the EN philosophy you are doing "high ROI" training. There are diminishing returns to incremental training at some point and the trick is to draw the line at some point where the ROI falls below a threshold (for the "average" EN athlete of course, because you're writing plans for the masses here).
All that said, there is no question that a running race – particularly one that comes after a 112 mile bike race! – that takes someone 5-6 hours to do requires different training than a race that takes someone 3-4 hours. At the most simple level, the slower runner is on their feet for a substantially longer time. There are physiological adaptations that are required for a 5-6 hour run that are different from those required by the faster runner.
So perhaps there is indeed a logic for in-season long-runs to be adjusted based on VDOT.
(btw, as a total aside, I've always wondered why you prescribe mile repeats and not 7' repeats or other LT intervals based on time...interestingly some running books advocate for slow runners using 6' or 7' for "mile repeats").
I suggest, for those who think they will be out on the run course for five hours or more, and think they need more "training", to add time walking, not running, to their long runs. Running for more than 2.5 hours in training is too high a downstream cost to pay. Walking will achieve the desired effect ... Getting mentally ready to put one foot in front of another.
For the record, I have run several IM marathons, walking only aid stations, at 10 and 11 min mile paces, along with a number @9.25-9.75. But I have never done more than 2:40 for my longest pre race run, usually closer to 2:20. The plan's run volume works to provide sufficient run fitness for race day. If people are feeling insecure, encourage them to add time to one or two long runs ...walking.
From his website he has different ratios for different paces. I had listened to one of his presentations at Big Sur in 2008. He also lead a group to a 4 hour finish using a 1 min / 1 min strategy. They beat me!
From his website:
Run-walk-run ratio should correspond to the training pace used:
8 min/mi—run 4 min/walk 35 seconds
9 min/mi— 4 min run-1 min walk
10 min/mi—-3:1
11 min/mi—2:30-1
12 min/mi—-2:1
13 min/mi—-1:1
14 min/mi—30 sec run/30 sec walk
15 min/mi—30 sec/45 sec
16 min/mi—30 sec/60 sec
How you incorporate that approach in the plans would be messy. This may be better left as a personal customization at the digression of the athlete WITH the consent of RnP.
I'm slower sub 10s or a 40 Vdot and I always try to run more I must admit.
Agree with Al about adding additional volume by walking etc. all that adds to durability.
@Patrick. Am I suppose to do an exit interview? If so how?
I like the walking idea of Al's. Other possibilities are to have an optional run RR, maybe at 18 miles, and cut back bike volume that week and do at least 3 weeks out. Stress that it is purely for those who have run less than that, and need the mental pickmeup of being able to do it. Something I've also liked with my marathon training plans in the past is that medium long run, of 8-10 miles every week. That makes 8-10 miles seem like no big deal, so when you are at mile 16, the miles remaining seems super doable instead of daunting.
All that being said, as a PT I definitely respect the limiting run distance, especially for slower runners. One of the toughest parts of all the couch-to-marathoners I see is that for their 20 mile runs, they are going for 4-5+ hours. While the way they are running is different than a faster runner, all in all, that is a LONG time on your feet stressing your body, and can do some damage.
I'm a huge advocate of volume through frequency and really think the long run is unnecessary but that's my $.02 on that matter.
What is not debatable, IMO, is there's too much long running (especially as a % of total volume) in the triathlon world and especially among newer IM triathletes. Capping the long run at 2:30 is more than sufficient for anyone. The problem is that newbie triathletes and a huge percentage of triathlon coaches want to train like they're running a marathon. I read Beginner Triathlete and cringe whenever I see some "coach" offering advice like "I have my slower athletes run 20 miles so they get used to it and know what it feels like." There are lots of coaches who prescribe to this line of BS and have no problems sending their athletes out for 4 hour runs every week or two. Imagine the injury and burnout risks associated with this craziness.
The other problem is an IM athletes fixation on the run... also especially for newer IM triathletes. "But how can I expect to run 26.2 miles at 11:00/mile pace when I only ran 2 1/2 hours in training." I'm sure the caller on the other end of Patrick's conversation said those exact words. We all thought that way at first. Then we did the training and realized it worked. I was very worried about the IM marathon before I did my first IM in 2010. Stuck with the plan and the run really wasn't that bad at all. What IM triathletes need to fixate on is the bike. Bike fitness, bike pacing, bike nutrition are, IMO, more important than run training. You could take a sub-3 hour stand alone marathoner and easily turn them into a 5 hour IM marathoner if they don't execute their bike well. It happens at every IM race. Proper training on the bike + good bike execution on race day + sticking with your prescribed run training = a successful race. It really is that simple.
I'm in 100% agreement with you. I think that volume would get me where I need to be from a run perspective but who has the time to run 8-9 hours per week on top of the swim and bike training plus job and family. This is something I'm really going to contemplate going into the offseason. My first race isn't until the end of June next year so I may just do a run only OS and pick up the bike and swim a few months out. Sorry for the sidetrack, P.
The HIM plans in the heaviest weeks call for running around 5 hours/week, at least 4x/week. That's a lot of miles for a 10-minute miler, more than sufficient (it's only ~40 miles for a 7-minutes miler, though). But on a week like that 2 of the runs (Saturday AND Sunday) are 30 mins after or before a long bike, and I do think people bag the shorter runs. Another of those runs is on a swim/run day and people sometimes bag a short run on a day that has a double. So all of a sudden people are in the low 30's and 3x/week. Actually I think the 3x/week is more problematic than the reduced frequency.
If the above is true, then (a) the plans need to ensure that some sufficient level of mileage is in there, regardless of duration (and this may already be the case), (b) the way to hit the mileage for slower runners might be even more frequency and not extending long runs (this would benefit everyone, not only slower runners!), and (c) that people are compliant and don't bag the shorter runs.
I have to say there are some natural tensions between the three things I wrote above. Getting extra mileage by frequency not duration may hurt compliance and actually lower mileage. And from an ROI standpoint -- sorry, but I have to go there, it's core to the EN philosophy and a big reason I'm train the EN way -- adding more frequency means more days with doubles, which means more overhead and time. Not sure if the equation will work for the majority...
Oh, and regarding (c), the "workout priority" in the plans tacitly endorses bagging runs on bike/run days...........
(another random aside, if we could get everyone to log workouts on a common platform, some of the analysis of training patterns could be incredibly powerful...)
However, my next long race will be in '15, God willing, and I am planning on running alot more (in frequency and adding to the long run) in 2014 while being plugged into the short course stuff. I was going to drop this in the forums but haven't gotten around to it, yet, been too busy running since Wisc.
Can we please be allowed to edit our posts if we screw something up ??? !!!
Matt,
5x per week for 35-45 mpw is what I did or tried to do in training. Long runs maxed out at 90 minutes (11 miles). That stated, I might do two 90 minute runs during the week and maybe go something like 6,6,8,10,10 for a total of 40 miles in the 5 weekly runs. The net effect for me was I was less beat up both physically and mentally. 2:30 long runs in 100+ with SE Texas humidity are 1) not remotely fun and 2) physically taxing to the point it's a recovery issue.
Work commitments wreaked havoc on my IMFL training plan so my training has been erratic at best for this race but my training for Texas 70.3 and IMC were pretty steady and my running has never been better.
Great discussion, thanks everyone for your input. My notes:
So for the >~13:00 IM athlete that I think we're talking about here, we can create huge PR's for them by:
Good points everyone. Here is my $.02.
In my first year of EN and training for an IM (2011), I doubted that I'd be ready to run a marathon with just a 2.5 hour long run. I had done 3.5 long runs (24 miles) in prep for open marathons prior to joining EN. But I figured I'd try the EN way since my body just couldn't handle 3.5 training runs plus swimming & biking. The most important thing I learned was that the EN way had SPEED WORK inside that 2.5 run; the plan asked me run 60' Z1 , then do 30' Z3, then 30' Z1, then 20' Z3 again after running for 2 hours. Holy Cow!! That was way harder than running for 3.5 hours @ Z1 9:00 pace. Forcing myself to accelerate a second time, after already running for 2 hours, was really tough, but an unbelievable confidence builder for me. For me, that is the "special sauce" that made the entire EN run program work. After the first time I did it, I was like "Wow! Did I just do that? How many other people (non-EN people) training for an IM are doing that? I bet not many could do it." And it really sunk in the next day when my legs weren't completely trashed like they would have been if I had run for 3.5 hours.
Net, I make sure I get the faster work inside the long run but I stop @ 2.5 hours. For the record, for my IMWI build this year, I generally ran 4 times/week. My 3 highest run mileage weeks were 30 miles, 32 miles & 35 miles, with half of the weekly mileage in the long run on Thursday. I ran a 4:08 marathon (2:03 first half and 2:05 second half) @ IMWI.
Finally, I completely agree with the comments about stronger bike fitness, good bike pacing, proper nutrition, and correct run pacing @ the start of the IM run being critical for a solid IM run.
For the record, I do NOT advocate RnP change the long runs to include more time via walking or running for anyone. But if someone simply can't get their head around the truth that one need not go either the full time or distance in training to be ready for an IM. Marathon, then I would advise them to add the time, via walking, at the front end of their long run. Added benefit, it teaches how utterly boring and mind numbing walking during an IM is, and helps train the mind to be ready to run at the END of the race.
You wanna prove to yourself you can go the time or distance before attempting an IM, do a marathon, more than 12 weeks out from the IM. being one of the many who ran his first marathon at the end of an IM, I feel the only value would be mental/self confidence, no fitness benefit whatsoever.
It's maddening, isn't it? Coaches like that are simply bad for the sport and in particular bad for their athlete's longevity in the sport.
I'm going to coach my stepsister through her first IM next year. She has run a couple of marathons and HIMs so she should know better. Problem is she's very active with her tri club and I know she will discuss my training plan with some of the folks in her club and they will comment on how she isn't doing "enough." I'm already dreading those discussions.
''But you're paying me to be your coach."!
I joined EN for specific reasons that I sometimes have to reminded of. I am now reminded, again.
Running extra now won't make my poor execution at Wisconsin go away.
I'm zeroed in on following the plans and I'll use that extra energy for working on things like body comp, nutrition plans, and better recovery.
She's one of the most dedicated and motivated people I've ever seen, to the point of lunacy. Don't know how she ultimately did, as I gave up listening to her and her asinine workouts.
As a slower runner I must chime in here as this was the exact reason I fired my coach the day after IMFL last year.
When I did the Walt Disney World Marathon last January (2012), a good portion of my running club went down and we ran it together. Only we didn't. We had 2 pace groups if you will, the ~4 hour marathoners and the 6-7 hour marathoners. Most of the faster runners would not run the marathon with the slower runners only because they had never been on their feet that long, a whole 3 hours longer on their bodies that they were not prepared for. Those that did run/walk with the 7 hour group ended up in a world of hurt afterwards because that was so much more time than they have ever ran. So, even with run/walks (which is what the 7 hour group did) it was too painful for the 4 hour group even though the mileage was the exact same at the end of the day. It is NOT about milage, but about the time on one's feet that makes the difference.
I understand that as a coach you need to regulate training hours and cumulative fatigue and all of the good metrics that add up to success come gun time, But a 2-2:45 hour training run for my friend is not the same as a 2-2:45 hour training run for me, when come IM day she gets an additional say 2-2.5 hours on her body for the IM marathon finishing in 5 hours and I get an additional 5 hours on my body for the IM marathon finishing it in 7. I am out there for hours and hours longer under the same cumulative training time on our bodies. Her body won't hurt the same, her body won't heal the same, we are just not the same.
My plan in 2012 capped out at 1:45 of running. There is a HUGE difference between 1:45 in training on my longest run, and the reality of me being a 12 minute mile marathoner outside of IM. My body was grossly underprepared for the stress of being on my feet that long and I ended up walking the last 13 miles of IMFL brokenhearted that I was in another death march.
And to clarify, currently I am NOT modifying the runs, I may eek out a bonus few minutes to get a nice round number on my Garmin, but I am not running significantly more than prescribed. I also feel much stronger within EN than I ever have before... I just wanted to share my experience with the volume topic. I get that 2.5 -3 hours is sufficent for most people, for me it has NOTHING to do with confidence. I know that I can cover the distance be it 13.1, 26.2 70.3 or 140.6. For me it boils down to how much pain do I want to feel? I am not talking about the good pain, but the pain my body feels when I have not spent enough time preparing for something.
So far so good with EN! :-)
I think the longest run on the plan was 3 hours and had a description to stop at 180 minutes or 18 miles which ever comes first.?
If anyone is thinks that they are not running enough (in their training plan or week) with the Thursday long run set up the way that it is, then my only question is....are you doing all the other running in the plans....including all those short 30 to 45 minute runs on Mondays and Fridays? And not just swimming and skipping it. Those runs are just as important to keep everything moving. If you add up all the running throughout the week, there is plenty of work there (my opinion anyways). The point I am trying to make is if you are doing ALL the running across the entire week, week in and week out, then the last thing you need to do is add extra miles to hit some magic mileage number.
Along a similar thought, the Hanson's Marathon program, the longest run is 16 miles. 16!! And that is for actually running a marathon, not a triathlon.....even in the Advanced plan. When you read through how their entire program is setup (in the book The Hanson's Marathon Method) and how it is made to work with the other days of running, it makes total sense how they discuss cumulative fatigue and how each day in the plan is important and sets up the following days. (to me anyways).
Thanks everyone for this thread, very good reading.
@JK, thanks for adding your perspective. A couple notes:
My long run pace last season was around 8:30s.
I'm also a firm believer that not running well in an ironman is mostly NOT related to lack of run fitness for the average age grouper. Bike pace, nutrition, focus, desire, and ability to just keep going are all more important. I'm working on all of those things.
And wow this is a great thread.
Rich nails the realities on the ironman run course. Like hanging on for dear life trying not to walk. I was running 10s at the end of my last IM because walking 20s was only going to prolong the suffering. And for me a faster bike and slightly slower run resulted in a huge PR.
But age is having effect and the EN way is now working better for me. I still add runs for frequency when I can, and may push a few runs over 2.5 hrs if the weather is right. In the summer, 2.5 hrs is impossible and I will hit 3 hrs in one day in two sessions...a strategy used by some to build resilience when they are slow. On The whole, however, I stay within the limit on the vast majority of runs.