HIM Thursday long run for "faster" runners

zwuba

Thanks to Al Truscotts thread about how to adjust the long runs for "slower" runners I've some words to say which came to my mind during my Thursday runs from the HIM Adv plan.

As a "faster" runner (vDOT > 55) all the prescribed 120' workouts (eg Week 14, 15, 16) would cover well over 21k for each of them. I calculated the theoretical distance for workout from week #16 with my actual training paces and it would result in almost 30k 

I know that these long-runs are the most important and critical ones each week but IMHO it's almost impossible to get them done AND recover well for the bike-intensive weekend when you cover that distance.

On the other hand I'm also confident that there's a benefit of running more than just 21k in these runs but I would limit it to 20% (which would result in a maximum distance of 25,x)



There's a lot more details I could write here but maybe Coach P. throws in his thoughts first!



What I would suggest is changing this:

"MS: 80' @ z2/MP/Steady, 25' @ z3/HMP/ModHard, 15' final push at best possible effort. " 

into this:

"MS: 80' @ z2/MP/Steady, 25' @ z3/HMP/ModHard, 15' final push at best possible effort. Run for 120' OR 25k whatever comes first! Faster runners hitting 25k earlier should adjust duration of each pace-segment accordingly."

Peter Noyes

I have posted lots of questions about this in my Micro forum. I agree it would be great to have some sort of official protocol on what to do about this. There are similar issues in the IM plan, for instance Wk 16 would have me run 22 miles at a 6:50 average pace if I follow it exactly, and then the Wk 17 run race rehearsal would have me do 18 miles at a 7:40 pace. I think the race rehearsal was intended to be the more difficult run.

Dave Tallo

What I would suggest is changing ... :

into this:


"MS: 80' @ z2/MP/Steady, 25' @ z3/HMP/ModHard, 15' final push at best possible effort. Run for 120' OR 25k whatever comes first! Faster runners hitting 25k earlier should adjust duration of each pace-segment accordingly."

If we're wordsmithing, I'll do you one further and suggest the above read:

"MS: 80' @ z2/MP/Steady, 25' @ z3/HMP/ModHard, 15' final push at best possible effort. Run for 120' OR 25k whatever comes first! Faster runners hitting 25k earlier should adjust duration of each pace-segment accordingly.   If the additional distance has a downstream effect and impacts the quality of subsequent workouts, run 25k max."

Now, I know I'm being ridiculous, but I'm putting this thought out there to flag the premise that we want to do as much work as we can,  without breakdown.  So, more is more, until it dicks up one's ability to do yet more.    (That said, I do acknowledge that there is some mystical ceiling of the marathon distance minus 10k after which "recovery matches" get burned at an accelerated rate.)

 

 

Al Truscott

I agree … 2 hours is a repeatable weekly workout for anyone capable of running 25k or more in that time. On a good day I can hit 25k in 2:01 for my weekly long run. Once I start going longer (time-wise, not distance wise), I begin to feel it downstream. Onmly useful when training for IM or marathon, IMO.

robin sarner

Last season or before, for IM training, i capped the longs runs at 2 hours (16 miles x 7:30 pace). Didn't slow down for the races. But i was doing multiple IMs per year.

Don't know about HIM training. Does anyone cap the run at race distance and just work the intervals?

zwuba

HIM long runs structure does in fact look totally different from IM long runs.
IM runs do normally consist of 2-3 MP intervals and topoff the rest of the time with EP.
HIM runs start at MP for a huge amount of time (let's say 60% of total time) than increase to HMP for another 20% and finish calls out for "best possible effort but not faster than TP".
If I put that all together I end up with an average pace right between HMP and MP for the total 2 hours covering almost 19 miles.
IMO due to the intensity of this run the training stress produced is so high that you simply can't recover for the Saturday bike.

I was not able to perform ANY 2 hour long run from the HIM Adv plan until now - so I decided to cut them down to 105-110' maximum (knowing I'm able to run my HIM below 90').

Al Truscott

Very few here are as fast as Stefan . Thise who are, and are HIM training should listen t o his experience. 25k may be the way to go ... Or, STOP, I guess.

danbillingsley

Wow, I have been asking the same question of the HIM Long Run.  I have not been able to complete or recover from these.  Capping the run at 15 or 16 miles makes more sense.  Why would this not be defined in the plan? 

MattAaronson

Stefan, thanks for bringing this point up. I am VDOT 54 and running 2 hours averaging faster than MP is like running a marathon to mile 18. Speeding up to HMP after 15 miles at MP is a VERY TOUGH WORKOUT.

That said, when marathon training I would weekly do a run of 18-22 miles averaging ~7:10 pace with a strong negative split that included the last 4 miles faster than MP. So, I did the distance and duration, in a "progressive" format over the course of the run, but not the overall intensity.

I do not believe that truncating the 2-hour run is a good idea because I think that volume and a long run that is longer than the HIM run is not a bad thing at all. But I do think lowering the intensity of that run is recommended. Sustaining multiple weeks of that length AND intensity is, in my mind, impossible.

Peter Noyes

I think it makes sense to lower the intensity but keep the time on the long runs. I did the 2:15 workout as written and that took A LOT out of me. I basically ended up doing 19 miles at a 6:58 pace. The following week per Coach P's instruction I dialed it back and did the 2:30 workout at just under a 7:30 pace. I still got 20 miles in and it was by no means easy, but I was able to recover much better from that run than the previous run. For my next IM I think I will do the workouts as written until it gets up to over 2 hours, and then I will dial back the intensity but do the whole duration.

zwuba

@Matt - I totally agree but when the plan calls our for a 120' run and I KNOW my HIM run will take me only 90' and I'll cut the run down to 105' (which is still A LOT longer than my race will be) I still believe that's a pretty nice way to hack the plan for the faster peeps here

@Peter - I did the long runs >=2h of the IM Adv plan last year in California and they were killing me!! I wasn't able to do any of the Friday runs at all because my whole body and especially my knee was crying for recovery so I skipped all of them!
I also wasn't able to hit all the interval goals and just gave up on some of them like the 2x45' MP I remember about 6 weeks out of raceday ... impossible ... gave up on the second repeat at 30' and had to walk for some MINUTES to recover (heart rate was astonomically high for a long run > 175)

In general I believe that it's all about the TOTAL WORK you put out ... if I go out for a hard Z4-ride on the bike for an hour it will be about 1000kJ of work. Not so strong folks will have to spend 70' or even more on the bike for the same amount of work. Same thing on the run ... if I run faster I do the same work in a shorter period of time so why not cutt down time a little ...
Of course all of that should still not violate my rule of running the "long run" 10-20% longer than on race-day (for HIM!)

Rumpole

Anyone have a link to the thread for the turtles?