Home General Training Discussions

Too fast this whole time?

Interesting that I just realised I might be doing my run threshold intervals too fast ...for along time.  My Z4 from the data tool is 6:04 and Z5 is 5:39.  I typically target 5:40-5:45 for my 1-1.5 mile intervals.  It's challenging but not brutal since it is slower than my 5k race pace.  It also generally agrees with the "speed workout" mile pace for distance runners I'd get from the Mcmillan Running alculator....although mile cruise intervals are in the 5:54-6:02 range.  So I've generally been going 10-15sec/mile too fast on these for the last 2 years...interesting.  I don't think I'm having trouble recovering for subsequent workouts and it seems logical to me that I'd want to be somewhere between 5k and 10k race pace for intervals as short as 1-1.5 miles.

Comments

  • Joel, Z5 in the data tool is usually just about 5k pace. You're saying that you're doing run intervals of 2x1mi at a few seconds off of 5k pace. That should feel do-able to an experienced runner like you. The risk is in the recovery cost of doing that frequently. Running at the Z4 TP will give you most of the same get faster adaptations, with reduced recovery costs and injury risk. Usually that's a smarter decision for most folks. YMMV.

  •  I was guilty of/also doing the same...but took a step back to ask myself what I was doing...why is there Z4 v Z5 etc... ..and here is th rub...of course we are cabable of handling these paces...(Z5)...for these intervals...but the purpose of this phase of training is more Threshold...and that pace is about 20-30 sec. below 5k...this effor/work trains different systems....it really helps to read (or in my case reread) Daniels....I don't think it hurts in the long run (to mix in Z5 work now) however....it is not the same training effect(s)....I get antsy and have/wanted to run 800-1500's at Z5...but have decided to drink the Kool Aid and stick to the OS plan.....

  • I agree with the 2 above. No need to risk injury and recovery lost. And don't forget those books on runnining are for those running only not triathletes that are biking hard too. I would think over time it could affect performance either bike or run. Also, no need to be a workout super star just at the races!!
  • Posted By Joseph Lombardi on 07 Feb 2012 02:34 PM

     but the purpose of this phase of training is more Threshold...and that pace is about 20-30 sec. below 5k...

    Agree, but what nags me is that I think we need to do a little hacking here for faster runners.  Even at Z4 I'd only be getting a total of 18min at pace for 2X1.5 miles.  Yet when we do the cycling version of threshold we are looking at 30-40min at 95-100% threshold.  I realize the stresses from running may be greater but it seems like too significant of a difference for the same philosophy. So I may start doing 2-2.5 mile intervals @ Z4 instead of 1-1.5 @ Z5.

    Ironically, I just got back in from doing 2X 1.5 @ 5:45 and it was HARD today

  • I hear ya Joel...as a "runner" I would do Tempo and Speed Intervals throughout the year...usually as a longer tempo workout #1 on Tuesday and a Shorter Speed Interval session as #2 on Thursdays....with EN the periodization is Tempo/Threshold stuff focus for 6 weeks...shift to Shorter Speed focus...then back to Temp again...I think the main difference/benefit is that it takes into account the overall balance of work, especially its impact on cylce workouts....so I'm trying to 'be good" and follow the plan this year...because last year I kinda continued my self-styled running program rather than follow the OS....

    Again...I think its fine to mix it up...as long as it doesn't detract from your ability to complete the other (bike) work sessions....and your able to handle/recover.

     

    FYI - just to put into context... my current Z5 is 6:03 ...so I am a little slower than you (though I ran 5:30 in my 20-30's and   am anxious to get back the and crack 19 for my 5k ...but am plaing the EN gameplan and focusing Triathlon this year..rather than run...I hope it works...for me there are big gains to be made on the bike....and I know I can still handle/improve on the run.

  • I guess the discrepancy here is that we use distance to prescribe running intervals and that results in a variable amount of work depending on your pace whereas on the bike everyone does a set amount. As a faster runner I'm not getting as much time at pace as others because I cover 1 or 1.5 miles quicker. Anyone have insight on why we don't use intervals of specific time - 2X10', 2X12', 2X15' for example?

    Also, Z5 is used for VO2 workouts but we're talking roughly 5k race pace an I don't think that is fast enough to really be considered VO2. Many people are out there running 20-25min. If you can maintain the effort for that duration it's not doing much for VO2. I'd think somewhere between mile and 3k race pace would be more appropriate, no?
  • Joel, you're right. There's always a risk/reward calculation, and doing more work means higher risk, higher reward, along with higher injury risk.

    The plans are built around doing the minimum necessary to get faster, not doing the maximum possible. Each of us has our own calculation to do as far as going above and beyond.

    Runners north of 60 Vdot may well have to do more and faster running. We never do Daniels' repetition pace, or faster than 5k. You're absolutely right that running 1/2 mi at 5k pace isn't actually a VO2 stimulus. For many of us, it's enough to make us faster. You might require more.

    If you're doing it, and not getting hurt, and it's not thrashing you for your bike days, then go for it.
  • This is a great thread. The reason why we do run intervals by time, and not distance, is that different runners of different abilities would be stacking up different mileage each week. In other words, a faster runner may put in 2 or 3 more miles at threshold pace as compared to a slower runner. And that will be the case even if they were of the same overall ability as a triathlete. Know if we were talking strictly running plans, my approach would be different for certain.

    Rather than focus on the amount of work you're doing within each training session as a marker of difficulty, I think it's important to look at the outcomes-your race results. If your bill if you're able to get faster over time, and across your races, the more the train its own fiber zone for is pretty much moot. Even given the limiting nature of zone 5 efforts, there are many other ways to gain training stress on the run outside of running that fast. I personally like to insert a lot of zone 3, or half marathon pace effort, into my training as a means of adding stress with out adding danger.

    I think the approach you are suggesting bodes well for a short training window, or for someone using a shorter distance training plan. As in you might be training for a half or an Olympic distance race. I think the long-term cost of doing that kind of intensity, in an experienced runner, could lead to a faster plateau or burnout. That said, if you can beat the system, go for it!
  • Posted By Patrick McCrann on 10 Feb 2012 04:11 PM

    This is a great thread. The reason why we do run intervals by time, and not distance, is that different runners of different abilities would be stacking up different mileage each week. In other words, a faster runner may put in 2 or 3 more miles at threshold pace as compared to a slower runner. And that will be the case even if they were of the same overall ability as a triathlete. Know if we were talking strictly running plans, my approach would be different for certain.





    @CoachP - I am a bit confused by the statement highlighted above.  Should that say "don't"?  I ask because the OS plans I am looking at all have the intervals as distances (e.g. 1/2 mile, 1 mile, etc).

     

  • This Thread got me thinking in a similar vein. But For SC and HIM runners with a Vdot >50 Vo2 intervals might be better done by time but for IM, intervals by distance may be best.
  • Great thread. Two thoughts:

    1. Daniels' workouts that include cruise intervals are just punishing...a different league than the EN runs. Think 6x 1 mile @ TP with 1' recoveries, 4x 2 miles with 2' recoveries , that sort of thing. The EN program is not doing that, but for experienced and fit runners it is certainly possible to train that way without injury. Try doing THOSE at materially faster than your z4 and you won't make it to the end of the workout!!

    2. In the EN workouts there is an emphasis on "remainder at z3". At my 49-ish VDOT my z3 is within 10 sec/mi of z4. Joel's will be even closer. So essentially the workout is asking you to do a LOT more time at or near TP than just the stated intervals. When I have a workout that's 3x 1 mile @z4 I'll commonly (a) do an extra interval and/or (b) run the z3 portion at z4. Like Joel I tend to run the z4 portions closer to 5k pace depending on how I feel (I'm fairly RPE-based once I've met the minimum pace for the interval), but I sure can't do that for all the "extra time"...that's going to be TP and not much faster.
  • Good points Matt. I don't do any Z3 after the intervals - just a mile or two easy CD since I'm usually on lunch break. I'm also hacking my run plan right now because I'm marathon training so I typically also have a tempo type run, long run, and hill repeats each week. My Z3 and Z4 are only like 6sec different but if I knocked the pace down slightly closer to Z4 I would be able to hold some Z3 to finish out but I just don't have enough time with a mid-day run.
  • Matt, I take the suggestion to 'accumulate some more Z3 time' to mean more like 'spend some time running at the pace you could hold for 1:45-2 hours". In the case of a 50+ Vdot athlete, this is much closer to Z2 than Z3. I have absolutely no idea how you're knocking out Z3 for a prolonged time after Z4 intervals. I'd be toast after a week or two of doing that.
Sign In or Register to comment.