Is speed very perishable?

[tackleme]

Here is a little problem I've noticed after about 3 years of running.

When I train for distance, I lose speed. I've seen doing track work for 4 weeks straight shave off 2
to 3 minutes per mile. But I quickly lose this gain if I start focusing on distance.

Is speed really that perishable?

Because of this problem, I feel like I am doing more track work at the expense of distance.

Another thing that really kills my speed are day long hikes, which I enjoy very much. What is with
that? You train/exercise more but the net effect is worse than running a few days at the track.

Obviously those elite marathon runners are doing something right to accomplish both speed and
distance. Or is it purely a matter of maintaining an extremely skinny frame? I really don't want to
get below 160lbs for a 6' frame.

[Globaldisc]

When I train for distance, I lose speed. I've seen doing track work for 4 weeks straight shave off 2
to 3 minutes per mile. But I quickly lose this gain if I start focusing on distance.
-------------------------------------

This does not make sense. Shaving off 2 - 3 minutes per mile in just 4 weeks of track work?....how
on earth did training for distance cause you to lose this measure/magnitude of speed? It would take
most runners a very very long period of time of doing nothing but sitting on their butts to lose 2-3
minutes per
mile. And you're saying you somehow manage to get slower to this magnitude by training for
distance and only recover the lossed grown by 4 weeks of track work? Makes no sense.

You should give specifics when posing a question like this too....apprx. distances, times, etc.

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <galemvs072mt5jno15j73njqgpovbmmsje@4ax.com>, tackleme@nospam.com wrote:
>
> Here is a little problem I've noticed after about 3 years of running.
>
> When I train for distance, I lose speed. I've seen doing track work for 4 weeks straight shave off
> 2 to 3 minutes per mile. But I quickly lose this gain if I start focusing on distance.
>
> Is speed really that perishable?

Yes.

> Because of this problem, I feel like I am doing more track work at the expense of distance.

You don't need a whole lot of track work to maintain your speed at a reasonable level. However,
doing a lot of milage may make you a little slower on the track.

One thing I've found is that you don't need to be always running fast to do well in races. You just
need to be fast on race day. You need to do some track work as you get close to race day and
possibly bring milage down a little. However, you don't need 3 track sessions a week year round. I
think Lydiard said something like "you can't train hard and race hard at the same time".

If you would like to do a better job of maintaining your speed, it may help to do a single speed
session a week. That speed session could be anything from a few 200m dashes thrown into a run, or a
tempo run, to a full blown track session. You should be able to stay within about 30 seconds per
mile of your peak performance all the time.

> Another thing that really kills my speed are day long hikes, which I enjoy very much. What is with
> that? You train/exercise more but the net effect is worse than running a few days at the track.

You can do a surprisingly large amount of milage in a days walking. If you are not trained in
walking, then it can make you sore, just like any other activity.

> Obviously those elite marathon runners are doing something right to accomplish both speed and
> distance.

They do both speed and distance training.

> Or is it purely a matter of maintaining an extremely skinny frame? I really don't want to get
> below 160lbs for a 6' frame.

I think there are some sub 2:10 American marathon runners with a higher BMI than 160lb for 6 ft.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[ahass]

As for American marathoners running 2:10 at a 6ft/160 lb BMI, I'd have to disagree. The only guys
we have around there are Culpepper and Browne, and they're pretty skinny guys. Take a look at the
Chicago Marathon elite section, my 5'10" 147 lb frame looks big compared to those guys. You say
elite marathoners must be doing something right to keep both their speed and endurance. Well, speed
is relative. I bet Khalid Khannouchi could really improve his relatively poor 5K/10K performances
if he stopped concentrating on the marathon. Paula Radcliffe is a rare outlier in this
respect...but maybe she could too. Bottom line is, they are not nearly as maxed out on speed as
they could be. This is where periodization is useful. Endurance lasts longer than speed, so you run
a base period of high mileage to build up potential. Then start throwing in tempo runs to improve
aerobic threshhold. Then as you approach racing season, 4-6 weeks with tough speedwork and BAM! PRs
result. Andy Hass

[Anders Lustig]

ahass@dontspamumich.edu wrote in message news:<iRP9b.2702$H91.59758@news.itd.umich.edu>...

> This is where periodization is useful. Endurance lasts longer than speed, so you run a base
> period of high mileage to build up potential. Then start throwing in tempo runs to improve
> aerobic threshhold. Then as you approach racing season, 4-6 weeks with tough speedwork and BAM!
> PRs result.

Or, in the long run (when one can afford it), one can seek to improve one´s marathon PB by improving
one´s 5K and 10K PBs.

After winning last year´s European Championship Janne Holmén decided to concentrate on track
races this year for the sole purpose of acquiring the kind of speed he will need in next year´s
Olympic marathon.

For me, such a perspective of two years is quite unimaginable...

Anders

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <iRP9b.2702$H91.59758@news.itd.umich.edu>, ahass@dontspamumich.edu wrote:
>
> As for American marathoners running 2:10 at a 6ft/160 lb BMI, I'd have to disagree. The only
> guys we have around there are Culpepper and Browne, and they're pretty skinny guys. Take a look
> at the Chicago Marathon elite section, my 5'10" 147 lb frame looks big compared to those guys.
> You say

Your BMI is about the same as 6' and 160lb. Todd Williams is the same height as you and 2lb lighter.
Lawson is slightly taller, and somewhat heavier.

For the average runner, avoiding carrying too much weight will help performance, but it's not always
desirable or even possible for a large-framed runner to get down to the same weight as an elite
marathon runner. The ideal weight for such runners will be much higher than the ideal weight for
someone with a light runners frame.

CHeers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Dave Andersen]

Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <galemvs072mt5jno15j73njqgpovbmmsje@4ax.com>, tackleme@nospam.com wrote:
>>
>> Here is a little problem I've noticed after about 3 years of running.
>>
>> When I train for distance, I lose speed. I've seen doing track work for 4 weeks straight shave
>> off 2 to 3 minutes per mile. But I quickly lose this gain if I start focusing on distance.
>>
>> Is speed really that perishable?
>
> Yes.

Wait a minute. Speed is perishable, but it's not perishable to the extent of 2 to 3 MINUTES per
mile when you're just shifting training to distance. Something still doesn't compute here, and
until the original poster spits out more details, there's no way these answers are right. Maybe in
marathon pace that kind of difference could happen, but it's not going to happen from working on
distance...

Can you imagine someone dropping from a 15:30 to a 21:40 5k merely by leaving out some track
workouts for a month while running longer and slower? Not a chance. Maybe if the original poster is
running 10 minute miles at best, but in that case, they're either out of shape, or they're
relatively new and need to build a real base before working on any kind of speed, or they're a
geriatric runner for whom much of this advise is probably broken.

-Dave

--
work: dga - at - lcs.mit.edu me: angio - at - pobox.com MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
http://www.angio.net/ (note that my reply-to address is vaguely despammed...) bulk emailers: I do
not accept unsolicited email. Do not mail me.

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <oCCdnfX5r9GU5PWiXTWJhg@aros.net>, Dave Andersen wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>> In article <galemvs072mt5jno15j73njqgpovbmmsje@4ax.com>, tackleme@nospam.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is a little problem I've noticed after about 3 years of running.
>>>
>>> When I train for distance, I lose speed. I've seen doing track work for 4 weeks straight shave
>>> off 2 to 3 minutes per mile. But I quickly lose this gain if I start focusing on distance.
>>>
>>> Is speed really that perishable?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Wait a minute. Speed is perishable, but it's not perishable to the extent of 2 to 3 MINUTES per
> mile when you're just shifting training to distance.

What part of the following text THAT YOU SNIPPED confuses you ?

"You should be able to stay within about 30 seconds per mile of your peak performance all the time."

I misspoke when I said "yes" -- the take-home message of my post, which you don't appear to have
read, is that speed is perishable, but not 2-3min/mile perishable.

> Something still doesn't compute here,

Yeah, you don't.

The post is probably either a troll, or someone who is used to running at a typical "training pace",
and then tends to run at closer to "race pace", which could well be 2min/mile faster than training
pace after doing some track work.

> and until the original poster spits out more details, there's no way these answers are right.

Bull****. The truth or otherwise of the statements I've posted does not depend a wholle lot on the
details of the poster.

> Can you imagine someone dropping from a 15:30 to a 21:40 5k merely by leaving out some track
> workouts for a month while running longer and slower? Not a chance.

Quit arguing with straw men already. And try to RTFP before you respond.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

[Amh]

tackleme@nospam.com wrote in message news:<galemvs072mt5jno15j73njqgpovbmmsje@4ax.com>...
> Here is a little problem I've noticed after about 3 years of running.
>
>
> Another thing that really kills my speed are day long hikes, which I enjoy very much. What is with
> that? You train/exercise more but the net effect is worse than running a few days at the track.

I also find hiking to be a speed killer. When you hike you are training your legs and lungs to do
something different. Hiking will help you keep in overall shape. But if you want to do something
specific like run a race at a fast speed hiking is the wrong thing to
do.

> Obviously those elite marathon runners are doing something right to accomplish both speed and
> distance. Or is it purely a matter of maintaining an extremely skinny frame? I really don't want
> to get below 160lbs for a 6' frame.

What is the difference between your training pace and the pace you want to race at? Unless I'm doing
a long run of 13 miles or more I keep my training pace a minute slower than my 10k race pace. If you
only run fast during your speed workouts then you are selling yourself short. Try working up to
running 2 shortish runs per week a bit faster, not racing faster just 10 - 15 seconds per mile
faster than you'd normally train.

my $0.02 Andy

[tackleme]

Thanks everybody for the info and tips.

It's just that I was hitting 6.5 to 7 per mile on the 5k, and I've seen it go to 8 to 9 when I
replaced my regime with about about 6 months of 10k distance training and some hiking. Then, when I
tried to go back to the 5k, it felt like I was starting all over again. I either forgot how to run
quickly and/or my aerobic capacity was just no the same.

I guess I was just trying to see if speed work should always be an important focus regardless of the
length of the event, which some of you have suggested it is.

[Dave Andersen]

Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <oCCdnfX5r9GU5PWiXTWJhg@aros.net>, Dave Andersen wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>>> In article <galemvs072mt5jno15j73njqgpovbmmsje@4ax.com>, tackleme@nospam.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here is a little problem I've noticed after about 3 years of running.
>>>>
>>>> When I train for distance, I lose speed. I've seen doing track work for 4 weeks straight shave
>>>> off 2 to 3 minutes per mile. But I quickly lose this gain if I start focusing on distance.
>>>>
>>>> Is speed really that perishable?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Wait a minute. Speed is perishable, but it's not perishable to the extent of 2 to 3 MINUTES per
>> mile when you're just shifting training to distance.
>
>
> What part of the following text THAT YOU SNIPPED confuses you ? [...]
>
> Bull****. The truth or otherwise of the statements I've posted does not depend a wholle lot on the
> details of the poster. [...]

The original poster asked about 2 to 3 minutes per mile. Your followup post gave the impression that
you were answering with respect to that specific scenario, which you weren't, and to which your
answers don't apply. You admit this. I completely agree with the other content of your post - some
speedwork is necessary to maintain one's edge, and it's definitely possible to lose some of your 5k
and under time when training for longer distances. But not to the degree the original poster was
asking about.

Given that, I think your ad hominem attacks and excessive defensiveness are completely unwarranted
and inappropriate. Don't take out your bad day on random usenet posters, it reflects poorly on you.

-Dave

--
work: dga - at - lcs.mit.edu me: angio - at - pobox.com MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
http://www.angio.net/ (note that my reply-to address is vaguely despammed...) bulk emailers: I do
not accept unsolicited email. Do not mail me.

[Donovan Rebbech]

In article <5vOdnRNLZ5_JKvSiU-KYuA@aros.net>, Dave Andersen wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>> In article <oCCdnfX5r9GU5PWiXTWJhg@aros.net>, Dave Andersen wrote:
>>> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <galemvs072mt5jno15j73njqgpovbmmsje@4ax.com>, tackleme@nospam.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a little problem I've noticed after about 3 years of running.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I train for distance, I lose speed. I've seen doing track work for 4 weeks straight shave
>>>>> off 2 to 3 minutes per mile. But I quickly lose this gain if I start focusing on distance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is speed really that perishable?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Wait a minute. Speed is perishable, but it's not perishable to the extent of 2 to 3 MINUTES
>>> per mile when you're just shifting training to distance.
>>
>>
>> What part of the following text THAT YOU SNIPPED confuses you ? [...]
>>
>> Bull****. The truth or otherwise of the statements I've posted does not depend a wholle lot on
>> the details of the poster. [...]
>
> The original poster asked about 2 to 3 minutes per mile. Your followup post gave the impression
> that you were answering with respect to that specific scenario, which you weren't, and to which
> your answers don't apply.

I figured (correctly, as it turns out) that the poster was talking about a substantial slowdown,
but not as much as 2-3 minutes per mile. The lack of precision in those numbers (+-30s/mile) speaks
for itself.

> You admit this. I completely agree with the other content of your post -

Great, but you snipped it without acknowledging this. Instead of coming across as a correction to a
minor detail in my post (which was your intent, I hope ?) it came across as an attempt to compose a
lengthy diatribe criticising a single word of my post.

[snip]

> Given that, I think your ad hominem attacks and excessive defensiveness are completely unwarranted
> and inappropriate.

Well, again, it really looked like you were trying to take cheap pot-shots at out-of-context quotes,
and I'm sure you understand why this would be met with "excessive defensiveness".

> Don't take out your bad day on random usenet posters, it reflects poorly on
^^^^^^ "Random usenet posters" do not quote me out of context and
spend an entire post attacking it.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/