Distance training for short distance events



D

David Hallswort

Guest
A question: do you really need to run long-distances and build up a large mileage base for shorter,
i.e. 10k, races?

A 10k is something like 35-40mins hard running, so I guess it makes sense to have training runs
taking a lot longer than this. However, can you build up and maintain the endurance for a race by
only running shorter distances? My long-runs are currently 75-90minutes, but as I'm doing a lot more
speed work (2 interval sessions and 1 tempo session a week), I'd like to cut this down, preferably
to 45-60minutes. I would like to do this because I'm concerned about injury due to my flat-feet.

What would be more beneficial: a slow 80minutes or a hard 40minutes?

Any input appreciated! Best, Dave

--
To email, remove SPAM.com and replace with wadham DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk
 
It has to do with your body and what you can handle more than anything. You will likely have an
optimal training level. That might be 30 miles a week or 120 miles a week. There are lots of running
who will run their fastest 10ks on 40 miles per week and if they run 50 miles a week they will run
slower 10ks and/or get injured. That is not popular wisdom among long distance runners because more
is thought to be better and everyone thinks their training level is best. But, the truth is ... if
you experiment ... you will find you break down at some point and that point my only change slightly
for the next 20 years before it begins to be less mileage and less days as optimal. Roy,
[email protected]
 
> A question: do you really need to run long-distances and build up a large mileage base for
> shorter, i.e. 10k, races?
>
> A 10k is something like 35-40mins hard running, so I guess it makes sense
to
> have training runs taking a lot longer than this. However, can you build
up
> and maintain the endurance for a race by only running shorter distances?
My
> long-runs are currently 75-90minutes, but as I'm doing a lot more speed
work
> (2 interval sessions and 1 tempo session a week), I'd like to cut this
down,
> preferably to 45-60minutes. I would like to do this because I'm concerned about injury due to my
> flat-feet.
>
Handbook indicates that the mileage depends on your target pace for the 10K and the phase of your
training. target pace: novice, basic, advanced, champion paces training phase: endurance,
strengthening, sharpening, taper Assuming you are advanced, 34-40 min 10K, and wanting to sharpen,
weekly long run = 16 km weekly load = 75 km

Intervals are 3 x 1,500, 6 x 880, and occasional 440's

1988 version of "The New Competitive Runner's Handbook", Bob Glover, Pete Schuder, Penguin Books.

> What would be more beneficial: a slow 80minutes or a hard 40minutes?

Go for a hard 10K time trial 2-3 weeks before your race.

>
> Any input appreciated! Best, Dave
>
>
> --
> To email, remove SPAM.com and replace with wadham DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk
 
A 10k is something like 35-40mins hard running,
----
.....5:39 / mile @ 10K? as you suggest above? you should only listen to a few people on this ng and
i ain't one of them!
 
Longer runs and shorter runs have physiologically different effects on the body. So you can't ask if
a 40 min hard run would be better or worse than a 80 min easier run, because they are both necessary
and both doing different things for you. Shorter/faster runs tend to challenge your aerobic
threshhold more, helping to improve it to a faster speed. Longer runs stimulate capillary and
mitochondrial growth. What this means is that if you do only long stuff, you'll have good endurance
and aerobic development but lack the ability to run fast because you build up lactate too soon. If
you do only short/fast stuff, you have a great aerobic threshhold but bad endurance. The 10K is
probably the event where you will notice a deficit in one or the other the most. It's too long to
rely on just speed development, but too fast to rest on aerobic development alone. You really need
to do both. Good 10K guys tend to run nearly the mileage of marathoners (at least in the off season,
or "base" period) but run slightly shorter long runs and place emphasis on them. They use the effort
they save on the long runs to hammer 2 good interval sessions each week instead of 1-2 at a slower
speed. Andy Hass
 
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:43:37 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Longer runs stimulate capillary and mitochondrial growth.
>

This is true, but a little sav for jock itch fungus will clear it right up.
 
> A 10k is something like 35-40mins hard running,
> ----
> .....5:39 / mile @ 10K? as you suggest above? you should only listen to a
few
> people on this ng and i ain't one of them!

I didn't necessarily mean that time applied to me!! I have been running 42minute 10Ks in training,
so I'm assuming that a further 5 weeks prep and race conditions will get me around 40mins. The
course record is sub-31minutes.

Best, Dave
 
> Whoa! He wants to run a fast 10k, not become a Jedi master.

Who said I didn't want to become a Jedi master? I always though that would be pretty cool!

Dave
 
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:24:34 -0000, "David Hallsworth" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Whoa! He wants to run a fast 10k, not become a Jedi master.
>
>Who said I didn't want to become a Jedi master? I always though that would be pretty cool!
>
>Dave

Won't that conflict with your "Spiderman" personna?
 
In article <[email protected]>, David Hallsworth wrote:
> A question: do you really need to run long-distances and build up a large mileage base for
> shorter, i.e. 10k, races?
>
> A 10k is something like 35-40mins hard running, so I guess it makes sense to have training runs
> taking a lot longer than this. However, can you build up and maintain the endurance for a race by
> only running shorter distances? My long-runs are currently 75-90minutes, but as I'm doing a lot
> more speed work (2 interval sessions and 1 tempo session a week), I'd like to cut this down,
> preferably to 45-60minutes. I would like to do this because I'm concerned about injury due to my
> flat-feet.
>
> What would be more beneficial: a slow 80minutes or a hard 40minutes?
>
> Any input appreciated!

How long have you been running for and what milage are you doing ? If you're getting aches and
pains, cut down on milage for a little while until you feel better. In the long run, you'll do
better by maintaining the slightly lower milage consistently over the next year than you will
getting hurt and having to stop running.

Having said all that -- there are no shortcuts to a distance like 10k. It requires a solid
foundation of base work, and a reasonable amount of speed work.

If you're concerned about overtraining/injury -- here are some things to consider:

(1) Getting in one long run a week is probably more important than getting high milage. Consider
placing a rest day after your long run if you find it tough. Long runs are a good indicator of
your fatiuge resistance, so how you feel after a long run is almost as important for this race
as how well your speedwork is going.

(2) You don't need an enormous amount of speed work for 10k, except possibly when you get closer to
the race. One session of 800m repeats, plus one tempo run (or tempo pace repeats) is plenty.

(3) Running shorter is NOT a reason to run harder. Your 40 minute run should NOT be any faster than
the 80 minute run. If you're trying to run the shorter runs faster than your longer runs, maybe
would explain overtraining problems.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
---Below here I meant to say 10K guys place LESS emphasis on the long run... Andy Hass

[email protected] wrote:

> Longer runs and shorter runs have physiologically different effects on the body. So you can't
> ask if a 40 min hard run would be better or worse than a 80 min easier run, because they are
> both necessary and both doing different things for you. Shorter/faster runs tend to challenge
> your aerobic threshhold more, helping to improve it to a faster speed. Longer runs stimulate
> capillary and mitochondrial growth. What this means is that if you do only long stuff, you'll
> have good endurance and aerobic development but lack the ability to run fast because you build
> up lactate too soon. If you do only short/fast stuff, you have a great aerobic threshhold but
> bad endurance. The 10K is probably the event where you will notice a deficit in one or the
> other the most. It's too long to rely on just speed development, but too fast to rest on
> aerobic development alone. You really need to do both. Good 10K guys tend to run nearly the
> mileage of marathoners (at least in the off season, or "base" period) but run slightly shorter
> long runs and place emphasis on them. They use the effort they save on the long runs to hammer
> 2 good interval sessions each week instead of 1-2 at a slower speed. Andy Hass
 
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:43:33 -0000, "apusapus" <[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> Well it's obvious you don't have a clue.
>
>Yeah, right, Wobbot. I could hop a 10k faster than you've ever waddled one.
>

LOL! You don't even run you lieing piece of trash.

>How's the ass?

Not sure, you've been away and I haven't asked you yet.
 
Thanks Andy - much appreciated.

Best, Dave

--
To email, remove SPAM.com and replace with wadham DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk
 
> Won't that conflict with your "Spiderman" personna?

How about a spider who can levitate rocks?
 
Thanks for the reply Donovan...

> How long have you been running for and what milage are you doing ? If
you're
> getting aches and pains, cut down on milage for a little while until you
feel
> better. In the long run, you'll do better by maintaining the slightly
lower
> milage consistently over the next year than you will getting hurt and
having
> to stop running.

I have been running consistently for a little under a year. Before I started training for my first
10k (about 6weeks ago), my weekly milage was about 45k, consisting of on weekly long run of about
20km, a 10km tempo run and two 7-8km easy runs. I find my legs need rest days, so I only ever run 4
times a week.

> (1) Getting in one long run a week is probably more important than getting
high
> milage. Consider placing a rest day after your long run if you find it
tough.
> Long runs are a good indicator of your fatiuge resistance, so how you feel after a long run is
> almost as important for this race as how well your
speedwork
> is going.
>
> (2) You don't need an enormous amount of speed work for 10k, except
possibly when
> you get closer to the race. One session of 800m repeats, plus one tempo
run (or
> tempo pace repeats) is plenty.

At the minute, I'm doing one session of short intervals, high reps (i.e. 10x90secs), one session of
long intervals, low reps (i.e. 3x8minutes), weekly alternations of a 30 minute tempo / hill run, and
a 60min long run (equating to about 12km)

> (3) Running shorter is NOT a reason to run harder. Your 40 minute run
should NOT
> be any faster than the 80 minute run. If you're trying to run the shorter
runs
> faster than your longer runs, maybe would explain overtraining problems.

Will consider that - would be good to hear your perspective on my training schedule - it's 5 weeks
till race time!!

Best, Dave
 
In article <[email protected]>, David Hallsworth wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Donovan...
>
>> How long have you been running for and what milage are you doing ? If
> you're
>> getting aches and pains, cut down on milage for a little while until you
> feel
>> better. In the long run, you'll do better by maintaining the slightly
> lower
>> milage consistently over the next year than you will getting hurt and
> having
>> to stop running.
>
> I have been running consistently for a little under a year. Before I started training for my first
> 10k (about 6weeks ago), my weekly milage was about 45k, consisting of on weekly long run of about
> 20km, a 10km tempo run and two 7-8km easy runs. I find my legs need rest days, so I only ever run
> 4 times a week.

What pace are you doing the easy runs at (and how fast is your race pace) ? Your legs shouldn't
need 3 rest days a week -- it's a sign that you're pushing too hard during training. An easy day
should feel like a rest day (again, if it doesn't your easy days are too hard, or your hard
sessions are too long)

You'd be better off making the tempo run half as long and reducing the long run to about 8 miles
(16km), then adding another easy run.

>> (2) You don't need an enormous amount of speed work for 10k, except possibly when you get closer
>> to the race. One session of 800m repeats, plus one tempo run (or tempo pace repeats) is
>> plenty.
>
> At the minute, I'm doing one session of short intervals, high reps (i.e. 10x90secs), one session
> of long intervals, low reps (i.e. 3x8minutes), weekly alternations of a 30 minute tempo / hill
> run, and a 60min long run (equating to about 12km)

Sounds like a lot for your milage. Cut either the low reps or the tempo run: you don't need both.
You should keep doing the long run though.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 
"David Hallsworth" <[email protected]> wrote:

>A question: do you really need to run long-distances and build up a large mileage base for shorter,
>i.e. 10k, races?

No. That said, Ovett did it that way, with 100+ mile weeks. But Coe, with remarkably similar
performances at the same time as Ovett, did nothing like the same mileage. He did do some nasty hard
stuff tho.

So, if you prefer (or can put up with) shorter, harder workouts, you can get away without a massive
mileage base.

If you hate speedwork, then do more miles (you'll still have to do some speed work tho).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back