Run more to run faster.

The reason this works is:

The harder you run, the less total running you are able to do, as it takes longer to recover from, higher injury risks, etc.

By running more at a slightly easier pace, your body is able to recover faster, and run more. as you run more, your body will get used to the higher training levels, adapt to them, and your paces will slowly come down over time, you become more effeicnt at the paces that were once hard for you, and then as you up the training load (intensity, milage) this trend continues.

What would you say is the limit of just doing more volume before someone would need to start doing "speed work" to reduce their run times? 7min/mile, 6min/mile?

A level that almost no triathletes reach.

I'm no expert..... but I've seen it suggested speedwork shouldn't be included until you're comfortably up to 20+ miles per week running (but -- like I said..... I'm definitely not an expert on the subject!)

for myself, i can comfortably run an open 5k at or under 6 min miles, in tris i range from 5:56-6:20 based on course, how the race is going, etc.

i am still seeing plently of gains from running in the 30mpw range, with one tempo run (no long run at the moment). i will be running here until i stop getting faster, then plan on upping the mileage again.

the reason i dont think the speedwork will help for the most part is that adding a few miles per week to your running will do what the speedwork will and more, without the injury risk

frankly i think you need to be running upward of 40-50 miles a week before you really start using it, or have a history of running and jsut use it to get the peak speed back.

This whole thing has never really made sense to me.  I understand that running more miles at an easier pace seems to be the suggested thing to do over adding speedwork, but I still don't get how your times really come down.   I am new to running and have been working the last 7 months just to build endurance.  It just doesn't seem like if i run 22 or 27 miles a week right now, that my 5K time is likely to come down.  It's almost more like my body has gotten so used to this slow training pace, that's it's all I know, and when i try to pick up the pace just by 30 seconds per mile, I feel like i'm dying!  I run about 10 minute miles in training, and what did i go do in my only tri this season...9:58/miles.  So while I understand that everyone says to run more to run faster, and it seems to work for a lot of people, I still don't get it.  Just seems to me that if I want to learn to run faster I need to start just doing it, and let my body start getting used to what it feels like to run faster.

I've run more this year and I'm a wee bit faster than I was 6 months ago but not much. But I am slower than I was last year when I ran less.  I think being 47 doesn't help with this idea of running more to get faster thought. I'm running most weeks 25-30-32 miles this week will be my biggest run volume with 40 before IM.

I've seen virtually no improvement last 4 years..none of this I've dropped 2 minutes of my mile pace stuff others have. I did PB my 5K and 1/2 Mary times last year but couldn't run those paces for those distances this year currently.

Have you tried running more? Your logs don't reflect 22 or 27 miles a week right now...

How does one define "speed work"?  I think that's the biggest misconception.

In my opinion, speed work for triathletes can be as simple as doing short or mid-range intervals during a regularly scheduled run (fartleks).  Short burts of fast(er) running mixed in with your regularly scheduled runs will probably accomplish what you're looking for.  I remember this quote just because of how simple it is: "If you want to run faster, you have to run faster" - Hal Higdon

I think a lot of people think speed work is something that has to be done on a track, doing 8x800's on X:XX, etc, but I personally don't think it does.  I think it's all about changing up your workouts so #1 - You don't get bored, and #2 - Your body doesn't adapt to running the same pace all the time.

it works like this.

if you up a training load, your body breaks down, and assuming proper recovery, you regrow stronger/faster/fitter. that is the simple explanation (you can dive into the exact changes if you would like, not the point here).

now, these things will happen to an extent with running harder, OR running more.

now, the diff are here:

running more at a managable pace- your body does not see as quick of gains as you would with speedwork, but the damage done to your body is MUCH lower.

adding speed- your body will see some quicker gains, but will have to deal with the extra amount of damage you are doing to it, and in the ned, you will stop getting faster just doing this as we are training for highly aerobic races.

just as an example, good college milers (you know the guys that train and race the mile, around a 4 min race? they are running in the range of 60-90 miles a week.

a 5k, as much as triathln has made it out ot be a SPRINT, is an endurance event, not a sprint. its gonna take most of us more than 20 min to run. you need to be comfortable covering WAY more than that distance to run it fast.


lastly, my guess is at 20mpw you would see ABSOLUTLY no diff in your run times weather you were doing speedwork or not.

and using your triathlon time as an indicator of your running means nothing.
it could be as much an indicator of your bike/swim fitness and pacing as anything.

This saved me a lot of typing...esp. the bolded statement.  Good summary.

Not sure how many miles I run.  I train by minutes, not miles.  On average I'm somewhere in the 10 min/mi range.  So my last 4 weeks have been 263, 260, 230, & 164 minutes.  Lower last week b/c of winding down for IMLP.

assuming you run 10 min miles, that gives you a range between 26 and 16mpw.

Trust me, the mileage thing DEFINITELY works. In fact, after you max out your lactate & VO2 gains (or come close to it), it's the only way you'll keep improving on the run. For real.

It does vary for people though. Some runners gain a lot of ability in the first 10-30 miles of volume, and then drop off very quickly in improvement by just ramping volume. 

Also, most triathletes underestimate how much volume we're talking for a significant performance boost. Going from 12 to 15 miles/wk or 20 to 25 miles per week helps, but may cause a bump too small to notice, or will actually cause a decrease in speed if you suddenly cut back drastically on speedwork. However, if you DOUBLE or TRIPLE your mileage over a gradual period of time, the results are unquestionable. Someone running 20 miles per week and doing up to 3 (!!) speedwork sessions a week will almost never be the equal of themselves if they had run 60 miles per week with 1 speedwork session per week at any distance of 800 meters through marathon and beyond. In fact, the differences get ever more accentuated at longer races with more weekly mileage - and triathlons fall into this "long" category.

There's no shortcut, unfortunately. More miles will help, but to get a sizeable jump in performance, you'll have to make a sizeable increase in weekly volume.

Edited by agarose2000 2009-07-20 4:29 PM

i think the sweet spot for most triathletes is simply getting over 30mpw, after that, with some tempo work, you can see some decent gains, nothing on the magnitude of 50-80mpw, but for most of us thats simply never going to happen.

Just as there is a misconception of what speedwork is, I also believe there is confusion on what running slow is.  Running slow and running at a low intensity can be two different things.  A 10:00 mile may be a good "extensive endurance" pace at first, but as one gets in better shape, 10:00 mile may become a recovery run pace.  Unless you do frequent field tests to determine desired paces or use a heart rate monitor it may be difficult to determine your correct slow running pace vs. low running intensity.  I've been running since 1985 and can't differentiate the two based on RPE.

For your specific question regarding what to do with 3 weeks to go before your tri, my thought is that you probably shouldn't do anything different. You're not going to make significant gains in run speed in a 3 week period, but you could injure yourself if you try to go too long or too hard in relation to your current training. How many 6 mile runs have you done? 6 miles is an ok distance if you're doing a 4.4 mile run; but you'd want to have done it a few times. 4.4 after the swim and bike is a different animal than 6 on fresh legs.

In regards to the bigger question that's being discussed on more running vs speed work... I'll play devil's advocate just to give a different perspective. One of the dangers in this sport is looking for one answer that fits everyone. For me, running more by itself did very little to make me faster. Yes, I got faster, but the improvements were very small and took a very long time. Instead, when I truly got faster was when I made the mental decision to run faster and put up with more pain/discomfort during the run. Not "i'm causing injury" type of pain, but more "sure would feel better if I slowed down" type of pain. By pushing myself a bit, I was able to see some real progress. I still use speed work to help remind myself physically and mentally what my limits really are, because otherwise I tend to become a little complacent. Nearing 47, and my run times are still improving (7:18 pace at Half IM earlier this year, and PR'd marathon time at Boston), with no injuries so far. It has not been all about speed work, though - I have also kept up the mileage; because no matter how fast you can run a short distance, you have to build up your endurance if you want to run fast for a long period of time.   

So, for me, it is a combination of the speed work to push the limits a little bit; and then the mileage to be able to sustain the speed over the longer distances. Lots of individual factors for every person (running background, age, weight, susceptibility to injury, etc.); so that is not going to be the right solution for everyone.

i don't know....and i am confused also.

i have asked the same question.  i try to run close to 20 mpw.  i sometimes can sometimes i can't depending on schedule.  it would mean during a month i approach 70-80 miles.  2 months ago i did 67, last month 54 so far I am on great pace this month.

regardless, all my runs based on some of the coach feedback have been slow running 145-150 bpm which is z1-z2 for me.  the exertion is minimal i do 0 speed work. 

i don't feel like i have improved, my times are still in the 9:30-10:30 min / mile.  now when i did run my last sprint tri the 5k time was 22:38, so 7:30 min / mile.  so either i am still not running enough, or i don't know what else.  ALTHOUGH it does feel easier, time wise i am not seeing improvement.

not to hijack the thread but does the idea of more mileage to add speed concept cover all three of our skills? or is it mostly a running thing?

logic would tell us it does the same for all endurance sports but just want to make sure....

>>>also wouldnt this mean that if i truly want to compete @ olys i should train like im doing a him or im???

Edited by Tri2leaRn 2009-07-20 8:25 PM

run more, bike more, swim more

all of the above. 

everything i have learned is that improving is a function of total training load (volume + intensity), so volume is only part of the equation.  I agree that 200 mpw of cycling ez pace is not the same as 150 mpw of cycling hard.

It is my perception that running is the one of the three that across the board people say upping the volume is the key to improving your run.   And maybe that is all due to recovery time as others have indicated.   However if time is most people's biggest limiter to training by volume, wouldn't it take adding intensity to achieve the ideal training load for the majority of people?  I am a new runner, so I don't know the answer, just asking.

Well, remember that part of the reasoning here is that running intensity can easily lead to injury, whereas (conservative) increases in (and later, maintenance of) volume is less likely to lead to injury.  The same is less true for biking, and even less so for swimming, as these two activities are somewhat to much less hard on the body.

I don't know enough to say whether this reasoning is correct, but if it is, then the same reasoning would not necessarily apply to cycling and swimming, and I do think that the generally accepted view is that intensity is valuable in cycling, and more or less essential in swimming.



Lots of people claim that ideal sprint/Oly training looks a lot like HIM and IM training, in terms of volume.  So, yes.  The difference of course is that with lower volume, you can still compete in the shorter races, and perhaps even do well (but not as well as you could), whereas the same won't go for HIM and IM (unless you are a genetic freak) -- at lower training volumes, you are likely to explode in those races.

These comments are just from what I've observed and read -- I'm no expert.

What's "mpw"?

miles per week