Running speed help (Page 2)

Well, this is quite different than your original statement that they must.  I'm sure people have improved with all sorts of methods.  As to which one is the best, I'll leave to the experts.  But, I can tell you that a 10-15mpw runner can get faster by increasing frequency and volume with no speed work.

Thanks for the advice. I think my weak biking skills hurt me in the run as well. I was exhausted after 40k and spent 2 minutes in T2. I need to get my bike fixed first though before I start riding more.

I'm not sure about my isolated 10k time. (Never really formally ran a 10k before this race.) What's a reasonable difference between an isolated 10k and a tri 10k run split?

I can't remember if someone said it, but that's a pretty good run split for a casual runner who's weak on the bike.  So, you're off to a good start.

We are pretty much in the same boat OP, my olympic run time is in the 8:45 pace range on similar mileage 10-12mpw.  This is good for solid MOP at the last race I did.  My bike is in upper 3rd and my swim is top 10%, so I know where I need to do work.  

I expected my run time to be pretty poor because my mileage is so low, so I am working on fixing it.  I want to get into the 35-40mpw range by slowly and steadily increasing my mileage.  Speed work is pretty much unnecessary until I get to 30mpw imo.  I am expecting to see substantial gains by next year this time if I'm able to get to 30mpw without getting injured and holding that mileage year round... The key point is not getting injured!

So the key is to run more, but be sure to build up slowly and smart.

Must be hereditary because I forget all the time too. When I do remember, they are very effective for exactly what you described for the repeats. Running economy and firing at that speed. My non-stride efforts are only moderate, still sub-threshold. I might hit threshold level once or twice a month, if that. Right now, I'll only do that for a race.

Nobody's saying that speedwork won't yield improvements. It absolutely does. Same as in swimming and biking. 

But there are two key differences. First, the ability to deal with the pounding of distance running seems to be an important contributor to endurance run speed. Second, speedwork carries greatly increased injury risks. It's possible to go out there and hammer away, but when you get injured you don't feel so good about it. I come from a middle distance track background, and I love running hard, but I've been learning the risks the hard way over the past couple of years. There's no clear rule on when it's safe to introduce speedwork, but it needs to be done gradually, and it needs to be approached with more caution the older/more fragile you are.

10-15 mpw is not a sufficient base.

Start reading these articles by BarryP on ST.  They are dead on.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1612485;search_string=runtraining;#1612485 

Since no one has directly asked, how old are you? Tom brings up a great point about weight that I know a lot of people aren't too happy talking about but age is a big factor as well. Also, what is your 'training age' how long have you actually been running consistently and with a purpose? If you started to focus on running seriously when you started your triathlon then a couple of months is truly nothing. To put things in perspective, FOP runners (not necessarily triathletes) train 5-6x/week. Thats 20-24 runs a month. If you run 2-3x/month thats only 8-12 days of the month. I think a lot of people fail to realize how little they actually train for a single sport. Other people have given good advice which can be summed up with one word: Progression. Work up to a limit, than push past that limit, you'll get faster.

As for how you get faster, it's all about balancing volume and intensity. For most people, it is easier to just increase volume and lower intensity as most triathletes tend to be... not that good at endurance sports. I don't say that in a mean way but the vast majority of people I met do not have some sort of genetic predisposition to swim/bike/run, they enjoy doing it so they train to get better. 

To throw some science out there, once you have gotten to a desired speed, if you could only maintain one training variable, Duration-Frequency-Intensity, the most important for maintaining aerobic capacity is intensity. This was discovered after 10 weeks of 6x/week cycling at 90% HRmax, or to say another way, after a base was developed.

Also, there is no reason to just run slow and easy if you don't feel like it. Volume is good, up to a point. Training time is precious for triathletes. If one were to break down a typical (intermediateish) run plan then 3 out of5 days are likely some sort of quality with two easy days and then  two days of rest. You will be getting a training adaption from those quality run days. If you can go out and run 8-10 miles a 3 mile run is not going to elicit further physiological adaption if done at the same pace. Those short runs don't exist to make you better. So, instead of doing "recovery runs" (a misnomer to say the least), go swim or bike. 

Running 15mpw is perfectly fine for getting faster at the distances you've specified if you already have a base. The base itself doesn't even need to be that large. Think about it, if you spend all of your time running slow and easy then of course you'll have to have a larger base to run faster. If you balance that mileage with more intensity then you don't need to log as many miles. Now, all of this is up to a point. And yes, I'm well aware of what elite level runners do. I'm also well aware of the extreme diminishing returns that constantly upping your miles does. For 95% of triathletes looking to increase 5k and 10k fitness, it can be done off < 30mpw. Increased stroke volume, ventricle hypertrophy, larger arteries, more capillaries, greater mitochondrial density, etc. All of this stuff occurs with duration and/or intensity because the adaptations are a function of those two variables.

Take note that I'm not advocating pure track workouts. When I say quality days I'm talking a long run, a tempo run, and a medium distance run (typically 65% of LR distance) that is run purely on feel. Looking back at my logs (in an excel sheet), I spent three months building up to exactly 30 mpw for a HM. Ran it in 1:28, took a two week break, and since then I havent run more than 15mpw. Just kept the intensity up and haven't lost the "speed" and only lost little of the endurance (I will occasionally do "spot check" workouts). I respond to this kind of training well. Some people eat up volume. Some people never learn what works best for them because the first thing they try (often a boost in volume) satisfies their desire to get faster.

I say all of this because the science when compared to the word of mouth don't often add up because people have different opinions on what works and what doesn't. Funny enough, what I've learned from my years of study in the field and personal experience is that A LOT of strategies works if the plan is progressive and incorporates proper rest time to allow for adaptation to occur. There is no best way, just the way that works best for you. Between Advanced Marathoning, Lore of Running, and The Running Formula, you'll have all the information necessary to determine what works best for you. 

I think I'm misunderstanding you here.  Are you suggesting that if one can run 8-10 miles, then going out and doing a few 3 mile easy runs/week are useless to improving their run?

For the most part. I could have explained that better as it goes against the current. It all comes back to the purpose of a recovery run. If I can run 10 miles at 7min pace and then go on a 3mile recovery run at 8:30, is that three mile run making me a better runner? No, it isn't. I say no because that workload isn't sufficient to elicit adaptation from an intensity or duration stand point, What is is doing however is increasing blood flow to my muscles which is associated with healing, I'll be recruiting a different set of muscles fibers do to neural fatigue from the workout I'm supposed to be recovering from, and my muscles will not tighten as badly as would be seen with pure rest. The altered motor recruitment is a pretty darn good positive positive but I could get a large percentage of that bonus by hopping on my bike. Also, if I wanted to recover and also get my cardiovascular system really working I could get more work done by swimming. Clearly this only holds true for a triathlete, if someone were just a runner then they won't do anything else besides going on a recovery run.

I would be interested in some other opinions on this from folks more knowledgable than me.  But, my personal experience has been increases in frequency and volume, mostly done at the same pace, has improved my run greatly.  I'm slow, so maybe that's difference.

If I ran 10 yesterday and run 3 today (even at a slower pace), I am likely still building my fitness because there is both an acute phase and chronic phase to the stresses from exercise which drive adaptation.  And it has nothing to do with 'recovery' or promoting 'healing'.  Additionally, I am continuing to work all the 'connective' systems which helps to absorb the impact from running.  Do enough of those 3 mile runs and you can safely do more of the 10-milers (or do more fast running).

The only way most athletes can get away with doing low volume and high intensity on the run (for any length of time) is to have run for a long time before starting that plan.  So if you were in a runer in HS & college, that works well.  It does not work well for the 35yo 'sort of athletic' person who hasn't done much consistent running in their life.  For them, that 3 mile run is ABSOLUTELY making them a better runner.

No it's not the difference.  It works for pretty much everybody--at least up until frequency & volume are limited by some factor.  All those "short, easy" runs help and most triathlets should do more of them, not less.

Professional marathon runners often do relatively short, very easy, runs.  Why?  Because it helps.

I can run 10 miles.  Heck, I can run a lot further than that.  Sub-7 pace is no problem for me.  I often do 3-4 mile runs very easy (often > 8:30 pace).  Why?  Because it helps.

A friend of mine for whom sub-6 pace is no problem (< 1:10 HM guy) does two 3-4 mile runs per week at > 8:30 pace.  Why?  Because it helps.

(There:  that's N=2!  If I can 8 more examples I could publish in a sports science journal.)

If you can run 10 miles then you're past the acute phase of adaption. I do not see how your are likely building fitness if you are not exposing your body to something that it can handle with no problem. In that situation then the benefits of a recovery run are related to any sort of 'healing effect' gotten after a rather difficult workout. Your heart, lungs, vessels, and muscles don't have to do much work to cover that three miles so why would they adapt?

How much better do you need your 'connective systems' to be exactly? If you're at a point in training where running three miles is going to make it significantly easier for you to run 10 miles then you aren't very trained then. If a multiple 3 mile runs a week are vital than that individual doesn't need to worry about trying to run 10 miles at all and what I had to say wasn't meant to address those folks.

I'm talking about someone that is more than just 35 y/o that hasn't done consistent running. My advice was specifically for someone that had a base that wanted to get faster. The first thought is "run more". That isn't the only advice out there and it isn't the only way that works. I even said that for most people, increasing volume satisfies their desire to become faster. 

What does it help?

I've got plenty of current and former D1 distance runner pals that respond to all kinds of training. I've seen lower (not zero) volume work and I've also seen high volume work. The common denominator is that THEY ALL HAD A BASE. I believe I mentioned that was important in my post. I also mentioned that a base of slow miles isn't the only path to faster running if you balance intensity properly. 

I apologize.  I'm tired today and losing my patience (not your fault).  But you are wrong.  Go re-read some of the books you picked out (they are good ones) or maybe some others will pick up the baton in this thread.

Just like that? I'm wrong? If I needed to reread something It will be the peer-reviewed research articles which contain the science that has been distilled down for those books. I've talked to and work with the cardiovascular and muscle physiologists that perform the applied and basic research which your everyday runner and triathlete applies to make themselves better. It's my job to study physiology. I wouldn't just post some BS to make myself seem smart or to go against the grain for kicks.

I have seen this way of training work. I have also seen it not work. Whenever someone says "This will make you better" there needs to be a reason or it's just heresay. A lot of what people currently do does work, doesn't mean other ideas are rubbish. 

It helps running economy.  It produces aerobic adaptations.  (You don't have to killing yourself to set that process in motion -- any aerobic stress beyond your resting state produces adaptations.)  It allows you to run more overall volume.  And if you do your easy runs in a fatigued state (e.g., the day after a hard run or bike), there is emerging evidence that you gain some neuro-muscular benefits (specifically, the brain learning to recruit new muscles).

It probably does not help recovery.  That's probably a myth.

I'm not speculating about these things.  There is solid evidence, easy enough to find if you look around.

Have a look at Moses Mosop's spring training (as just one example -- look around and you'll find more), posted here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mqyGAVAczd2-SEFQ9NCSsTRYYMvrOJtIMSN08yDTZv0/edit?hl=en&authkey=CKC5kqAI&pli=1#

Note how many 50 minute 'easy' runs he does.  A huge chunk of his weekly miles (kms, in the log) are done this way.   They are done at around 7:30 pace.  So he's running around 6 or 7 miles -- a totally trivial distance, for him -- at a very easy pace (indeed glacially slow, for him).  I wonder why he does that if it doesn't help?  He's coached by one of the smartest and most successful running coaches in the world.

I've nothing against speed work (I did some myself, yesterday).  I believe in its effectiveness as well, when done appropriately, at the right time.  And it's a lot of fun, in  self-torture kind of way.  I suggest, however, that the short-ish easy run actually has overall more benefit (when done frequently enough) at much much less risk.

Thank you for responding. 

One of my points as to the benefit of recovery runs was the neuromusclar recruitment. I used the phrase "pretty darn good" or something like that. I personally think that is the most important benefit to running in a fatigued state assuming that this run is much slower than a normal training pace. For a runner, they have no choice to do easy runs unless there is a preferred cross training activity. 

Now, for a triathlete, I do not (as of now) believe that going for a recovery run is the best use of time when time is limited. Just to qualify, I use three miles as an example because for me, I would run 3-4 miles for a recovery run if I did one. If that distance is long enough to be difficult for a person (meaning it will make them "better") then it is certainly in their best interest to do that 3 mile run. A large point of contention for me is that if an individual can incorporate a 10 mile run which does not negatively affect their other training sessions, that person will be receiving little to no cardiac or vascular benefit from that 3 mile run if completed slowly. Those two benefits are the largest determinants of aerobic performance (well, so are mitochondria but thats for another discussion). So, my proposition was to bike instead of a recovery run. This will not have the same neuromuscular development as running (different movement) but it will still be there AND that person gets a bike session. If the individuals wants to do something light to heal due to being very beat up, I think swimming is a better alternative on the ground of more bang for your buck. 

That is why I always chime in with the intensity card. For some folks, way to risky. But for others, if they tried it, I think they'd be pleasantly surprised at the results. What I said about intensity being the most important factor for aerobic maintenance is true and I can dig out that citation if someone is really interested though most people expect that. What I've found in the multisport world is that substituting intensity for volume to see improvement isn't the most accepted idea. That is why I always try to state an individual should only do so with a prior base, which if supplemented with some higher intensity work may not need to be as large. Unfortunately I can't find research which proves that point but I came to that point from reading a bunch of different research. 

Ever since I started triathlon I've been trying to come up with more efficient but (at the very least) equally effective methods of training. It all comes down to knowing when the diminishing returns kick in and which workouts are the most important. The way people train now is fine but for multisport I dont think its good enough to just combine the popular ways of training. There is so much interaction and crossover that there is plenty of room for individuals and coaches to experiment in a safe way.

To go back to your link, Mosop's training does not surprise me. I currently train my wife (she has olympic trials aspirations for the marathon) and I include recovery runs for her. She needs them and they do help, but I don't believe that her aerobic fitness is being boosted by them. Thats what the other runs are for. At a certain level of fitness, a certain submaximal workload has outrageous diminishing returns. Recovery runs are far from useless but the name is very misleading. 

Finally, I wasn't trying to be snarky when I did respond to your post. I spend my life asking questions. If I hear something I don't understand or disagree with, I will always ask why. This is done purely out of curiosity and the desire to help others (if they ask).

That is a legitimate question. That would depend on the intensity of each run. I don't know if an example that extreme works but you may not be as better off if those short runs are completed at a level (%HR, %VO2, whatever you like to use) that is not causing any major "stress". I think the italicized portion is what's important to consider for a triathlete.