Good results with almost no speed work in practice?

Before this conversation gets too far along, it may help to clarify some terms.  When you say "speed work", what do you mean?

If you're talking about balls-to-the-wall all-out intervals, then I'd say you likely don't need any, and I can see why you you would have a tendency to become injured every time you incorporate them into your training.

If you're talking about specific pace intervals based on your current fitness level, but less than maximal effort, then the issue gets a bit more complex, because pace intervals can reap you huge performance benefits.  If you're getting injured doing them, then something's off.  It could be your back, another muscular imbalance, the amount you're trying to build into your training, or another unidentified issue.

I run near-best 5k times mid-18s during 3 month base training phases where I do zero running faster than threshold pace, and almost no running even at threshold pace (1hr max pace). Most of my run/bike during this phase is at hi zone2/low zone3, which is definitely in the aerobic zone. So I'm a firm believer that you can get very good results with no speedwork - but there's a caveat.

I think the amount of actual speed you gain (run/bike) from all base-type training does depend a lot on your prior PR leg speed. As happy as my results I've been during base training, they haven't broken my PR times. I do think you need speedwork ON TOP of a good base and volume to really push your PRs to the next level. 

I've been running for 2 decades now, and did a lot of speedwork in the past, so I can run a lot of 9 minute miles in training and almost nothing else and still crank out those mid-18 5ks as long as the running volume is significant (or run+bike combo is significant.) But I seriously doubt I would be able to race that pace with no speedwork without my background; I know for sure that it took me a lot of work to go from 24 to 18 min on the 5k, and that running a lot of easy miles alone definitely didn't do the trick.

hmmmmmmm.........this is a BIG discussion, depending on race distance, age, genetics, and where your "volume" comes from.  

Since you brought up an overall sprint win, I can tell you that I see alot of overall sprint wins from the people I'm around (yes, most of them are young)....their bike and run volume is stunningly low compared to most, but their swim volume is through the roof.  Granted, these are pretty gifted athletes, but run/bike trainnig is very specific, and very fast.  VERY FAST.....like 10 X 400 with each 400 under 70 seconds.....and triple bricks where the run after each bike interval (usually 2-4 miles in zone 4) is an 800 in 2:30.  Total weekly run miles sometimes less than 15, and bike miles less than 50. VIrtually all very focused work.  But easily 40-60,000 yards in the pool.

Sure, as they get older the speed work will lessen as they race longer distances......but the fact is, the speed foundation was layed.  I suspect that the people who preach more and more volume to get to FOP already had the speed work done, as well, when they were younger.  You can get "faster" by doing more volume, but you only get FAST by training for it.  For most of us "faster" will have to suffice, because the real speed was not built early, and to do it later in life is usually injury plagued.  Still, the primciple is the same.......to get fast you have to work fast.....our age makes "fast" a relative term. 

e

Perhaps..... but if you took a 16 year old off the street and had him run 10 X 400 at 80-90% of his max he'd be unable to walk the next day.  It's a build, and certainly age is a factor,  BUT....the principles still apply.The people I watch have built to that level over a couple of years.  What if you did 4 X 400?  I would argue that you would get "faster" by running fast more than you do now.  How you structured it would depend on many factors, which is where a good coach comes in.  But to say that the only way to get faster is to do more volume is just not right.  It's funny.-----people agree that biking fast is the only way to get faster on the bike.  They agree that swimming faster is the only way to get a faster swim.  They don't agree on running fast because it hurts, and the principles are more complicated than bike and swim.....but fast runners run fast in training....there is no shortcut to it.  Running more will give you speed gains for sure......but you won't be "fast" until you train your body to run fast.  While I agree that it's much easier to train your body to run fast when you are young,  you can apply the principles at any age, and it has to be specific to your fitness, background, etc.

I still disagree with your premise that you HAVE to run that fast to get fast in endurance sports and almost ignore volume.

If speedwork were all that were needed for top speed running, and volume wasn't' important, 400m specialists, and soccer players would be amongst the fastest half marathoners out there. They do tons, and tons, and tons of intervals, on overall low volume, a lot of which is higher intensity than 400s that your son does. Yes, there are some 400m guys who are good at long distance, but take them out to half marathon and beyond, and they generally drop off pretty quickly. 

Speedwork is definitely important for max speed, but it's almost certainly secondary to overall volume for endurance running. Elite youth runners are fast not just because of their training, but because of their innate genetics - in fact, I'd say it's almost definite that if you put that elite 15mpw triathlete on a Pfitzinger 55+mpw pure running regimen, and raced him against his 15mpw speedwork self at 10k to marathon, the high volume version will beat the pants off the 15mpw guy.

I made some breakthroughs with my running last year.  Three keys for me were:

1. Running harder on my weekly tempo training runs.  Like a lot of folks, I had fallen into the pattern of running my slow runs too fast and my fast runs too slow, to the point where I was going the same pace pretty much all the time in training.  I used the McMillan calculators to determine my tempo pace (based of my most recent race results) and then shortened my tempo runs to where they were 60-70% of my normal training run distances.
2. I added some more 5K's into my schedule, particularly early in the year. 
3. Losing weight.  27 pounds over two years, with another 15 to meet my goal.

As I get older (60), recovery time is definitely becoming more of an issue, as is dealing with increasingly creaky joints.  Right now I feel comfortable doing four runs per week:  2 x 30-45 minutes, one 25-30 minute tempo, and one long run.  I don't see myself doing any track speed work any time in the future. 

I had a good year last year, not only setting several PR's, but also enjoying higher placements in my AG (aided in no small part by the thinner fields in M60-64).  Still think I have some room for significant improvement next year. 

Mark

You and I probably don't disagree as much as it seems.  It's just that, to me, you seem to dismiss speed work the way you think I dismiss volume.  I actually don't, it's just that in order to get the idea across that you need to run fast, and in doing so can cut down on some of the volume, I don't talk about volume at all, the same way you don't talk about speed work, although I know you do it.

The kids you talk about run fast because of genetics, yes.......but also because they train to run fast.  It's pretty much a given that you need to build those speed pathways when you are young.....and we do.  There is no need to put the elite 15mpw triathlete on a volume program because that can be done at any time.  Now is the time to get fast.......later is the time to hold the speed for longer distances.

That being said.....the principles still apply.  You can get fast, but you have to run fast.  The triathlon world is full of 10-12 minute per mile runners who do a lot of volume.  They could be faster with less volume BY WAY OF a day or two of really focused work.......but all they hear is "run more".  Uh..... there are quite a few folks not getting faster with that method.

ETA - as for you example......you'll notice I never advocated no aerobic work...... you'd be hard pressed to not call 12-15 hours of swimming per week not aerobic.  So put that 400M specialist on a 50,000 yard per week swim program next to his run program and watch what you get.  No, we're not at marathon distances yet, but I'd put that guy up against the rest of the 400M specialists in a mile or 5K and he will destroy them.....and not run a single step further then they do in training.

I'd wager there are very few folks not getting faster that way if they are REALLY running more.  Of course, virtually nobody that says "run more" says always easy.  Just because you can get faster that way, does not mean it's the most effective way (just like with swimming and biking).  You mix it up.  How much you mix it up is where things get a little trickier.  Most people I see try to do too much hard stuff.  Then they are sore or injured and they run less than they 'should' to compensate.  That tends to be a bigger reason they don't get faster than that they run slow too much.

The principles you see in your son's trianing are not different than what applies to everyone else.  However, the prescription may be vastly different.

This is triathlon........not swimming, biking, or running. (I'm not trying to be a jerk, I know you know it's not, but it's worth repeating because no triathlete is doing the mileage of a single sport elite athlete)

And I think you are wrong regarding how young/elite people train.  I don't know any good youth/elite coaches who push big miles over speed/focused run work.  It's not just new, it's better.  I am a product of the "more is better" as a young runner.......you can make a BIG pile out of those of us who were fast runners in our youth (I'm going back 30-40 years) and now can barely run because of the volume we were pushed to.  You can call it a fad diet if you want......but it's just smarter  training and elite athletes in all sports are better/faster/stronger because of it.  AG'ers could benefit even more since they have such limited time.  I'm not trying to re-write anything......but there has to be a balance away from the idea that "run more" is the only answer to being faster.....and I will go a step further and say it's NO answer to truly being fast. (again, all of the above is in regards to sprint/oly triathlon....but is important in my view because becoming a fast triathlete at any distance starts with being fast through all distances and building your race)

Junk miles are junk miles.  A few days per week of very focused/short duration speed work can easily take the place of those junk miles and save training time while speed increases..

Thanks for saying what I apparently couldn't find the words for.  I agree with everything you wrote.......I don't agree with "just run more".

I keep replying to LB's post though because I think the advice he's promoting, while not incorrect, is inherently dangerous to propagate here on a BEGINNER triathlete forum.

It is absolutely the worst advice you could give a new beginner triathlete who likely has done almost no serious run training in the past, to tell them that they should go out and do only a few workouts a week, with high intensity, like 4 x 400, because it's so much more efficient. You're setting them up for an inevitable injury. 

Perhaps the best advice you could give these same folks, is to just get out there and run. Run easy. Until the volume is significant. Forget the hard stuff for now and just get out there - the body will make huge adaptations by just doing that.

This advice isn't just for raw beginners either - it's applicable for anyone who's taken a lot of time off, and even those who are experienced but have still never done a lot of run volume. 

If this were a high-performance triathlon forum where you could assume most people were very experienced and racing for big PRs, I'd be all over the speedwork bandwagon. However, I feel that propagating this advice on BT is aiming it at the completely wrong audience. 

I'm going to ask LB myself - why aren't you doing the 15mpw with hard speedwork like 8 x 400s, and running 18:xx 5ks yourself if you believe in it so strongly across all groups? If anyone can, it should be you, since the genetics are clearly there for such performance, even at an older age. 

Others have said it, but it bears repeating.  For most AGers, there are no junk miles when it comes to running.  More of them would be better off in the long run if they did the reverse of what you are proposing (ie, replace a "few days a week" of focused/short duration speed work with some extra easy 'junk' miles--add a few strides into those miles and you have all the focused/short duration speed work most of them will ever need).  It's the general prescription where I disagree with you, even if your principles are sound.  "Run more" isn't the only answer.  But it is the 90% answer.  And the least likely advice to cause anyone any problem other than they could have been a little bit faster (depending on goals, of course, that could be viewed as a big problem for a few).