|
Oct 2021
9:51am, 28 Oct 2021
1,911 posts
|
Brunski
4 months Larks? That's loads of time.
I'm not claiming to 'know' the answer but personally I'd not stick with one approach. Instead I'd make sure you use all of those 7 hours every week. If this is your peak race I'd chunk the training up something like this*:
6-8 weeks base training - think Hadd principles work as well as anything here.
Next few weeks I'd add in more strides, maybe change a few of the hour easy runs into progression runs ending at target 10k pace/effort.
6 weeks out I'd try to get training more and more specific to the 10k whilst keeping 2 or 3 easy hours in there to maintain previous aerobic gains, these could include slower (recovery) hours but I'd always look to use your 7 hours running allocation.
I'd add in chunks of tempo increasing in length, probably add some mile or 2k repeats at 10k pace, but also balance with easy running.
By the end your 7 hours will probably come to over 50 miles, I'd expect to see mileage creeping up despite sticking to the same 7 hours and I think you could see big improvements keeping this broadly 80/20, maybe 90/10 in first chunk, 80/20 through the 2bd, possibly just a tad over the 80 in the few weeks pre taper...
7 day taper for a 10k?
*I'm currently trying a different approach of following a plan this time around for a 10k early December. I'm in week 3 (of 8), but am coming at this off a decent endurance base that just went a little wrong (Covid) pre-London marathon.
|
|
Oct 2021
10:14am, 28 Oct 2021
15,902 posts
|
larkim
Larkim - Why would you expect to have exact amounts of improvement for X plan? You wouldn't expect that with any other sport.
Not exact, obviously, but measurable and tangible objective improvements surely? We know from experience that training works and generates improvements so we should be able to put some sort of confidence bracket around likely outcomes.
It might not be measured in pure race times, but surely there have to be some measurable bits which could be lab validated (e.g. objective measurements of VO2 max improvement, and so on). It's what I would expect the very best sports science institutes to be trying to work on, and what high performing teams and coaches in endurance sports like running and cycling should be measuring.
As jda says the idea of the research is pipedream stuff in all honesty at the moment. To get a controlled and controllable sample of sufficient runners to follow various precise plans with no additional variables thrown in and then measure which is "best" isn't going to happen with humans. I have some faith though that science will come along with computer models (maybe in 20-30 years time?) that could actually answer the questions.
It frustrates me that when I read accounts of why X or Y are good training approaches they only ever seem to refer to small samples of coach experience, often quite anecdotal in nature. It's probably the best we can expect at the moment, but the evidence should improve over time.
|
|
Oct 2021
10:16am, 28 Oct 2021
15,903 posts
|
larkim
@Brunski - thanks; I wasn't being real in terms of an actual plan I want to follow, but just using myself as an example of someone with a running background with a tangible piece of evidence that a certain pace is achievable, and a current status which is away from that pace. That hypothetical individual would (in an ideal world) select a training approach which will maximise their outcomes.
|
|
Oct 2021
10:23am, 28 Oct 2021
1,912 posts
|
Brunski
Haha, I took your post as an 'asking for a friend' type scenario.
I think you should enter a 10k in 4 months anyway, and do a study on yourself. You can log it in your blogs or somewhere.
|
|
Oct 2021
10:29am, 28 Oct 2021
2,469 posts
|
Canute
The first lesson from observation of the training of successful athletes is that many different approaches have been employed to achieve great performances.
The second observation is that many runners have achieved great performances on the basis of a programme that has a lot of low intensity running, so ‘no pain, no gain’ is almost certainly not true.
The third observation is that you need to extend your limits to improve. As far as I can see, if you only extend volume of low intensity, your rate of progress slows down; if you only extent the amount or intensity of high intensity running, you get burnt out or injured.
This suggests to me that some degree of polarization is almost certainly helpful. However the optimum intensity for low intensity sessions and the optimum intensity for high intensity sessions remains a legitimate topic of debate.
Perhaps the most important thing is to teach your brain to listen your body but unfortunately the signals are rather nebulous. External measurements such as HR and HRV are a useful guide but ultimately not as sensitive as a well-trained brain. Some evidence indicates POMS (Profile of Mood States) is the most reliable guide, but I have never used it consistently
|
|
Oct 2021
10:49am, 28 Oct 2021
15,904 posts
|
larkim
I love those three pillars Canute
- There are many ways to skin a cat (but tried and tested is better than experimental)
- Ensure low intensity training is a key and substantial component of training
- Put more in, get more out (but extend with balance)
|
|
Oct 2021
10:51am, 28 Oct 2021
1,913 posts
|
Brunski
Agree entirely Canute.
I had this below but you've summed it up better:
Coming back to this thread and what I like about it (whilst combining with your example)
Running an easy hour a day, 2 hours at weekend, will help build your aerobic efficiency. Personally I saw big gains at every distance from just upping the mileage and keeping a cap on the effort (that's where my original comment that I think low HR training works best when you have more tine/mileage to commit to it). I started Hadd training from a position of an underdeveloped aerobic engine and I guess that is also why a lot of PBs come from races close to (or in) a block of marathon training (increased mileage, mainly easy/steady running).
For me the discussion is what you want to do with the other 20%, and I think that should depend on the distance you're gearing training toward and your strengtgs/ weaknesses as a runner.
Personally I've never struggled with short reps, I've got decent speed from a lifetime of football so I don't do many short intervals.
Others won't have the leg strength or cadence for a quick 400/800m so might do more shorter intervals (or lots of strides) to improve their speed if they're wanting to race a quicker 5/10k, if they're running a marathon this wouldn't be as important.
|
|
Oct 2021
11:19am, 28 Oct 2021
75,032 posts
|
Gobi
Larks - not much to add here beyond saying this.
Find something and stick to it for a period of time.
Surprise me 
|
|
Oct 2021
11:21am, 28 Oct 2021
15,905 posts
|
larkim
Larks - not much to add here beyond saying this. Find something and stick to it for a period of time. Surprise me
I'll try
|
|
Oct 2021
11:38am, 28 Oct 2021
1,217 posts
|
Big_G
Pretty sure it was Fitzgerald that said in his book something about it not being hugely important what is done in the 20% (I’ll see if I can find the paragraph later). Also I did notice that in one his plans a lot of the weeks have quite a lot less than 20% of effort.
|
