Thoughts on training at IM pace or slightly faster with lots of volume versus lower volume with speed/tempo work. Anyone care to chime in what worked better for them?
Six to one, half a dozen to another or whatever. You’re going to get a range of answers. Realistically, very few people ‘run’ an IM marathon and even then is is pretty slow by all standards. A ‘world class’ male marathon time is the south side of 2:10. A ‘world class’ male IM marathon is 2:40.
A lot of times, IM run pace is an awkward pace for a lot of athletes, so I think that a good bit of training at that particular pace with whatever method you are going to use to get through the marathon is a good thing. If you are going to run 8 minutes, walk 1, then practice it.
So, my answer is it depends on your goals, what time of the season you are wondering about, and what your pace might be. You might be able to cruise along at 8 minute pace for a lot of training runs, but the largest majority of IM racers are not going to run 3:30. So, it might be a good idea to get really used to running 9 minute pace which is just under 4 hours. Again, you’re likely to get varying answers here.
Consistency is #1 in importance.
Variety is #2. If you always go one speed, you are good at one speed.
I have the majority of my long course athletes on the track (or speed work or trails) in some fashion, but always with a purpose. There is little sense in doing 10x 400 at max effort, but lots of 400s in the super-threshold range or miles at threshold are great for long athletes.
Thoughts on training at IM pace or slightly faster with lots of volume versus lower volume with speed/tempo work. Anyone care to chime in what worked better for them?
That’s the approach I’m taking this time around. In the past, I’ve run at different paces depending on the length of my run. For example, I’d run shorter runs hard, medium distance moderate, and long runs easy.
From what I’ve been reading (and maybe I’m mis-reading), you should run a good portion of your runs at the pace you’re planning to run your IM. The reason is that it develops run economy at that pace. Economy becomes more critical for longer races.I do plan to add workouts that aid in run economy (hills, intervals, some plyo, etc.), however.
Agree that you’ll get many responses.
I’ll be interested to hear from the running gurus on this site…
Some considerations depending on your running background and speed of recovery etc:
If you take the lower volume, speed/tempo work approach, you’ll leave a lot of leg power to develop and keep a strong bike assuming you recover quicker from this type of running.
If you do a higher volume/ IM pace approach, you will be a tank for the run (that is good, you’ll plow through the run) but maybe have an overall slower race because you may have left some bike speed on the table.
Why not high volume and tempo intervals? Unless your time crunched. Build fitness first, then on you long runs in your final build, work on specific pacing. How do you know what your pace will be anyway until you’ve built up your fitness?
1 long run, 2 quality runs, and 2 recovery runs and 1 brick run per week. I think you cna take thsi approach and still balance bike volume. I’m still right around 50% of my weekly volume is cycling, but it too is 1 long ride, and 4 rides of varying goals/intensity, but not of them are easy rides. Toss in 4 swims per week and you have a IM training plan of you have 18-22 hours to burn.
I don’t think that high voluem mostly at IM pace is very time efficient unless you have little run background.
The other advantage of doign a lot of tempo, is that your still very fit for shorter distance “B” races at the 70.3 and Olympic distance. If you train only long and slow, then there’s not much ability to go fast.
I also believe that like your FTP in cycling, you IM pace is based on your threshold pace. Wile you still need spcifity for fatigue resistance over a long distance, if you do tempo and threshold intervals you should improve your threshold pace which in turn improves your IM pace. Faster rusn also increase your training load without increasing you volume.
Thoughts on training at IM pace or slightly faster with lots of volume versus lower volume with speed/tempo work. Anyone care to chime in what worked better for them?
For those who favor a low volume/intensity approach, please explain how the principle of training specificity does not apply in this case.
Well, in a perfect world high volume and tempo stuff might be best. Unfortunately, many of us don’t live in that perfect world and the bike will suffer from all the running. The OP posed it as either/or so that is the approach I took. I agree with everything you wrote, and ultimately concluded to myself that a general answer is near impossible on this subject. I’d think you’d need to know much more about the athlete, history, strengths/weaknesses to really get at THE possible correct answer for the OP.
Thoughts on training at IM pace or slightly faster with lots of volume versus lower volume with speed/tempo work. Anyone care to chime in what worked better for them?
Once I am fit enough, I like to do a lot of my runs at goal IM pace to help nail down pacing. Once I get really fit, its a pretty comfortable pace, so my long runs will usually be a bit faster and my recovery runs a bit slower, but I still try to do the rest of my runs at that pace. The fastest I’ll typically run during an Ironman build is half-Ironman paced intervals, aside from 5k/10k races and sprint/oly races.
Thoughts on training at IM pace or slightly faster with lots of volume versus lower volume with speed/tempo work. Anyone care to chime in what worked better for them?
For most people the IM effort will be in Zone 2 in a 5 Zone scale (Zone 1 is the easiest, zone 5 hardest). But for athletes following the polarized model of training, you will try not to spend time in that zone. It can be too hard for easy runs, and too easy for intervals.
Here you have some actual science on the topic.
http://journals.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/Munoz_ijspp_2012_0352-in%20press.pdf
I am know you asked about pace, but since not all courses or training loops are flat I focused my answer on effort.
If you are a fan of threshold training, do not pay attention to my answer.
Macca explaining his training run pacing. Good stuff: http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh
I like the approach where you do LSD for 80-90% of your volume, with one hard run workout per week. During the build for Ironman, I usually run 5 times per week. Three of those runs are about an hour, LSD, typically 8 miles each for my 7:30 pace. One run is a long run, about 2 hours, still LSD for 16 miles at 7:30 pace. Last run of the week is 3 x 5k at Tempo/Threshold pace, 5 minutes in between, totals about 13-14 miles with warm up and cool down (also LSD, 7-7:30 pace). This gives me 54 miles a week, and only 9.3 miles of that is faster than easy LSD pace, and even that is only Tempo/Threshold effort. It seems silly to go any faster during the Ironman specific build, or any slower in training to practice walk breaks. Speed work of 400-1600 meter intervals can help improve run form and cadence early, maybe during the base period, but still wouldn’t put it in more than once a week and should still be supported by fitness from other weekly runs.
A lot of times, IM run pace is an awkward pace for a lot of athletes, so I think that a good bit of training at that particular pace with whatever method you are going to use to get through the marathon is a good thing. If you are going to run 8 minutes, walk 1, then practice it.
if the purpose of training is to get faster, and not rehearse going slow, why prescribe this?
or, on the flip, if your IM run is 4hrs after 7 hours of swimming and biking, why not train it that way?
I would go with the former of lots of volume at IM pace or slightly faster if choosing exclusively between the two. Why are you selecting one of these modes “exclusively”? Mixing in both would be optimal with your mix depending on your run background or fitness. A strong runner who has the base or training history at marathons my be able to save time on doing long IM paced runs and use that time to improve the bike.
If you shared your run and or tri background you could probably get a better answer to your question.
Best,
GS
For those who favor a low volume/intensity approach, please explain how the principle of training specificity does not apply in this case.
Once again Mike plows through the bullshit. Great post Mike and I’ve told you this before, but you really should post more often here.
A lot of times, IM run pace is an awkward pace for a lot of athletes, so I think that a good bit of training at that particular pace with whatever method you are going to use to get through the marathon is a good thing. If you are going to run 8 minutes, walk 1, then practice it.
if the purpose of training is to get faster, and not rehearse going slow, why prescribe this?
or, on the flip, if your IM run is 4hrs after 7 hours of swimming and biking, why not train it that way?
I’m speaking in terms of whatever block of training is for race specificity because I don’t generally train for an IM 52 weeks out of the year. If you plan on walking the aid stations, for instance, I think that it is good practice. So that you choose to walk not have to walk. When you have to walk, for instance, it usually ends up being for far too long. Likewise, I might be comfortable running at sub-6 minute pace and 7:15 pace right now because I am doing quite a bit of training at those paces. But 640-650 might feel really awkward…which would be my general IM goal pace.
I’m not saying don’t run faster. It’s just how and when does the faster run training fit into the program. And, I’m not trying to be cryptic. I’ve had it work really well for athletes that I have coached as well as in my racing and training from our coach.
And going for a really long run after 4 hours of training can be more detrimental than beneficial…at least in my opinion.
you are on fire today
Macca explaining his training run pacing. Good stuff: http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh
For those who favor a low volume/intensity approach, please explain how the principle of training specificity does not apply in this case.
I’ll answer this with my experience:
It does apply. I’m running at the end of an Ironman so I’ll train that by running.
Do you think that the “principle of specificity” applies so stringently that you must train 7:30min/mile miles to run 7:30min/miles and anything else is suboptimal? I don’t.
Coincidentally though, if I go out and run an hour at a decent “in my groove” pace, I’ll most likely average around 7 mins per mile. If I do an hour of hard/easy running, say 4x8mins of 6:15 pace, with rests in between and warm up and cool down, I generally hit right around the same average pace for the whole hour, 7 mins/mile. So, is that specificity?
I hear the specificity drum starting to beat again. Next thing you know, you’ll hear someone refer to it as a “law”.
Thoughts on training at IM pace or slightly faster with lots of volume versus lower volume with speed/tempo work. Anyone care to chime in what worked better for them?
I ran a 3:29, first IM and first marathon.
Each week had a 2-2:15hr long run at IM pace (ie long run pace, but often with HM pace intervals), a speed session (5k/10k pace intervals), and plenty of other easy and/or endurance pace runs. I probably ran 5 hrs/week on average.
I will be doing my first IM this summer and this is the approach that I will be taking with the addition of a 3 mile run following my long ride. One question that I have is what some thoughts on making the long run longer (i.e… 21-miles versus 16-miles) but alternating it with a shorter 13-mile run instead.