Every IM has been a personal learning experience, half of it physical and the other half educational. More recently, my brother and I were discussing some IM training, more specifically pacing on the run. I began to realize my ignorance about a few basic definitions of our sport; fitness vs endurance at the IM level.
For example, many times I interchangeably use the definitions, but I have began to realize personally, as I may be fit, I have poor endurance (pertaining to the IM distance). Specifically, in regards to the run. Now some might say that I have endurance (well sure, to run an 8 hour marathon) and I am sure that I do, but not the endurance to run say a 3:00. In any case, how do you define fitness and endurance separately and collectively?
For example, many times I interchangeably use the definitions, but I have began to realize personally, as I may be fit, I have poor endurance (pertaining to the IM distance). Specifically, in regards to the run. Now some might say that I have endurance (well sure, to run an 8 hour marathon) and I am sure that I do, but not the endurance to run say a 3:00. In any case, how do you define fitness and endurance separately and collectively?
I think you define them collectively and that is that. We like to make distinctions between “types of fitness” that are not different at all for any event lasting more than a few minutes. If you can run a marathon in 4:00 but you can’t run one in 3:00, it’s not a **type **of fitness that you lack but an amount.
You could make a distinction in types of fitness between sports - ie. you have the fitness to bike 4:30 at IMH, but not the fitness to run 2:40. VO2max does not translate perfectly between sports. But the “type” of fitness you need for a 10k versus the “type” that you need for a marathon are at least 99% the same.
**But the “type” of fitness you need for a 10k versus the “type” that you need for a marathon are at least 99% the same. **
Really? Can you explain that a little more? (pretty please with sugar on top)
The first thought that popped into my head was “but a marathon is so much longer.” I’m missing something here…
Hi John. Hope your training is going well. Is it IM Canada that you’re gearing up for?
Regarding your question, I’m no training physiology expert, but I’d bet you’re doing the right thing. Thing is, you can’t rush your way from a 4 hour to a 3 hour IM Marathon. Be consistent. Be patient. But you knew that already. What terminology you use to name what systems you are improving during the journey matters less than knowing what it takes to get there and following through.
OK, I will try, but I am not Mr writing clarity today so try to bear with me.
When I say a different “type” of fitness, I mean that you have to be good at a different thing. Like the difference between biking and running, or skiing and chess. You would need a different kind of fitness to succeed in each of those. But the type of fitness that you would gain while training for a 10k is identical to that which you would gain training for a marathon, if you were training correctly. The same holds true down to about the mile, where different energy systems have to be emphasized. Even then, training is substantially the same.
If I can be absurdly reductive for a minute, it might help to think of it this way: what would you change about your training between a 10k and a 15k? A 15k and a half marathon? Half marathon and 20 miles? 20 miles and a marathon? The race distance is certainly more daunting as you move up, but the “thing” you have to be good at is still long distance running for each one.
Surely a scientific explanation exists out there, but absent that at the moment maybe it would be enough to say that there is a pretty great correlation between 10k times and marathon times among trained runners.
Hope that helps clarify what i was talking about…
Thanks to all for your words. Input from others has been helpful in the is learning process. I guess it is the mental challenge that continues to build the fortitude to “keep on” in IM.
