I have a little different slant on what I think you are asking, Carol. I thought about answering your post last night, but decided to "sleep on it" to make sure I felt comfortable with where you are coming from.
Firstly, I think that you are a very wise woman to step back from marathoning and focus on a 10k "season". Perhaps I think that because it is precisely what I have advocated on these forums for over 7 years. ;-) It's what I did and got good results. However I didn't do it on a one-off basis. I did it year-in and year-out. Alternating 10k and marathon seasons each year was the foundation of my running regimen for the 7 years of my first running life and 3 years of my second running life. I think that 10k and marathon programs complement each other and can "stair-step" you to faster marathon times more efficiently and effectively than just focusing on marathon training alone.
If I interpret your post correctly, your long term goal is to become a better marathoner by late next year and you want to use a 10k program to help to get you there. Your challenge is to make the best use of the time you have before you begin your next 16-week marathon training cycle, which would be no earlier than late next summer for a late 2004 marathon.
First, a few general observations concerning 10k vs. marathon programs. Speed training should be more frequent and intense with a little more emphasis on VO2max vs. threshold training in the 10k program. Weekly/total mileage in a 10k program should be reduced to about 60-75% of that of a marathon program to offset the greater demands of speed training. A lot of that reduction should come from LSD's which don't have to be, and probably shouldn't be, longer than 13 miles.
Now, concerning training progression. I certainly agree with the periodization suggestions made by several others. It is basic Racing 101. There are 5 classical "phases" to a season for any distance....base building, strengthening, sharpening, racing, and rest/recovery (R&R). What changes with race distance is some of the specifics of these phases. Although there are many similarities between the phases that comprise marathon and 10k programs, there are also several differences. Let's talk about each phase.
R&R phase - I'll start with this phase because you are just completing a marathon program. The R&R phase is not only for recovery from the physical battering of the marathon effort, but also for mental respite and regrouping after a several month long, dedicated effort of your marathon program that probably involved a lot of mental stress. R&R is a period in which I permit myself some physical and mental indulgences that I denied myself during the months of the first four phases of the marathon season, such as a hot fudge sundae and other dietary "looseness". :-)
Before you begin a 10k program following St. George, you should complete the "rest/recovery" phase of your marathon program. A reasonable R&R phase is 2-4 weeks long. However, it shouldn't consist of just sitting on your duff. It should be "active rest". A general rule of thumb is to run about half the mileage that you averaged in marathon training and keep all of it "easy". No hard stuff during this period. Just run as far as you feel like running from day to day, or not at all, and don't worry about how many miles you are putting in, but also don't let your mileage fall below about 30-40% of your marathon training mileage. You should be R&R'd by early November and ready to begin 10k training.
Base building phase - As the others said, base building is as much a part of 10k training as it is for a marathon. It consists mostly of just running mileage. Don't worry about structured hard stuff in this phase, although there is nothing wrong with doing striders or a fartlek any time you feel like it. You could even run a short race or two during this time. A little unstructured, informal speedwork or racing can help to work off some of the "edginess" that you might feel from constant "easy" running during this phase. And it helps you to keep your "finger in the pie" during this "slack" time from "hard" workouts.
In your case base building doesn't have to be extensive. Why? Because you have just completed the best base building that you could do for a 10k season....marathon training. Sure, you will have undergone a brief R&R period before starting 10k base building. But, you won't lose much of your base from the marathon program if you keep the R&R to no longer than 4 weeks and about 40-50% of your marathon training mileage. Your need to reestablish your base will be minimal. A month or less of cranking mileage back up to about 75-80% of marathon training mileage should do it. By December you should be ready for the next phase.
Strengthening phase - This is when you start to do hard running on a scheduled basis. The emphasis should be on structured hill repeat workouts and threshold sessions (cruise intervals and/or tempo runs). Make an effort to plan more of your "easy" runs on hilly routes, if your "regular" routes are mostly flat. And keep your mileage up to where it was in the base building phase....about 75% of your average marathon training mileage. All of these techniques are good strength builders. You should also start to work in some shorter, faster VO2max intervals during this phase.
Don't force yourself to run two speed/hill workouts each and every week during this phase. Sure, the more the better. However, it is better in this phase to focus on continuing to crank out mileage, running on hills and the quality of individual speed workouts than on the frequency of the speed sessions. In the 1988 edition of "The New Competitive Runner's Handbook", Glover scheduled an average of 3 speed workouts every 2 weeks in this phase. (Yes, he acknowledged the five phases in his 1988 book, which you don't see in the 1999 edition.) I think that is a reasonable target, but it can be adjusted up or down depending on how you feel as you progress.
Just as base building phase is the most variable phase in duration within a marathon program, the strengthening phase is probably most variable for you in your 10k program, Carol. Why? Simply because, following your marathon program, which as I said above is the primary base building effort for your 10k program, you won't gain much from an extended 10k base building phase. You will gain much more from extending the strengthening phase instead. The strengthening phase includes the kind of speed/hill work that you will need for good 10k racing and your subsequent return to marathoning. It's a fundamental element of training that pays big returns for both distances.
One key to maximizing the payoff from the strengthening phase in your spring 10k race times is to work in some VO2max intervals before getting to the sharpening phase. It's a good idea to make about 25% of your speed/hill sessions during this phase VO2max workouts.
I suspect that the strengthening phase could be the longest of your 10k program. It probably should be about 8-10 weeks long, if your "target" 10k is in March/April. That would take you into February.
Sharpening phase - Here's where you get a bit of relief from mileage, but work harder in speed sessions. You should reduce mileage about 10-25%, depending on what "feels" right to you, to compensate for the more frequent and intense speedwork. However, continue your weekly LSD at 10-13 miles, as you should do throughout a 10k program.
The emphasis of your "hard" work in this phase should be on VO2max interval workouts and a few even faster and shorter repeats, which are called "repetitions" by Daniels and "power intervals" by Glover, vs. threshold and hill workouts. Of course, don't completely ignore threshold and hill work during this phase. They just take a back seat to the faster stuff, which is the reverse of the strengthening phase. Also, you should make more of an effort to run two speed sessions/week during this phase. The reduced mileage should permit that.
See the speedwork trend between phases here? It isn't a matter "either/or" between the type of speed/hill work done in each phase. You don't throw a switch when moving from one phase to another. You don't "stop this" and "start that". You incorporate a mix of speed/hill work in all phases, but change emphasis, frequency and intensity.
The sharpening phase should be about 4 weeks long. That would take you to sometime in March. You can control the precise beginning and end of the sharpening phase by playing with the length of the base building and strengthening phases. But, I would keep the sharpening phase to no longer than 3-5 weeks.
Racing phase - One of the most significant differences between 10k and marathon programs is in the racing phase.
A marathon racing phase typically consists of a 2-3 week taper and 1 or 2 marathon races. However, a 10k racing phase requires a taper of only about a week, can extend for as long as two months, and should include several races. This difference is significant. It makes your "target" 10k race much less "critical" than a target marathon. In a target marathon, you either make your goal or a half year of hard work might be "down the drain" from a racing objective perspective. But, it's different in a 10k program. If you don't make your goal in your "target" race, there is next week, and the next week, and so forth. I have often run my best 10k race of the season later in the racing phase than my "target" race.
You can easily run 4-6 races of 10k or shorter distance during a two month 10k race phase. And such frequent racing is a great contributor to the subsequent marathon season!
R&R phase - Nothing much to say here. It's just like in the post-marathon R&R phase, including the hot fudge sundae. ;-) Just get a little mental and physical break to prepare for your next marathon season.
There is another general difference between 10k and marathon programs....the flexibility to race while training. Because of total mileage and, especially, long LSD's, the opportunities to schedule short races while training are limited in a marathon program. However, it is much easier to schedule them into a 10k program. This is an extreme example, but one year I ran 12 races during a 12-week 10k program....and set seven 5-15k PR's in the process. As a general rule of thumb, try to work in a race at least every 4-5 weeks when marathon training and every 2-3 weeks when 10k training.
Concerning a "cookbook" training program, I know that Glover's 10k schedules in the 1999 edition of his book call for only one speed/hill session/week. But, don't hesitate to add a second one, if not every week, then some weeks. Play it by ear. In the 1988 edition of his book, he called for more frequent speed/hill work. The 1999 edition, which you probably have, reflects his nod to the "less is better" philosophy that has infected running in the last 15 years or so. Don't believe it. Modify his schedules to do more, not less.
The basic message here is that if you search for the "cookbook" marathon or 10k training program that is "perfect" for you, you will probably never find it. It is much better to understand the training principles that most affect you and adjust one of the "cookbook" schedules to be optimum for you as you learn what your needs and limitations are. You have already demonstrated an understanding of this principle by pointing out a fundamental structural difference between Glover's 10k schedules and Pfitz's marathon program. So, modify Glover's schedules to incorporate the principle from Pfitz that you like. That has been my approach for 20 years since Glover published the first edition of his book and I started using his training schedules as a guide, which I modified to suit my specific needs.
I think that you are on the right track, Carol. You have a long range view of where you want to go and what it will take to get you there. That is a fundamental concept that many runners are lacking. Now, it's just a matter of working out the details of how to get there. And you have a leg up on that. Stay here on this forum and you will get the help that you need.
Jim2
Monday, September 29, 2003
Friday, August 1, 2003
Changing Running Shoe Type
(The following post was written as a comment to a thread that suggested that running shoes are over designed. A couple of posters indicated that they were considering changing to lighter weight, more flexible shoes that have lower heels and utilize fewer technological features.)
A word of caution about making too much of a sudden change to the type of shoes that you use. At least, I will offer my personal experiences, which may or may not apply to you.
In 1983, during the first year of my first running life, I developed a severe case of ITBS at my right knee which completely stopped me from running. A visit to a sports medicine center determined that it was caused by overpronation.....that was when I learned that I am a moderate overpronator, especially on the right side.
My problem was that the running shoes that I was using didn't control the overpronation. When I started running a few months earlier, I went to one of the chain "mall athletic shoe stores" where a salesperson, who obviously didn't know what he was doing, sold me....a 180 pound beginning runner....a pair of Addidas racing flats! The doctor at the sports medicine center told me that I needed motion control shoes. I stopped running for a few weeks to let the ITBS heal. I tossed the Addidas racing flats, bought my first pair of Asics GT motion control shoes....the original Xcaliber GT model....and had no more problems for 5 years.
In 1988, I developed ITBS at my right hip. It wasn't severe enough to stop me from running....even training and racing hard....but it did bother me a lot. I thought it was just due to overuse because I had steadily increased mileage and the intensity of my running program for 5 consecutive years. However, several weeks passed and it didn't go away.
Finally, I returned to the sports medicine center. They tested me on a treadmill by video taping me from the rear while running in each of the three shoe models that I was using at the time. I had been alternating three Asics models for several months....the GT Express (motion control shoe), Epirus (stability shoe) and Gel Lytes (light weight trainers)....I had adopted the Gel Lytes a few months earlier to use a lighter shoe specifically for speedwork and racing.
(BTW, when Asics later discontinued the Epirus model, they integrated its tapered dual density midsole into the GT model in place of the old GT's high density medial post to create the GT20xx series.)
The result of the treadmill test was impressive. It showed that I had no over or under pronation with the GT Express and just a very slight amount of overpronation on the right side with the Epirus....not enough to be a concern. However, with the Gel Lytes I had a significant amount of overpronation of my right foot, which permitted my knee to go a full inch or more past the vertical plane. Interestingly, I could not detect any difference between the three models simply by how running felt, although the difference was strikingly apparent on the tape.
The doctors advised me to burn the Gel Lytes and stick with motion control and stability shoes to control my overpronation. After ditching the Gel Lytes as running shoes....I made them lawn mowing shoes....my ITBS cleared up.
The right shoe type can correct for biomechanical problems. However, the wrong shoe type can cause problems. Too much stability results in inadequate pronation, which is a natural shock absorbing feature of our bodies. It can even induce supination. Too little stability induces overpronation, and we all know the potential consequences of that.....injury.
The key to shoe selection for an optimum combination of performance and injury avoidance is to choose the minimum shoe that you need for your unique combination of biomechanical characteristics. If one is biomechanically neutral, then racing flats or light weight trainers are great. However, the rest of us need some help from shoe design.
It's true that the running shoes of yesteryear didn't have all of the technological features of those of today. Most fell into categories that we know today as racing flats and light weight trainers. However, there were also a lot fewer runners. And, perhaps, many of those who had biomechanical imperfections were simply weeded out by injuries, as I probably would have been if motion control shoes had not been available when I was a novice runner.
I would strongly suggest that anyone who isn't having a problem, but wants to try a different type of running shoe, at least have someone run behind you on an early run in the new shoe type and "eyeball" your form. The emphasis should be on looking for vertical alignment of the ankle, knee and hip in mid-stride and no medial (inward) movement of the knee past the vertical plane.
Jim2
A word of caution about making too much of a sudden change to the type of shoes that you use. At least, I will offer my personal experiences, which may or may not apply to you.
In 1983, during the first year of my first running life, I developed a severe case of ITBS at my right knee which completely stopped me from running. A visit to a sports medicine center determined that it was caused by overpronation.....that was when I learned that I am a moderate overpronator, especially on the right side.
My problem was that the running shoes that I was using didn't control the overpronation. When I started running a few months earlier, I went to one of the chain "mall athletic shoe stores" where a salesperson, who obviously didn't know what he was doing, sold me....a 180 pound beginning runner....a pair of Addidas racing flats! The doctor at the sports medicine center told me that I needed motion control shoes. I stopped running for a few weeks to let the ITBS heal. I tossed the Addidas racing flats, bought my first pair of Asics GT motion control shoes....the original Xcaliber GT model....and had no more problems for 5 years.
In 1988, I developed ITBS at my right hip. It wasn't severe enough to stop me from running....even training and racing hard....but it did bother me a lot. I thought it was just due to overuse because I had steadily increased mileage and the intensity of my running program for 5 consecutive years. However, several weeks passed and it didn't go away.
Finally, I returned to the sports medicine center. They tested me on a treadmill by video taping me from the rear while running in each of the three shoe models that I was using at the time. I had been alternating three Asics models for several months....the GT Express (motion control shoe), Epirus (stability shoe) and Gel Lytes (light weight trainers)....I had adopted the Gel Lytes a few months earlier to use a lighter shoe specifically for speedwork and racing.
(BTW, when Asics later discontinued the Epirus model, they integrated its tapered dual density midsole into the GT model in place of the old GT's high density medial post to create the GT20xx series.)
The result of the treadmill test was impressive. It showed that I had no over or under pronation with the GT Express and just a very slight amount of overpronation on the right side with the Epirus....not enough to be a concern. However, with the Gel Lytes I had a significant amount of overpronation of my right foot, which permitted my knee to go a full inch or more past the vertical plane. Interestingly, I could not detect any difference between the three models simply by how running felt, although the difference was strikingly apparent on the tape.
The doctors advised me to burn the Gel Lytes and stick with motion control and stability shoes to control my overpronation. After ditching the Gel Lytes as running shoes....I made them lawn mowing shoes....my ITBS cleared up.
The right shoe type can correct for biomechanical problems. However, the wrong shoe type can cause problems. Too much stability results in inadequate pronation, which is a natural shock absorbing feature of our bodies. It can even induce supination. Too little stability induces overpronation, and we all know the potential consequences of that.....injury.
The key to shoe selection for an optimum combination of performance and injury avoidance is to choose the minimum shoe that you need for your unique combination of biomechanical characteristics. If one is biomechanically neutral, then racing flats or light weight trainers are great. However, the rest of us need some help from shoe design.
It's true that the running shoes of yesteryear didn't have all of the technological features of those of today. Most fell into categories that we know today as racing flats and light weight trainers. However, there were also a lot fewer runners. And, perhaps, many of those who had biomechanical imperfections were simply weeded out by injuries, as I probably would have been if motion control shoes had not been available when I was a novice runner.
I would strongly suggest that anyone who isn't having a problem, but wants to try a different type of running shoe, at least have someone run behind you on an early run in the new shoe type and "eyeball" your form. The emphasis should be on looking for vertical alignment of the ankle, knee and hip in mid-stride and no medial (inward) movement of the knee past the vertical plane.
Jim2
Thursday, July 24, 2003
Running Strength
Running strength isn't quite as definitive as VO2max or LT. It's a bit ambiguous. However, as I view it, it has two components....physiological and psychological.
The physiological component is related to running economy, but it is also different. I think of both running strength and running economy as sub-elements of a broader subject that I call running efficiency. Running economy is a measure of how efficiently you use oxygen while running at a specific pace. Improving running economy means that you can physiologically sustain a faster pace at a given percentage of VO2max, or a given pace at a lower percentage of VO2max, for a longer distance. Running strength is a measure of how efficiently your muscles function at a specific pace, or what percentage of muscular capacity is used to run a given pace. Increasing muscular strength permits you to sustain a given pace longer with less percentage of your muscular capacity. In the latest (1999) edition of his book, "The Competitive Runner's Handbook", Glover calls running strength, muscular fitness. Some runners refer to "core strength", which I view as largely synonymous with running strength.
Hill running, fast continuous runs (like tempo runs and long MP runs) and higher mileage are all good ways to improve running strength physiologically. By hill running, I don't just mean periodic hill repeat workouts. Even on easy days, if you have a choice between hilly and flat routes, the hilly one will be the more beneficial choice. It isn't necessary to run the hills hard on an easy day. But, just having to lift yourself up them will contribute to strength development. You can even find ways in your everyday life that will benefit running strength. For example, if you have to go to an upper level of a building and have a choice between stairs and elevator, choose the stairs. Anything that contributes to muscular strength improvement, without building bulk (i.e., weight) will contribute to running strength. An excellent non-running way to contribute to the development of running strength is weight training. Some runners believe that leg weight training isn't particularly beneficial for a runner. I strongly disagree! It will contribute significantly to running strength improvement, which makes you a more efficient runner. You say that you don't have access to a fitness center for weight training? That's no excuse. Most forms of weight training can be improvised using items commonly found around the house. Heck, for leg presses, just put a kid on your shoulders and do 50 squats every evening. ;-)
Also, upper body work should not be ignored. Improving upper body fitness might be an obtuse element of improving running strength, but it is a real one. As one tires in a long race, such as a marathon....even a half marathon....form can deteriorate, which results in a decrease of running efficiency. A stronger upper body will help in maintaining form in the late stages of a race. It's all part of our strength as a runner.
I mentioned a psychological element of running strength. That relates to our ability and willingness to race outside of our "comfort zone". Again, that's a bit nebulous. Just as different people have different thresholds of pain, so to do different runners have different "comfort zone" boundaries.
Also, comfort zone has different meanings depending on race distance. For instance, I think the discomfort of a marathon and a 5k are quite different. That of a marathon is one of extreme weariness and muscular "deadness". I just want to stop and rest....or stop completely. My legs get sluggish and want to stop functioning. A lot of the discomfort battle is mental. My mind nags at me constantly over several miles for relief and I have to fight it. The discomfort is symptomatic of glycogen depletion. OTOH, the discomfort of a 5k is gut-wrenching, lung searing pain. Through most of the race, I want to ease the pace just a little just so I can breath again and get ready for the final push. That type of discomfort doesn't occur for me in a well paced marathon until I am in the final push to the finish line. As we learn to deal with and overcome discomfort, our "comfort zone" is expanded. That makes us stronger....and faster....racers.
Some forms of training workouts help us to work on our comfort zones. However, the best way to expand them is by racing. That's the only way we sustain a level of discomfort long enough to make it a really good "workout". The discomfort of 10k-half marathon distances are some combination of the marathon and 5k extremes. Probably, the longer the distance, the greater the test of the marathon comfort zone and the better for working on our "marathon comfort zone". However, you can run 10-15k races a lot more frequently than half marathons. And I think that race frequency is more important than race distance for "comfort zone" training. That's why I always tried to run about 20 races/year with most of them 10 miles or less.
Jim2
The physiological component is related to running economy, but it is also different. I think of both running strength and running economy as sub-elements of a broader subject that I call running efficiency. Running economy is a measure of how efficiently you use oxygen while running at a specific pace. Improving running economy means that you can physiologically sustain a faster pace at a given percentage of VO2max, or a given pace at a lower percentage of VO2max, for a longer distance. Running strength is a measure of how efficiently your muscles function at a specific pace, or what percentage of muscular capacity is used to run a given pace. Increasing muscular strength permits you to sustain a given pace longer with less percentage of your muscular capacity. In the latest (1999) edition of his book, "The Competitive Runner's Handbook", Glover calls running strength, muscular fitness. Some runners refer to "core strength", which I view as largely synonymous with running strength.
Hill running, fast continuous runs (like tempo runs and long MP runs) and higher mileage are all good ways to improve running strength physiologically. By hill running, I don't just mean periodic hill repeat workouts. Even on easy days, if you have a choice between hilly and flat routes, the hilly one will be the more beneficial choice. It isn't necessary to run the hills hard on an easy day. But, just having to lift yourself up them will contribute to strength development. You can even find ways in your everyday life that will benefit running strength. For example, if you have to go to an upper level of a building and have a choice between stairs and elevator, choose the stairs. Anything that contributes to muscular strength improvement, without building bulk (i.e., weight) will contribute to running strength. An excellent non-running way to contribute to the development of running strength is weight training. Some runners believe that leg weight training isn't particularly beneficial for a runner. I strongly disagree! It will contribute significantly to running strength improvement, which makes you a more efficient runner. You say that you don't have access to a fitness center for weight training? That's no excuse. Most forms of weight training can be improvised using items commonly found around the house. Heck, for leg presses, just put a kid on your shoulders and do 50 squats every evening. ;-)
Also, upper body work should not be ignored. Improving upper body fitness might be an obtuse element of improving running strength, but it is a real one. As one tires in a long race, such as a marathon....even a half marathon....form can deteriorate, which results in a decrease of running efficiency. A stronger upper body will help in maintaining form in the late stages of a race. It's all part of our strength as a runner.
I mentioned a psychological element of running strength. That relates to our ability and willingness to race outside of our "comfort zone". Again, that's a bit nebulous. Just as different people have different thresholds of pain, so to do different runners have different "comfort zone" boundaries.
Also, comfort zone has different meanings depending on race distance. For instance, I think the discomfort of a marathon and a 5k are quite different. That of a marathon is one of extreme weariness and muscular "deadness". I just want to stop and rest....or stop completely. My legs get sluggish and want to stop functioning. A lot of the discomfort battle is mental. My mind nags at me constantly over several miles for relief and I have to fight it. The discomfort is symptomatic of glycogen depletion. OTOH, the discomfort of a 5k is gut-wrenching, lung searing pain. Through most of the race, I want to ease the pace just a little just so I can breath again and get ready for the final push. That type of discomfort doesn't occur for me in a well paced marathon until I am in the final push to the finish line. As we learn to deal with and overcome discomfort, our "comfort zone" is expanded. That makes us stronger....and faster....racers.
Some forms of training workouts help us to work on our comfort zones. However, the best way to expand them is by racing. That's the only way we sustain a level of discomfort long enough to make it a really good "workout". The discomfort of 10k-half marathon distances are some combination of the marathon and 5k extremes. Probably, the longer the distance, the greater the test of the marathon comfort zone and the better for working on our "marathon comfort zone". However, you can run 10-15k races a lot more frequently than half marathons. And I think that race frequency is more important than race distance for "comfort zone" training. That's why I always tried to run about 20 races/year with most of them 10 miles or less.
Jim2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)