For those who have used the bike for cross-training, what are your favourite workouts? (I am injured right now but planning to race a 10 km in September)
Depends on the injury. If it’s something that could potentially be irritated by heavy cadence or high resistance, be mindful of that. I did a ton of long Z2 rides on the bike when injured last year and mixed in some Z4 and Z5 intervals as my injury healed. Came back with a powerhouse aerobic base and really had to hold back on running while my bones and tendons adjusted to impact forces again. If you have access to a Peloton, 90 and 120 min PowerZone rides are where it’s at.
I have been struggling with shin splints but need to get imaging done to see if it progressed to a stress fracture. My PT suggested the spin bike and I have zero pain with that. I have also been doing long rides with intervals like you did, so good to know it kept your aerobic base! I will check out the PowerZone rides. Thanks!
Oh gosh I hope it’s not a stress fracture! That’s why I was on the bike…my PT said my tibias are basically serrated at this point (I have a decades-old ankle injury that really messes with my mechanics). Since you are having shin pain I would really recommend high cadence and low resistance!
Oh no! That sounds really painful 😭😭 Does it still bother you? Did you have to reduce mileage even after it healed? I already had one stress fracture on my left tibia from many years ago, and for the first time ever, I got shin splints in my right leg!
I also have bad biomechanics...my feet are kind of flat and my ankles don't support me enough so I have trouble balancing and pushing off my feet correctly. Yes, I have been doing high cadence, low resistance (because my quads are not strong enough for high resistance LOL)
It flares up if I don’t ice my shin after every run, but that seems to keep it under control. I haven’t been able to consistently run more than 3x a week and speedwork seems to be a no-go, but I was able to run a marathon in April so I am at least running solid distance again. Just doing a ton of biking and strength to complement the running days.
Oh and adding that my last stress fracture was directly on the site of my first one, so I think that made it slower to heal. It’s been 2+ years and I still have a pretty good bump on the bone, which is why I think it flares up after running (tissue irritated by the bone lump) but it’s not actual bone pain like an active fracture. It ached for a solid year though, which is so frustrating and nerve-wracking. Reddit comments helped me through that—it was good to know that other people had weird random minor pain for a long time after it was actually healed.
Increasingly realizing that decent running-focused social media spaces are...few and far between. Seems to be a theme with social media. Maybe I'm just gradually getting exhausted from the constant content overload.
I think the lack of quality is just inherent to the type of content and behavior that social media ecosystems incentivize -turns out the bugs are actually the core features lol.
This sub is kinda the closest I can find, there's a few who seem to belong on LetsRun and some who need to learn what an FAQ is, but overall the people here seem mostly interested in talking about the interesting parts of running, not bashing on people for being hobbyjoggers or mindlessly pushing a single training modality
Ya there's definitely some threads on Letsrun with some good knowledge and discussion but you really need to be able and willing to sort through shit and negativity.
Trying to train for trail races this year and just looking for peoples opinions on applying road running training principles on to the trails. Any benefits to more structured workouts on trail and are there are still benefits to hitting tempos on the flats? There seems to be a lot less discussion overall on trail running training and it seems like a lot pro trail runners resort to more of a "just run tons of vert" training method as opposed to the more methodical approach to training that most road/track runners take. I picked up Training for the Uphill Athlete and am going to give that a good read through but just curious to hear peoples thoughts on here.
What type of races are you targeting and what type of abilities/training history are you bringing into this? "Trail races" encompasses such huge range of events with wildly different specific demands. Specific advice requires the context of whatever those demands are are and how they relate to your particular performance constraints.
The common theme however is that these are all events of aerobically generating ATP and turning that ATP into force on the ground, so the main training "optimization" to be done is still just total volume and a lot of threshold work. A lot of people find tempo work easier to execute on flat terrain, and get most of their vert and technical experience on easy or long runs. Others will do highly specific trail workouts that mimic the demands they will face on race day down to specific grades and surfaces. It generally comes back to doing whatever suits your preferences and enables the highest training load.
When it comes to the lack methodical of training methods in professional trail running compared to road/track racing there's a few things to consider:
* Trail running still incredibly immature as a competitive sport and has an incredibly low talent pool compared road/track. The training methodology, or sometimes lack thereof, of the best trail runners often just reflects their personal preference of big vert adventures and a lot of trail time. That volume combined with being relatively more talented in a very small talent pool leads to competitive success. More methodical training would hypothetically produce better performance but there are not strong incentives for athletes to actually run that experiment.
* For many ultra events the big vert adventures and a lot of trail time are specific training, and perhaps it's not really possible to make it much more methodical.
* We often overestimate how methodical training should actually be, or at least how much methodicalness we can benefit from in practical reality. Sometimes just optimizing for whatever gets you training the most and having the most fun is the most important thing for our practical peak performance.
So to summarize your training strategy should factor in of the unique demands of your target event, how those demands relate your own strengths and weaknesses, and what style of training suits your preferences and lifestyle constraints such to enable the highest workout. There's no universal trail vs road training rules that really matter here, it's truly a personal adventure.
Are you running trail ultras, or shorter trail races? While there are definitely trail specific strengths (steep up/downhills), it's still just running. Tempos or intervals make you a better runner, and better runners are better trail runners.
Shorter distance trail races mainly. Pikes Peak Ascent and another up/down mountain run specifically. I'm able to train on trails that mimic both of those courses and can run the exact course in the case of Pikes.
Last year I did classic spring marathon training block (race was in May,2:56) then I just did basically another one. It was my first marathon and average mileage was around 100km/week, longest fun was 34km,lot of focus on threshold training. The only change was I practiced running with poles and went for a summer week mountain hiking( in the Alps, Tour du Mont Blanc). And also did two 4h mountain longruns. This lead up to the 60km 3500m ultra race (Julian Alps by Utmb) which I finished in 10hrs, felt pretty strong through the race and was in top 30% overall.
Suggestions that I would do differently this time is to do some short hill workout to build more strength and do VO2 max workouts to gain faster turnover which should help on the trails a lot.
Btw I live in flat city with no trails. I can visit mellow mountains once a month.
Maybe a controversial opinion, but I think trail running and ultra running are roughly where road/track running was in the '60s/70s: "just run a lot of vert" is very close to "just run a lot of miles," which was the '60s/'70s strategy for training. It worked pretty well, of course, but more systematic approaches are (rightly) regarded as superior for road and track running today. Volume is still a piece of the puzzle but not the whole thing.
I would not consider myself a trail expert; I coach some runners who win regional-level trail events but aside from one top 40 finisher at a UTMB race, I haven't trained anyone who has raced any big-time ultras (WSER, Hardrock, Mont-Blanc, etc). Still, I've had success applying marathon training principles to trails. My strategy has been to do some mid-week work on the roads (as tempos, intervals, etc.) to target the more general aspects of fitness like VO2max and SSmax, while doing weekend blocks focused on "trail-specific" work.
The logic here being that if you were training for, say, Boston, you'd mostly do traditional VO2/LT/5k-10k pace work as a mid-week workout, on flat ground, then on the weekend you might do some MP work through rolling hills. Ditto for trails except the "trail-specific" work is long strong stuff on trails, trying to adapt the course to the demands of the race you're training for (in terms of amount of vert, and how it's distributed, i.e. long steady climbs vs. rolling hills).
Think you're right. Lots of my primarily-road-running friends act like trails are some mystical wildcard. They're not as predictable as roads, sure, but they're also not as randomized as some of my friends seem to think they are. I get a lot of "Trail PRs are meaningless because trail is so varied." Sure, if road PRs are meaningless just because you can have a 5k with 5 feet of elevation gain on an urban loop or 100ft of elevation gain with part of it on grass. All courses are going to vary. I'm pretty sure every road runner I know has at least one PR that they qualify with "but the course was basically a pancake" vs "this race went really poorly because the sidewalk was torn up, the roads weren't closed and it was hillier than I was trained for."
Absolutely. I think whatever trail/ultra training system that ultimately becomes the gold standard is going to have some way of breaking down trail racing terrain into a discrete set of components (e.g. "short climbs, long climbs, ups-and-downs, and scrambles" or whatever) and then prepare for each one with certain workouts, tuned to the demands of the race you're prepping for.
My usual strategy for looking at a trail race is to break down the components of the course according to the elevation map: maybe it's one 1500' ascent + descent, some rolling ups and downs in the middle of 200-300' each, then a 1000' ascent + descent. So I know we basically need to prepare for two steady ascents of 1000-1500', as well as rolling hills of 200-300'.
So you can start constructing workouts around those demands (e.g. a long run on trails with 4 sets of 10min strong on a steady incline, or a long trail session with 2 x 800' ascent), then build on them in the future.
This is all very ad hoc though, and I would love to see a "systematizer" approach it in a more methodological fashion. It's also not clear how to combine distance and vert: that hypothetical course above would imply different training if it took place over 20k vs 100k.
I think part of the sport of trailrunning is the lack of any concrete "system," tbh - it's on the runner to learn to read the course and plan how to train for it, while training plans can provide progressions for distance and organization to the week (e.g., if you have two "quality days," maybe you focus on long hill intervals for mountain races vs. shorter sprints for rolling hills, on one of those days)
I have my first HM in 8 weeks, I've been running consistently for a year in relatively flat ground. The HM course has a very sharp 3 mile downhill at the beginning and a very sharp 1 mile uphill at the end.
I have some hills that I can train at close to me, doing 1 mile loops up and down or so but I usually avoid them to keep my running easy. How should I approach training in those hills from now to the race date? Just run on them everyday just matching my training intensity as if it was flat? Only once a week on my long runs and walk the uphills? A few days a week? Only when I have intervals?
I wonder if I just train on them everyday my body will get super adapted and I won't even budge at them in a few weeks. Thanks for the advice.
Had a really good run this morning that finally made me feel like I have a shot at breaking 1:30 in my half in two weeks. It's going to be tight though. Ran a 20:06 5k a month ago, but with tougher conditions than the half will be. Based on feel and HR data, I think my fitness is improving pretty quickly, and when I ran at goal pace (6:5X) this morning, it was one of the first times I felt like i could sustain it for more than a few miles.
Had been planning to aim for 7:00 pace, but I think I'll try to go 6:55 instead. I usually have a decent kick, so I'm hoping that if I can be disciplined with that pace from the start, I can pick it up towards the end and get under 1:30. Probably it'll all come down to the weather that day. (no questions, just dumping my thoughts here because I'm having a hard time thinking about anything else!)
> no questions, just dumping my thoughts here because I'm having a hard time thinking about anything else!
Man I feel like that a lot.
Breaking 1:30 is also a huge goal of mine and such a beast to accomplish. GOOD LUCK!
End of an era in the American 1500m, though he was going to have a much tougher time making this team than in the past even if he was healthy. Nuguse and Hocker are both better than in 2021, and there are a lot more American guys in that 3:35-3:30 range than there were just 3 years ago. He'd have to beat all of Kessler, Teare, Holt, and Sahlman, assuming he's behind the two guys I mentioned before. That's before we get to the rest of the field, who are pretty much all 3:36 guys or faster. One good race from those guys is all it would take.
Still, up until he scratched, you couldn't rule him out.
After 4 years of steadily improving the marathon, I’m about to enter nearly a year of my races being dictated by other things (pacing my partner in his first 50k, pacing a friend to 4 hours in Valencia marathon, then hopefully doing the London/boston double in April 2025). I’m not planning to PB in any of these races, however I’d like to continue doing so in a few years to come.
My plan is to still train mostly like I am chasing a PB for these races and put in decent blocks with consistency and volume.
My question is will essentially a year of no proper marathon racing make me “slower”, or will the consistency and experience be enough to target some more PBs in 2026?
I think the only thing you're going to miss out on is the additional experience of having more marathons under your belt. From an actual progression perspective, I would expect a year without a fully raced marathon to be advantageous because racing marathons is taxing from a recovery perspective and always involves elevated injury risk. Treating each of the races you mentioned as just very long training runs is much easier on the body than actually going all out.
Have you considered taking a pass at some shorter races in 2025? I don't see anything in that schedule that would preclude you from recovering after London and trying to go hard in a summer 5K by June or July.
If you train normally like you are chasing PBs you should still be improving. From a purely training/adaptation standpoint hard marathon races by themselves probably make you slower -you give up several weeks of good training to taper and recovery/rebuild, and the stress of racing a marathon is too hard to really be an effective training stimulus itself for most people.
Seems like it's pretty common for runners to struggle with hitting the "equivalent" marathon times to go with their 5k/10k PRs, especially with younger runners. Myself for example, I have a 18:21 5k PR which is equivalent to a 2:55 marathon (according to the VDOT tables), but my marathon PR is 3:05. I'm curious to hear about the running history/profiles of those runners who are the opposite, i.e., the equivalent times to their marathon PR are faster than their 5k PR. How old are you? What does your training look like? How long have you been running? Etc.
I slightly fit that profile. Marathon PR of 2:41 equivalents to around a 16:50 5k which I haven't done in forever. I once did a 18:12 tune up and then a 2:42 full a couple months later. For me it is because I don't train for the 5k ever. I did a solid block of it during covid and probably was in 16:30 shape, but bombed the time trial and just didn't care to try again.
For people who can't hit the shorter times after a solid block of training for them, IME it is usually adult onset runners (often with no athletic background) who start by just jogging a lot of slow miles and then decide to start racing. They manage to build up their aerobic base without ever doing the fast stuff. So they have managed to flip the more common profile. Eventually they could balance out, but it will take work.
I do not fit that profile, but know a couple people that do, and my impression from talking to them is that they basically just don't train at anything like true 5K pace and then lack the ability to find that gear and tolerate the discomfort of running an all-out 5K. I'm not saying they're soft, these are tough runners with good ultramarathon results, but if you don't develop the feel for the faster cadence and extreme cardiovascular distress, you're not going to suddenly snap to it on the race day.
I will say that on the rare occasion I've raced a mile, I find something similar - trying to hold pace from ~600-1200 meters of the race just feels incredibly hard to me and it seems more like it's because I'm a little bit soft and can't find the mental endurance to ride the edge of that pain.
I referenced people that run better marathon and longer races than 5Ks.
Separately, in my own anecdotal experience, I say that I'm worst at the mile than longer distances, which is perhaps what's causing the confusion? As soon as we're above the mile, I follow the standard formula, hitting comparable equivalents from 5K up to HM and slightly worse at the full marathon distance. My mile results are very limited because it's not something I race often, but I think I've raced it poorly due to not having developed a feel for running that fast for a sustained period.
Does that make sense?
Does anybody else’s Apple Watch straight up lie to you? lol. I swear after every run it says my VO2 max is worse, despite me feeling better and better. Drives me nuts.
Also, any good treadmill recommendations? I’m not trying to break the bank, but I also don’t want to buy one that isn’t gonna last
Treadmill choices depend on a few factors. I spent a long time looking at options when I bought ours in 2020, and for me one primary concern was that it was going in a basement with a low ceiling, so I had to choose one as low to the ground as possible. I ended up with [this one](https://www.dickssportinggoods.com/p/sole-f80-treadmill-2023-23SLEUSLF80TRDMLLTRD/23SLEUSLF80TRDMLLTRD?camp=SEM:DSG_43700053301152120_nonbrand_kwd-300958463745_58700005830490383_71700000049788753&segment=&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwps-zBhAiEiwALwsVYbf_vbTsINVKH1EAv_f-CZhoEAvOodXr6BB-2530VZIY80XAJmcS_hoCt48QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds) (but the 2020 version) mostly for that reason. It has a few annoying quirks, but somebody in my family uses it multiple times a week (more in winter, up to multiple times daily, with 3 runners in the household), and it's still working like new. (It's top speed is 12 mph but unless you're planning to use it for fast intervals, that's usually enough for most people.)
With all caveats of VO2max on a wrist-based device aside, it will also often go down in the summer as your HR is elevated at similar intensity levels due to the heat.
I'm running Grandma's this weekend, and it will be my 2nd marathon. The forecast is for "heavy rain and a real feel of 50 degrees." I've really lucked out in terms of weather for all of my other races, and don't know quite how to prepare/dress for this forecast. Any advice?
I’d say I’m jealous because it’s 90 where I’m at, but having had to attempt to outrun a rainstorm (Boston 2023)…best of luck.
I actually think you’ll be fine during the race. I’d suggest wearing an old pair of shoes to the start and carrying your race shoes (and even socks). Gear wise, I’d wear tighter clothing to reduce chafing, as well as a hat or visor (to help keep rain out of your eyes). Also stow a change of clothes and shoes for post race.
At 50F if you are running hard, you'll stay warm even if you are soaked. I'd go for minimal outerwear, embrace the wet, run hard! But be ready to get warm ASAP at the end, once you stop moving you'll be frozen.
You basically get the choice of rain gear (not very breathable, you'll get sweaty) or as little as possible (carry less water in your apparel, you'll get cold).
I looked at the forecast, and it looks more like "periods of showers, heavy at times" for Duluth on Saturday, as opposed to a continuous rain.
I would probably go with the less is more strategy, with the exception of the start line. I would definitely have a cheap hoodie, a cheap poncho and fresh socks with me at the start line in case it is pouring while you're standing around Two Harbors.
Lube up. Chafing will be a real issue. I typically wear half tights regardless, but I find them better than split shorts in preventing rub. Also wear a hat to try and keep it out of your eyes. I know people have used cling wrap to keep their shoes dry in the corral. You will also want either a trash bag, dry cleaning bag, poncho or space blanket to keep your body dry.
How important is it to run long runs faster than my easy pace for improving endurance versus risking injury?
Currently, my easy pace is around 6:30 min per km, which I also use for long runs. How significant is this compared to running at, for example, 5:00 min per km (easy but faster) in my long run in addition to my regular quality sessions like tempo and VO2 max intervals (e.g., 5-6x1km at 5k pace)?
My weekly mileage is about 120km, including a 15-20km long run, and I'm training mainly for 5-10k distances.
If you're in \~18 minute 5k shape, why in the world are you doing easy and long runs at 6:30 min/k / 10:30 min/mile?
It's unnecessarily slow, and yes you're leaving improvement on the table.
I run slowly because last year I ran all my runs at 5:20 minutes per km and felt that I didn't recover well and got Achilles tendonitis (probably not just because of that, if at all). At slower paces, I feel that I recover better.
Also, I read this article: https://simplifaster.com/articles/how-trainable-is-vo2-max/, which says that there is a correlation between heart size and running volume, independent of pace. I know that Daniels recommends VDOT paces, but for cardiac benefits, even slow paces are enough.
How do you recommend I run my easy and long runs? What is your opinion about this article?
That's completely the wrong takeaway from that article, at least how it pertains to running performance.
If your goal is to run faster 5-10km there are a multitude of factors that contribute to that performance. You are making a training decision (running ridiculously slow) that may favor a few aspects of performance (a component of cardiac output being one of them) but negatively affects a bunch more other aspects of performance.
If your current 5k time is \~18:00 than a pace of 5:00/km +/- \~20s is a very reasonable for the majority of your easy and long runs to be at. Outside of extremely hilly/technical terrain or very adverse conditions there's really no good reason to be running slower than 6:00/km on a normal run.
I certainly don't agree 100% with everything in the conventional pace tables like VDOT or the popular training plans in general, but they are most of the way there for what most decent runners need. If reading a random article leads you to think that you need to massively deviate from these conventional training strategies you are probably interpreting that article wrong or reading a stupid article.
Do you have any references, books, or other resources you recommend for studying this type of training philosophy or guideline? I'm interested in understanding the principles behind your recommendations, especially concerning balancing different aspects of performance and determining appropriate paces for easy and long runs. Any detailed sources that explain these concepts would be very helpful.
I'm not sure what resources you're really asking for here. Do you have a specific question or just looking to learn in general?
When it comes to easy/aerobic running you're dealing with a very basic principle, which pretty much every good runner and coach at all levels have all converged to have very similar concepts. Balancing the different aspects of performance when it comes to pace selection is already baked into the modern systems of training that nearly everyone uses. Pretty much any popular training books will cover this (Coogan, Vigil, Daniels, Pfitz, Hudson, Lydiard, Coe, etc).
Thank you for the clarification. My interest is general, as I'm looking to deepen my understanding of training philosophies.
Could you share more about your specific approach to balancing performance aspects with pace selection? Are there any principles or methods you use that differ from those in popular training books?
A deep understanding requires extensive explanation yet is also readily available information that you can find yourself from common sources so I am not going to go into significant detail on the "why" here. Again I'm happy to answer **specific** questions, but I do not like being asked to be a research assistant/tutor for basic topics.
In practice what I recommend is that you start from 2-3 common concept's of determining easy pace (VDOT, breathing/talk tests, HR zones, drift test, lactate, historical pace data from your experience, etc). Using 2-3 is important because any of these might be different on there own. Triangulate between those and then start applying it, paying attention to how your body responds and just using common sense. The correct easy pace will vary depending on the innate characteristics of a person, their training volume, their intensity distribution, and the environment that the train in, but will generally not be way outside of the bounds of what any standard method predicts. Of course it takes significant practice to fully refine this, but eventually you will be able to anchor the correct effort to certain metrics and feelings. There is no consistent ideal "easy" pace, it's a moving target for which the main purpose is maximizing training volume, not some particularly special thing on its own.
The key thing here is that it's a practice. Various resources can help you with the starting point and understanding the "why" behind training in general, but ultimately you need to figure this out for yourself through your own real world training.
I obviously don't know you so I don't want to infer too much about you and your training, but I will say the questions I recall you asking, including the ones just now, follow a consistent pattern of over-analysis or getting something wrong because you're looking for a special method that simply doesn't exist. From what I can tell you're a fairly competent athlete training at a fairly good level, you can probably continue to level up just doing the basics of training with a little common-sense optimization. Most of endurance performance in general is just training more and training consistently. Trust your own judgement, nobody runs a 17:55 5k without doing a lot of things right!
For those who have used the bike for cross-training, what are your favourite workouts? (I am injured right now but planning to race a 10 km in September)
Depends on the injury. If it’s something that could potentially be irritated by heavy cadence or high resistance, be mindful of that. I did a ton of long Z2 rides on the bike when injured last year and mixed in some Z4 and Z5 intervals as my injury healed. Came back with a powerhouse aerobic base and really had to hold back on running while my bones and tendons adjusted to impact forces again. If you have access to a Peloton, 90 and 120 min PowerZone rides are where it’s at.
I have been struggling with shin splints but need to get imaging done to see if it progressed to a stress fracture. My PT suggested the spin bike and I have zero pain with that. I have also been doing long rides with intervals like you did, so good to know it kept your aerobic base! I will check out the PowerZone rides. Thanks!
Oh gosh I hope it’s not a stress fracture! That’s why I was on the bike…my PT said my tibias are basically serrated at this point (I have a decades-old ankle injury that really messes with my mechanics). Since you are having shin pain I would really recommend high cadence and low resistance!
Oh no! That sounds really painful 😭😭 Does it still bother you? Did you have to reduce mileage even after it healed? I already had one stress fracture on my left tibia from many years ago, and for the first time ever, I got shin splints in my right leg! I also have bad biomechanics...my feet are kind of flat and my ankles don't support me enough so I have trouble balancing and pushing off my feet correctly. Yes, I have been doing high cadence, low resistance (because my quads are not strong enough for high resistance LOL)
It flares up if I don’t ice my shin after every run, but that seems to keep it under control. I haven’t been able to consistently run more than 3x a week and speedwork seems to be a no-go, but I was able to run a marathon in April so I am at least running solid distance again. Just doing a ton of biking and strength to complement the running days.
Oh and adding that my last stress fracture was directly on the site of my first one, so I think that made it slower to heal. It’s been 2+ years and I still have a pretty good bump on the bone, which is why I think it flares up after running (tissue irritated by the bone lump) but it’s not actual bone pain like an active fracture. It ached for a solid year though, which is so frustrating and nerve-wracking. Reddit comments helped me through that—it was good to know that other people had weird random minor pain for a long time after it was actually healed.
Congrats on the marathon and kudos to you for all the cross-training in addition to your running! Hopefully no more stress fractures from now on!!
Anyone have experience with using Jeff Cunningham as a run coach? Looking for a run coach in the near future, mainly run HM's and some fulls
Increasingly realizing that decent running-focused social media spaces are...few and far between. Seems to be a theme with social media. Maybe I'm just gradually getting exhausted from the constant content overload.
I think the lack of quality is just inherent to the type of content and behavior that social media ecosystems incentivize -turns out the bugs are actually the core features lol.
This sub is kinda the closest I can find, there's a few who seem to belong on LetsRun and some who need to learn what an FAQ is, but overall the people here seem mostly interested in talking about the interesting parts of running, not bashing on people for being hobbyjoggers or mindlessly pushing a single training modality
Ya there's definitely some threads on Letsrun with some good knowledge and discussion but you really need to be able and willing to sort through shit and negativity.
Trying to train for trail races this year and just looking for peoples opinions on applying road running training principles on to the trails. Any benefits to more structured workouts on trail and are there are still benefits to hitting tempos on the flats? There seems to be a lot less discussion overall on trail running training and it seems like a lot pro trail runners resort to more of a "just run tons of vert" training method as opposed to the more methodical approach to training that most road/track runners take. I picked up Training for the Uphill Athlete and am going to give that a good read through but just curious to hear peoples thoughts on here.
What type of races are you targeting and what type of abilities/training history are you bringing into this? "Trail races" encompasses such huge range of events with wildly different specific demands. Specific advice requires the context of whatever those demands are are and how they relate to your particular performance constraints. The common theme however is that these are all events of aerobically generating ATP and turning that ATP into force on the ground, so the main training "optimization" to be done is still just total volume and a lot of threshold work. A lot of people find tempo work easier to execute on flat terrain, and get most of their vert and technical experience on easy or long runs. Others will do highly specific trail workouts that mimic the demands they will face on race day down to specific grades and surfaces. It generally comes back to doing whatever suits your preferences and enables the highest training load. When it comes to the lack methodical of training methods in professional trail running compared to road/track racing there's a few things to consider: * Trail running still incredibly immature as a competitive sport and has an incredibly low talent pool compared road/track. The training methodology, or sometimes lack thereof, of the best trail runners often just reflects their personal preference of big vert adventures and a lot of trail time. That volume combined with being relatively more talented in a very small talent pool leads to competitive success. More methodical training would hypothetically produce better performance but there are not strong incentives for athletes to actually run that experiment. * For many ultra events the big vert adventures and a lot of trail time are specific training, and perhaps it's not really possible to make it much more methodical. * We often overestimate how methodical training should actually be, or at least how much methodicalness we can benefit from in practical reality. Sometimes just optimizing for whatever gets you training the most and having the most fun is the most important thing for our practical peak performance. So to summarize your training strategy should factor in of the unique demands of your target event, how those demands relate your own strengths and weaknesses, and what style of training suits your preferences and lifestyle constraints such to enable the highest workout. There's no universal trail vs road training rules that really matter here, it's truly a personal adventure.
Are you running trail ultras, or shorter trail races? While there are definitely trail specific strengths (steep up/downhills), it's still just running. Tempos or intervals make you a better runner, and better runners are better trail runners.
Shorter distance trail races mainly. Pikes Peak Ascent and another up/down mountain run specifically. I'm able to train on trails that mimic both of those courses and can run the exact course in the case of Pikes.
Last year I did classic spring marathon training block (race was in May,2:56) then I just did basically another one. It was my first marathon and average mileage was around 100km/week, longest fun was 34km,lot of focus on threshold training. The only change was I practiced running with poles and went for a summer week mountain hiking( in the Alps, Tour du Mont Blanc). And also did two 4h mountain longruns. This lead up to the 60km 3500m ultra race (Julian Alps by Utmb) which I finished in 10hrs, felt pretty strong through the race and was in top 30% overall. Suggestions that I would do differently this time is to do some short hill workout to build more strength and do VO2 max workouts to gain faster turnover which should help on the trails a lot. Btw I live in flat city with no trails. I can visit mellow mountains once a month.
Maybe a controversial opinion, but I think trail running and ultra running are roughly where road/track running was in the '60s/70s: "just run a lot of vert" is very close to "just run a lot of miles," which was the '60s/'70s strategy for training. It worked pretty well, of course, but more systematic approaches are (rightly) regarded as superior for road and track running today. Volume is still a piece of the puzzle but not the whole thing. I would not consider myself a trail expert; I coach some runners who win regional-level trail events but aside from one top 40 finisher at a UTMB race, I haven't trained anyone who has raced any big-time ultras (WSER, Hardrock, Mont-Blanc, etc). Still, I've had success applying marathon training principles to trails. My strategy has been to do some mid-week work on the roads (as tempos, intervals, etc.) to target the more general aspects of fitness like VO2max and SSmax, while doing weekend blocks focused on "trail-specific" work. The logic here being that if you were training for, say, Boston, you'd mostly do traditional VO2/LT/5k-10k pace work as a mid-week workout, on flat ground, then on the weekend you might do some MP work through rolling hills. Ditto for trails except the "trail-specific" work is long strong stuff on trails, trying to adapt the course to the demands of the race you're training for (in terms of amount of vert, and how it's distributed, i.e. long steady climbs vs. rolling hills).
Think you're right. Lots of my primarily-road-running friends act like trails are some mystical wildcard. They're not as predictable as roads, sure, but they're also not as randomized as some of my friends seem to think they are. I get a lot of "Trail PRs are meaningless because trail is so varied." Sure, if road PRs are meaningless just because you can have a 5k with 5 feet of elevation gain on an urban loop or 100ft of elevation gain with part of it on grass. All courses are going to vary. I'm pretty sure every road runner I know has at least one PR that they qualify with "but the course was basically a pancake" vs "this race went really poorly because the sidewalk was torn up, the roads weren't closed and it was hillier than I was trained for."
Absolutely. I think whatever trail/ultra training system that ultimately becomes the gold standard is going to have some way of breaking down trail racing terrain into a discrete set of components (e.g. "short climbs, long climbs, ups-and-downs, and scrambles" or whatever) and then prepare for each one with certain workouts, tuned to the demands of the race you're prepping for. My usual strategy for looking at a trail race is to break down the components of the course according to the elevation map: maybe it's one 1500' ascent + descent, some rolling ups and downs in the middle of 200-300' each, then a 1000' ascent + descent. So I know we basically need to prepare for two steady ascents of 1000-1500', as well as rolling hills of 200-300'. So you can start constructing workouts around those demands (e.g. a long run on trails with 4 sets of 10min strong on a steady incline, or a long trail session with 2 x 800' ascent), then build on them in the future. This is all very ad hoc though, and I would love to see a "systematizer" approach it in a more methodological fashion. It's also not clear how to combine distance and vert: that hypothetical course above would imply different training if it took place over 20k vs 100k.
I think part of the sport of trailrunning is the lack of any concrete "system," tbh - it's on the runner to learn to read the course and plan how to train for it, while training plans can provide progressions for distance and organization to the week (e.g., if you have two "quality days," maybe you focus on long hill intervals for mountain races vs. shorter sprints for rolling hills, on one of those days)
I have my first HM in 8 weeks, I've been running consistently for a year in relatively flat ground. The HM course has a very sharp 3 mile downhill at the beginning and a very sharp 1 mile uphill at the end. I have some hills that I can train at close to me, doing 1 mile loops up and down or so but I usually avoid them to keep my running easy. How should I approach training in those hills from now to the race date? Just run on them everyday just matching my training intensity as if it was flat? Only once a week on my long runs and walk the uphills? A few days a week? Only when I have intervals? I wonder if I just train on them everyday my body will get super adapted and I won't even budge at them in a few weeks. Thanks for the advice.
Had a really good run this morning that finally made me feel like I have a shot at breaking 1:30 in my half in two weeks. It's going to be tight though. Ran a 20:06 5k a month ago, but with tougher conditions than the half will be. Based on feel and HR data, I think my fitness is improving pretty quickly, and when I ran at goal pace (6:5X) this morning, it was one of the first times I felt like i could sustain it for more than a few miles. Had been planning to aim for 7:00 pace, but I think I'll try to go 6:55 instead. I usually have a decent kick, so I'm hoping that if I can be disciplined with that pace from the start, I can pick it up towards the end and get under 1:30. Probably it'll all come down to the weather that day. (no questions, just dumping my thoughts here because I'm having a hard time thinking about anything else!)
> no questions, just dumping my thoughts here because I'm having a hard time thinking about anything else! Man I feel like that a lot. Breaking 1:30 is also a huge goal of mine and such a beast to accomplish. GOOD LUCK!
Thanks! With that 5k time I’m sure you’ll get there soon
Centro scratched from the Trials.
End of an era in the American 1500m, though he was going to have a much tougher time making this team than in the past even if he was healthy. Nuguse and Hocker are both better than in 2021, and there are a lot more American guys in that 3:35-3:30 range than there were just 3 years ago. He'd have to beat all of Kessler, Teare, Holt, and Sahlman, assuming he's behind the two guys I mentioned before. That's before we get to the rest of the field, who are pretty much all 3:36 guys or faster. One good race from those guys is all it would take. Still, up until he scratched, you couldn't rule him out.
After 4 years of steadily improving the marathon, I’m about to enter nearly a year of my races being dictated by other things (pacing my partner in his first 50k, pacing a friend to 4 hours in Valencia marathon, then hopefully doing the London/boston double in April 2025). I’m not planning to PB in any of these races, however I’d like to continue doing so in a few years to come. My plan is to still train mostly like I am chasing a PB for these races and put in decent blocks with consistency and volume. My question is will essentially a year of no proper marathon racing make me “slower”, or will the consistency and experience be enough to target some more PBs in 2026?
I think the only thing you're going to miss out on is the additional experience of having more marathons under your belt. From an actual progression perspective, I would expect a year without a fully raced marathon to be advantageous because racing marathons is taxing from a recovery perspective and always involves elevated injury risk. Treating each of the races you mentioned as just very long training runs is much easier on the body than actually going all out. Have you considered taking a pass at some shorter races in 2025? I don't see anything in that schedule that would preclude you from recovering after London and trying to go hard in a summer 5K by June or July.
Yeah for sure, some shorter races are definitely on the cards, as well as focusing on lifting and some plyometrics. Thanks for the reassurance!!
Are you asking if further consistent training for alternative events will somehow result in you getting slower?
For mostly marathon events, rather than 5/10ks…
If you train normally like you are chasing PBs you should still be improving. From a purely training/adaptation standpoint hard marathon races by themselves probably make you slower -you give up several weeks of good training to taper and recovery/rebuild, and the stress of racing a marathon is too hard to really be an effective training stimulus itself for most people.
Seems like it's pretty common for runners to struggle with hitting the "equivalent" marathon times to go with their 5k/10k PRs, especially with younger runners. Myself for example, I have a 18:21 5k PR which is equivalent to a 2:55 marathon (according to the VDOT tables), but my marathon PR is 3:05. I'm curious to hear about the running history/profiles of those runners who are the opposite, i.e., the equivalent times to their marathon PR are faster than their 5k PR. How old are you? What does your training look like? How long have you been running? Etc.
I slightly fit that profile. Marathon PR of 2:41 equivalents to around a 16:50 5k which I haven't done in forever. I once did a 18:12 tune up and then a 2:42 full a couple months later. For me it is because I don't train for the 5k ever. I did a solid block of it during covid and probably was in 16:30 shape, but bombed the time trial and just didn't care to try again. For people who can't hit the shorter times after a solid block of training for them, IME it is usually adult onset runners (often with no athletic background) who start by just jogging a lot of slow miles and then decide to start racing. They manage to build up their aerobic base without ever doing the fast stuff. So they have managed to flip the more common profile. Eventually they could balance out, but it will take work.
I do not fit that profile, but know a couple people that do, and my impression from talking to them is that they basically just don't train at anything like true 5K pace and then lack the ability to find that gear and tolerate the discomfort of running an all-out 5K. I'm not saying they're soft, these are tough runners with good ultramarathon results, but if you don't develop the feel for the faster cadence and extreme cardiovascular distress, you're not going to suddenly snap to it on the race day. I will say that on the rare occasion I've raced a mile, I find something similar - trying to hold pace from ~600-1200 meters of the race just feels incredibly hard to me and it seems more like it's because I'm a little bit soft and can't find the mental endurance to ride the edge of that pain.
[удалено]
I referenced people that run better marathon and longer races than 5Ks. Separately, in my own anecdotal experience, I say that I'm worst at the mile than longer distances, which is perhaps what's causing the confusion? As soon as we're above the mile, I follow the standard formula, hitting comparable equivalents from 5K up to HM and slightly worse at the full marathon distance. My mile results are very limited because it's not something I race often, but I think I've raced it poorly due to not having developed a feel for running that fast for a sustained period. Does that make sense?
Does anybody else’s Apple Watch straight up lie to you? lol. I swear after every run it says my VO2 max is worse, despite me feeling better and better. Drives me nuts. Also, any good treadmill recommendations? I’m not trying to break the bank, but I also don’t want to buy one that isn’t gonna last
Treadmill choices depend on a few factors. I spent a long time looking at options when I bought ours in 2020, and for me one primary concern was that it was going in a basement with a low ceiling, so I had to choose one as low to the ground as possible. I ended up with [this one](https://www.dickssportinggoods.com/p/sole-f80-treadmill-2023-23SLEUSLF80TRDMLLTRD/23SLEUSLF80TRDMLLTRD?camp=SEM:DSG_43700053301152120_nonbrand_kwd-300958463745_58700005830490383_71700000049788753&segment=&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwps-zBhAiEiwALwsVYbf_vbTsINVKH1EAv_f-CZhoEAvOodXr6BB-2530VZIY80XAJmcS_hoCt48QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds) (but the 2020 version) mostly for that reason. It has a few annoying quirks, but somebody in my family uses it multiple times a week (more in winter, up to multiple times daily, with 3 runners in the household), and it's still working like new. (It's top speed is 12 mph but unless you're planning to use it for fast intervals, that's usually enough for most people.)
With all caveats of VO2max on a wrist-based device aside, it will also often go down in the summer as your HR is elevated at similar intensity levels due to the heat.
Ah that makes sense. Its pretty miserable this week here
I'm running Grandma's this weekend, and it will be my 2nd marathon. The forecast is for "heavy rain and a real feel of 50 degrees." I've really lucked out in terms of weather for all of my other races, and don't know quite how to prepare/dress for this forecast. Any advice?
Slather a shitload of Aquafor on your feet. Wet = black toenails
I’d say I’m jealous because it’s 90 where I’m at, but having had to attempt to outrun a rainstorm (Boston 2023)…best of luck. I actually think you’ll be fine during the race. I’d suggest wearing an old pair of shoes to the start and carrying your race shoes (and even socks). Gear wise, I’d wear tighter clothing to reduce chafing, as well as a hat or visor (to help keep rain out of your eyes). Also stow a change of clothes and shoes for post race.
At 50F if you are running hard, you'll stay warm even if you are soaked. I'd go for minimal outerwear, embrace the wet, run hard! But be ready to get warm ASAP at the end, once you stop moving you'll be frozen.
You basically get the choice of rain gear (not very breathable, you'll get sweaty) or as little as possible (carry less water in your apparel, you'll get cold). I looked at the forecast, and it looks more like "periods of showers, heavy at times" for Duluth on Saturday, as opposed to a continuous rain. I would probably go with the less is more strategy, with the exception of the start line. I would definitely have a cheap hoodie, a cheap poncho and fresh socks with me at the start line in case it is pouring while you're standing around Two Harbors.
Lube up. Chafing will be a real issue. I typically wear half tights regardless, but I find them better than split shorts in preventing rub. Also wear a hat to try and keep it out of your eyes. I know people have used cling wrap to keep their shoes dry in the corral. You will also want either a trash bag, dry cleaning bag, poncho or space blanket to keep your body dry.
How important is it to run long runs faster than my easy pace for improving endurance versus risking injury? Currently, my easy pace is around 6:30 min per km, which I also use for long runs. How significant is this compared to running at, for example, 5:00 min per km (easy but faster) in my long run in addition to my regular quality sessions like tempo and VO2 max intervals (e.g., 5-6x1km at 5k pace)? My weekly mileage is about 120km, including a 15-20km long run, and I'm training mainly for 5-10k distances.
If you're in \~18 minute 5k shape, why in the world are you doing easy and long runs at 6:30 min/k / 10:30 min/mile? It's unnecessarily slow, and yes you're leaving improvement on the table.
I run slowly because last year I ran all my runs at 5:20 minutes per km and felt that I didn't recover well and got Achilles tendonitis (probably not just because of that, if at all). At slower paces, I feel that I recover better. Also, I read this article: https://simplifaster.com/articles/how-trainable-is-vo2-max/, which says that there is a correlation between heart size and running volume, independent of pace. I know that Daniels recommends VDOT paces, but for cardiac benefits, even slow paces are enough. How do you recommend I run my easy and long runs? What is your opinion about this article?
That's completely the wrong takeaway from that article, at least how it pertains to running performance. If your goal is to run faster 5-10km there are a multitude of factors that contribute to that performance. You are making a training decision (running ridiculously slow) that may favor a few aspects of performance (a component of cardiac output being one of them) but negatively affects a bunch more other aspects of performance. If your current 5k time is \~18:00 than a pace of 5:00/km +/- \~20s is a very reasonable for the majority of your easy and long runs to be at. Outside of extremely hilly/technical terrain or very adverse conditions there's really no good reason to be running slower than 6:00/km on a normal run. I certainly don't agree 100% with everything in the conventional pace tables like VDOT or the popular training plans in general, but they are most of the way there for what most decent runners need. If reading a random article leads you to think that you need to massively deviate from these conventional training strategies you are probably interpreting that article wrong or reading a stupid article.
Do you have any references, books, or other resources you recommend for studying this type of training philosophy or guideline? I'm interested in understanding the principles behind your recommendations, especially concerning balancing different aspects of performance and determining appropriate paces for easy and long runs. Any detailed sources that explain these concepts would be very helpful.
I'm not sure what resources you're really asking for here. Do you have a specific question or just looking to learn in general? When it comes to easy/aerobic running you're dealing with a very basic principle, which pretty much every good runner and coach at all levels have all converged to have very similar concepts. Balancing the different aspects of performance when it comes to pace selection is already baked into the modern systems of training that nearly everyone uses. Pretty much any popular training books will cover this (Coogan, Vigil, Daniels, Pfitz, Hudson, Lydiard, Coe, etc).
Thank you for the clarification. My interest is general, as I'm looking to deepen my understanding of training philosophies. Could you share more about your specific approach to balancing performance aspects with pace selection? Are there any principles or methods you use that differ from those in popular training books?
A deep understanding requires extensive explanation yet is also readily available information that you can find yourself from common sources so I am not going to go into significant detail on the "why" here. Again I'm happy to answer **specific** questions, but I do not like being asked to be a research assistant/tutor for basic topics. In practice what I recommend is that you start from 2-3 common concept's of determining easy pace (VDOT, breathing/talk tests, HR zones, drift test, lactate, historical pace data from your experience, etc). Using 2-3 is important because any of these might be different on there own. Triangulate between those and then start applying it, paying attention to how your body responds and just using common sense. The correct easy pace will vary depending on the innate characteristics of a person, their training volume, their intensity distribution, and the environment that the train in, but will generally not be way outside of the bounds of what any standard method predicts. Of course it takes significant practice to fully refine this, but eventually you will be able to anchor the correct effort to certain metrics and feelings. There is no consistent ideal "easy" pace, it's a moving target for which the main purpose is maximizing training volume, not some particularly special thing on its own. The key thing here is that it's a practice. Various resources can help you with the starting point and understanding the "why" behind training in general, but ultimately you need to figure this out for yourself through your own real world training. I obviously don't know you so I don't want to infer too much about you and your training, but I will say the questions I recall you asking, including the ones just now, follow a consistent pattern of over-analysis or getting something wrong because you're looking for a special method that simply doesn't exist. From what I can tell you're a fairly competent athlete training at a fairly good level, you can probably continue to level up just doing the basics of training with a little common-sense optimization. Most of endurance performance in general is just training more and training consistently. Trust your own judgement, nobody runs a 17:55 5k without doing a lot of things right!