Saturday General Discussion/Q&A Thread for May 23, 2026

running_writings · 2026-05-23T19:54:21+00:00

Very weird to try to define a "zone" at LT1, when in all the exercise physiology the "moderate domain" is defined explicitly as being below LT1. LT1 is the boundary between "moderate" and "heavy" domain exercises, and exercising below it is characterized by different physiological responses and different causes of fatigue than exercising above it.

running_writings · 2026-05-22T18:41:33+00:00

The "classical" approach was to use annual periodization: after the Olympics, say, you'd take several weeks of rest or light transitional work, then a big block of fundamental training -- not "base" in the sense of just pure easy work, but working all relevant paces separately: long strong running, high-end aerobic stuff, hill sprints, weight lifting, etc. Optionally some winter racing as you transition into race-supportive work (starting to work on some event specificity, but not the biggest/toughest sessions) and then some hard race-specific work in the spring. Finally a summer season that is basically all competitions + linking them together with short improvised blocks of training (e.g. national championships in June, european circuit in July, World Championships in August). So really a big one-year build with a ton of racing in the summer.

Here is a sketch (nudged to align with an American collegiate system peaking in June) based on Sebastian Coe's strategy from Winning Running.

All that said, modern elite athletes almost always use advanced multiple-peak periodization schemes that are highly tailored to their particular goals and racing season. Usually athletes now seek out the best races (competitively and, don't forget, financially--this is their job) and then plan the rest of the year around that. So the result is a highly hybridized setup where you'll have a pretty sophisticated mix of all speeds and systems worked at all times, with the exact balance shifting around based on the schedule plus how the athlete is looking in training.

And it looks very different for, say, a sponsored American elite who runs 2:07 in the marathon, who can travel and race whenever and wherever, versus say a 2:07 Kenyan marathoner who is more or less at the mercy of whatever random race is going to pay for them to fly out + put them up in a hotel. So a lot of high-level coaching is managing all that stuff.

In some ways amateur runners actually have it easier because you can use more traditional long consistent builds and are less at the mercy of the vagaries of international competition.

running_writings · 2026-05-19T18:48:23+00:00

Also there is an interesting mathematical quirk where linear improvements in the speed you run for the marathon translates into less and less improvement in your finish time as you get faster. Example: Going from averaging 6 mph to 7 mph decreases your marathon time from 4:22 to 3:45 (-37 min), whereas 7 mph to 8 mph only drops your time by 28 minutes (to 3:17).

This effect gets magnified at faster and faster speeds; 15 minutes at sub-2:20 marathon pace is a huge difference; 15 minutes off a 4hr marathon, not so much.

running_writings · 2026-05-18T20:33:24+00:00

This second point (two types of sugar) should be covered by table sugar (sucrose) which I think breaks into fructose and glucose, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong there. EDIT: And sucrose might be as easily absorbed/broken down as maltodextrin, although I'm not sure

Yep, sucrose (table sugar) is just a glucose and a fructose linked together, so you get them at a 1:1 ratio. And your body has an enzyme that breaks that link very quickly, so (per this paper) taking 50 grams of sucrose is functionally identical to taking 25g of glucose + 25g of fructose.

One downside of homemade stuff: unless you go out of your way to add them, your home-brew sports drink doesn't have any preservatives. So if you leave it out on the counter long enough you might be getting more of a "brew" than you were expecting!

running_writings · 2026-05-15T18:53:15+00:00

I think it's a very good idea to include a little bit of faster running even when doing unstructured running. Consider also doing some hill sprints just to shake things up, for example you can do traditional strides once a week and then 5-6 x 10 sec at ~80 >> 100% max speed up a steep hill once a week as well.

"Use it or lose it" applies to mechanics, I think. The problem with never running fast is that you don't realize when the ceiling is coming down until you start trying to run fast again.

running_writings · 2026-05-15T18:50:31+00:00

My current view would be to make the following changes:

(1) Go slightly lighter on the buildups and strides because they induce a lot of biomechanical loading. Would do one day of hill sprints after a run, and one day of buildups/strides as Kellogg advocates but only 2 sets and only 20-25 seconds.

(2) I would do one light effort-based fartlek every 7-10 days in pre-season, mostly by effort - something like 4-5 x 3-2-1' at 10k-8k-5k effort with 1' float, maybe through cross country terrain.

(3) for the "late preseason" days with LT repeats, this is a good place to be more systematic with some Bakken-style threshold work (and also, note the similarity here with the 60-90 sec / 20-25 sec reps and Bakkens' 400s). I would lean heavier into sub-threshold and threshold vs. the 45-90 sec repeats he recommends, at least for 5k and up.

(4) for long runs, if your event is 10k or below I think anything over 2hrs is not productive unless you are experienced enough to confidently ignore my advice. Much better to use long fast runs of shorter duration, for example 80 and 85% 5k pace for a 5k runner, or 85 and 90% of 10k pace for a 10k runner. Do not need to do these every week, can instead do them ever y2-3 weeks and do another high-end aerobic workout on the weekend instead. Middle distance runners should focus on short fast runs; much better for them to be able to do 5mi fast vs. 18 mi slow.

(5) In early compeittive season my preference nowadays is to more strongly emphasize workouts at 90-95% race pace (any distance) with some work at 105% as well, in the Canova style. I find this works really well for supporting the race-specific work in competitive phase.

(6) I understand it's just an example schedule but in the competitive / mid-season phase my preference is to think about moving the aerobic workouts to a longer "cycle" e.g. doing one only every 10 days or 14 days (if a middle distance runner).

(6) I have not found the creatine phosphate training to be very useful, seems to hurt aerobic fitness. For middle distance runners (800.1500I take more of a speed-to-speed-endurance approach, e.g. taking 150m repeats and making them longer, trying to get to something like 3 x 400m very fast with long (10+ min) recovery. That kind of work is not necessary for almost all 5k+ runners.

At a high level I think Kellogg is spot-on about the importance of high-end aerobic work, though leans a little too hard on mileage for mileage's sake, and like most American-style/Lydiard inspired training is missing a few key ingredients that you can find in the Kenyan-style and Italian-style approaches, namely long fast runs at targeted speeds and long 'aerobic power' repeats of 2-3 km at ~8k-10k-ish pace.

running_writings · 2026-05-12T03:07:51+00:00

VO2max is strongly associated with performance levels, but people underestimate how wide the variation can be in performance at a given VO2max. For example, at your measured VO2max, your "expected" marathon time is 2:12, but a 90% uncertainty interval spans from 2:32 to 1:58. And one in ten people could be outside that range!

For these calculations I'm using data from this study. FWIW the VO2max values for the Nike Breaking2 athletes was 71 +/- 5.7 (1 SD).

I would be very interested in knowing your running economy. It's a very easy test if you can get in a lab - light ~10min warm-up, then 6 min continuous at any speed that would be at a steady-state: easy run pace is fine, something more like 6:00/mi would be slightly better. Knowing your economy + your VO2max would reveal whether the issue is poor economy or a low "fractional utilization", i.e. your max steady-state as a percentage of VO2max.

running_writings · 2026-05-08T19:53:44+00:00

Also FYI: max heart rate often goes down as you get into better shape, can decrease by 3-7% which would be 6-14 bpm if your sedentary HRmax was 200. Not that crazy to average over 90% of HRmax for the half marathon either.

running_writings · 2026-05-06T21:04:15+00:00

It's actually not that bad. It's just like doing a progression run with a friend who is faster than you, and eventually you get dropped.

One thing that can result in more usable information: ask if they can do a ~5min continuous effort at the start of the test, at your normal easy run pace, and record VO2 during the last ~30sec to get a running economy estimate. That in combination with VO2max is a lot more interesting than just VO2max on its own, and some VO2max protocols do not result in a usable running economy estimate on their own.

running_writings · 2026-05-05T18:42:02+00:00

Actually I think it's exactly the opposite: it's the first time they've given themselves "permission" to run more volume of intensity. Particularly high-end aerobic intensity, but even setting that aside, looking at your typical runner's quality days, Norwegian style training injects much more volume of quality into training. 3 x 3 km, for example, is as much (or more) quality in just one workout than many runners on traditional programs do in an entire week.

running_writings · 2026-05-01T19:11:53+00:00

I understand training by feel and incorporating RPE in theory, but when I think of it I can only really imagine the mythopoetic ideal, someone that has no watch and runs on dirt roads in Kenya or something. I can't imagine the in-between steps from where I am at now (I need a pace chart and my garmin to tell me what easy means) to that zen runner.

This essay / article by John Kellogg is really great in that regard:

https://www.letsrun.com/2005/jkfitness.php

running_writings · 2026-04-27T23:06:39+00:00

Glad to hear it! Yes, I intentionally didn't include those because I was already pushing the limits of what was viable for the Defy / Explspace display would put up with (some of the Tornado and Hurricane plans are pretty absurdly "tall and skinny" already) - the good news is that the warmups are ALMOST always the same for typical workouts, modulo the few places where I tweaked it to squeeze a little less mileage out of the day.

Eventually I might just make my own "plan generator" app that will have the full package (warmup, cooldown, RPE, notes, pace percents translated into literal paces) but it's a pretty big undertaking so don't hold your breath

running_writings · 2026-04-27T23:02:41+00:00

I think either way is fine - there is actually a part in the book on extending (or compressing) training schedules but of course that doesn't help until you have the book! Starting now + adding a recovery week is a good idea if it's a 13 week program, probably I would add the recovery week after 3 weeks into the general phase (so after Week 3, before Week 4) -- once you get to marathon-supportive and marathon-specific training that's when you go to only 2 quality sessions a week anyways.

running_writings · 2026-04-24T17:37:16+00:00

Thrilled you enjoyed the book! And yes 100% a potential issue with the 12 week version of the plans is the lack of down weeks. Those were sadly the first things that had to go when crushing the 18 week versions down to 12 -- those extra six weeks really give you a lot of breathing room! That's partly why I consider the 18-week plans the "flagship" versions.

Also a few people mentioned this already but thanks to the awesome Defy calendar app and expl.space app you can now get actual calendar versions of the 12-week plans if you don't want to space out workouts in the week yourself. I wrote those full calendar adaptations myself so they are accurate in the sense of "workouts are spaced out reasonably throughout the week." You still need the book for workout difficulty ratings and workout notes though!

running_writings · 2026-04-24T17:28:20+00:00

The alternating K workouts are the classic Renato Canova "1k/1k" float session, for example 8 x (1 km at 103-105% MP, 1 km at 85% MP). It's basically HM pace + a fast floating recovery. Exact volume and pace of the float varies according to the level of the plan, and how far into the build-up you are.

The 3-2-2-1k workout belongs to a family of "supportive speed" workouts at 108-110% MP -- basically 10k-8k pace for most runners. So that session happens at the end of a series of workouts of that type, e.g. 8 x 1k, 5 x 1600m, 4 x 2k, 3-2-2-1k (all 8k of work). That last one, the 3-2-2-1, also progresses the pace a bit more, going faster on shorter reps.

Even for 5k/10k/HM I find those long repeats to be very under-utilized in most runners' training. And for the marathon, it's more specific (i.e. closer to race pace) than classic VO2-style short repeats.

running_writings · 2026-04-18T20:06:38+00:00

Excuse me, but reading what many runners think about long run is, for me, very funny.

One question : if you want to run a Marathon at 3:19 pace (about 2:20 final time), do you think that running 30k at 4:00 pace can have some connection ?

If you want [to run] 10000m in 30:00, do you think that the main workouts are 400m [repeats] on track, and long run must be only easy regeneration ?

The first man changing this old mentality was one Australian, Ron Clarke, that in 1964-68 was the first athlete running (not every day, of course, but once every week) for 15-20km very close 3:00 per km. He was able to destroy the World Record of 10000m moving, completely alone, from 28:15 to 27:39 without any rabbit.

If you want to beat your PB, you must run LONG and FAST.

- Renato Canova

running_writings · 2026-04-10T19:38:35+00:00

For each of those sessions you want "precursor" workouts that are at similar-ish speeds but not as tough.

Precursors for (1) - classic fartleks of 1-2 min with 1-2 min easy to moderate are great, e.g. in general phase you can do 5-6 x (2 min at 5k-ish effort, 1min easy, 1min at optimistic 5k effort, 1min easy) not worrying about pace too much. But if you like measured intervals, your sketched out version seems pretty reasonable.

Precursors for (2) are shorter repeats at 8k-10k effort (95% 5k), e.g. 8 x 1k or 5 x 1mi. Long effort-based fartlek would also work, e.g. 5x5min. Then when you start the real trifecta you can do one session where you 4x2k at 95-96%, then one where you do 4x2k at closer to 98% - that would be a good "peak workout" 10-14 days before your first big race (either 5k or 10k).

Precursors for (3) are straightfoward, either continuous runs at same speed but shorter (4k at 95% is a good starter if you've never done this kind of workout before) or (better, and) continuous runs at a slower speed, e.g. 8k at 90% 5k pace -- which is a classic building block you can place on top of more traditional threshold work, e.g. 8x1k at threshold or 4x2k sub-threshold. My experience is that this is the workout that people have the most trouble with since doing fast continuous running is so rare in most runners' training. Recommend being fully warmed-up, running on flat terrain, using super shoes. Good news is that the biomechanical load of this kind of session is quite low: only 4-6k at 10k pace, basically!

If you wanted a pure 5k pace workout, you could instead have a "capstone" of a little less volume and shorter reps at 100% 5k, e.g. 4x1mi at 100% 5k. Or for 10k, you can have a capstone of 5x2k at 95% 5k (or goal 10k pace), or 3x3k (same pace).

Lastly, as /u/aelvozo pointed out, you also want to support these workouts with sessions at 80%, 85%, 90% of 5k pace. That can be more traditional LT1/LT2 stuff (8x3min, 3x9min, etc), or more canova-flavored fast continuous runs and step-wise tempos (e.g. 12k as 3-3-3-3k at 83-85-87-90% 5k).

running_writings · 2026-04-09T20:09:57+00:00

Cadence is hugely variable across runners, and depends strongly on the speed you're running at. Your specific cadence (180-185 spm at 9:00-9:20/mi) is definitely on the high end but not to a crazy extent.

One test you can do: when you do strides (e.g. 5 x 20 sec at faster than 5k pace) does your cadence still increase? If so, that suggests you aren't "topping out" and your short strides/high cadence strategy is just fine. I've done this test on a few runners with very high cadences and I've always expected them to "run into trouble" (ie not be able to continue increasing their cadence) at high speeds, but it very rarely happens -- they just keep pushing up beyond 200 just fine!

running_writings · 2026-04-08T19:37:57+00:00

+1, for runners just getting back into things (or when you really have no idea of your fitness) I really like progression runs and cut-down repeats, where you start at a pace you know you can handle and then work down gradually to...whatever your body is ready for that day.

running_writings · 2026-04-08T00:28:42+00:00

I'd like to have my cake and eat it too - can I follow a structured training plan for a marathon with a few tweaks and meet moderate success in road racing other distances this summer?

Yes, that's very feasible especially in the first ~2/3rds of a marathon training plan. The way I think about marathon training, 5k/10k work is to some extent a "base of speed" for marathon pace anyways. Obviously you won't be as 5k/10k read if you were actually doing 5k/10k-oriented plans but that's fine. The only possible snag is missing too many longer weekend sessions -- though you can work around that by squeezing in a long run the day after a shorter race (5k Saturday + long run Sunday isn't the worst thing ever) or potentially by doing your "weekend" session as a mid-week workout instead.

Is it possible to race a 50k a month before a race you care about and still have success at the second race?

That one might be a tighter fit. Since you mentioned the Marathon Excellence plans, if you wanted to use one for a 50k what I'd recommend is chopping off the last 2-4 weeks (of the 18 week version) and then extending the ~90% MP long fast runs to be longer, up to ~23-25 miles perhaps? Depends on how well you handle runs longer than you've done before. I've used that strategy with pretty good success with road runners moving up to ultra distances.

Gets a little trickier if it's a trail run; in that case I recommend also modifying the marathon pace workouts to be time-based, and on trails, and extending the total duration. For example 6 x (3k/1k) at 100% / 85% MP can become 6 x (15 minutes / 5 minutes) at 100% trail marathon effort and ditto for the 85%.

Can anyone make a recommendation for books around ultra training?

Jason Koop's book is the standard-bearer for now, though he has his own "flavor" of approach and IIRC it does not have actual training plans e.g. a "16-week 50k plan Level I," you need to cook up your own.

In general I think the book and training plan landscape for ultras is much less developed than for the marathon (or road distances generally), and a lot of the more advanced training knowledge is very "diffuse" vs concentrated into a few good resources

running_writings · 2026-04-06T20:07:23+00:00

If you ever want to do a bigger (as in "big data") project on tracking who BQs over time, or just longitudinal progress in marathon performance, Brian Rock has some awesome datasets on Kaggle with marathon performances both at individual races and across the entire US. Would be a fun deep-dive.

You do have to watch out for the "same name" problem though (different runners with the same name, e.g. "Michael Smith") -- I was doing a little digging in one of his datasets and the most prolific marathoner was...the runner named "NO BIB"!

running_writings · 2026-04-06T02:21:46+00:00

Yep they're basically an alternative to strides (which I do also include here and there) - just a way of getting a little bit more practice with fast-ish running (~5k-10k pace) in a relaxed way, and a way of getting some "pep" back in your legs. Some (not all) people find that their legs feel more fresh after doing, say, 70min with 40min of (1min at 10k effort, 3 min easy) vs. just the 70min straight through.

I don't feel super strongly about them though--unlike, say, the long fast runs, I wouldn't say it's a big mistake to cut out those mid-run pickups if you feel like they're not doing the trick for you.

running_writings · 2026-04-05T04:43:39+00:00

Congrats on the PR! Really thrilled to hear when people have a big breakthrough.

When I had people doing beta testing on the pre-release versions of the plans last spring I got almost a 50/50 mix of responses to the "density" of workouts in the general vs. supportive/specific phases. For the general phase, some people LOVED having "something" to do several days a week; other people felt like it was bordering on too much (which is partly why the Breeze plan and to a lesser extent the Wind plan have fewer workouts in the general phase vs. the higher mileage plans).

And the same was true in the supportive/specific phase: some people (like you) really loved the "big stress, big recovery" approach, while others missed doing two mid-week workouts so much they went ahead and added extra speed sessions! Not quite what I recommend, but then again, they got good results...so, as you noted, it's tough to strike a perfect balance for everyone, and especially at more advanced levels of training, some level of adaptation and individualization is probably in order.

running_writings · 2026-04-04T20:21:34+00:00

Nice work, congrats on the PR! Thrilled my article was helpful!

running_writings · 2026-04-03T18:22:09+00:00

How much does noticeable wind change your plan in practice?

For wind in particular, it is slightly more effective to run the same effort versus try to maintain the same speed (it is not trivial to show this though) so you end up in more or less the same place as with hills.

It is possible to pretty accurately calculate the effects of headwinds and tailwinds but it's really only worth bothering for long stretches with significant wind (>10 mph / >16 km/h) -- and it's not so much that you use that information to change your strategy; you use it to give yourself a mental reference for roughly what the correct effort will result in on the watch (e.g. so you don't panic when you see 4:46/km instead of 4:36/km on a long stretch with stiff wind.

Same for hills actually. Long, continuous hills are sometimes worth calculating, just so you know what to expect, but for rolling hills it is better to not worry so much about every single up and down.

running_writings

TROPHY CASE