Matt Fitzgerald talks about the 13 weeks he spent training with NAZ Elite in Flagstaff. He said as they got further into training and closer to race day (Chicago Marathon), he was able to keep up with the Elites on their base mileage day. Not necessarily because he was getting fitter (he was), but because the elites’peak workouts were getting that much tougher, so their easy days were actually getting easier/slower.
I’ve seen a couple of review articles showing that the pros actually typically favor pyramidal training rather than the polarized you are talking about. Lots of variability.
Thanks. One new piece of information that I have twigged to. I took 2 minutes and 29 seconds of my last 5km PB a week ago. Another less important race in 7 days. Will be good to see if I have locked that in and whether I can bring it down lower in such a short period? I am starting to get closer to course records in my age category. I hope to get there in the next 6 to 12 months?
Same is true in cycling- it also follows time of year relative to when the season is like you mentioned. You come off a season of racing and you’re tired but also ridiculously strong, so you do longer, heavier rides with mostly zone 2-3, 100+ miles a ride, 2-400/week (fall); this includes starting to build weight training into the mix. Winter the weather sucks, days are shorter, you end up favoring 2 rides per day, warm-up then interval training working speed, 1-300 miles/week, zone 4-5; weight training is heaviest. Early spring rolls around and you start mixing the two and focusing on the distances your races are (60-120 miles), 2-400/week; you cut back on the weight training, maybe even stop. Always taper for a week or two before the season starts- I feel like a lot of athletes don’t set that time aside in their program, this leads to injuries, fatigue/burnout or an early peak but mid results through the season overall. Cycling season has multiple races per week, generally 3, we always try to push 30-50 mile zone 1-2 rides the day after a race (helps move the lactic acid and byproduct from racing out, get fresh blood and nutrients in). I’m curious how you program weight training? Do you favor a varied program throughout the year (swimming we always mixed sprint and endurance work together, just building volume until mid season when we’d start to taper for district/state competitions) or more of a seasonal adaptive like cycling? I think the volume is good in running, it’s so damaging on your bones and joints, it’s good to give the body enough volume to adapt and heal; if you push zone 3-5 year round it’s too fatiguing on the overall system. Your comment about running near race pace for distance and taking over a week to recover does not surprise me- I wonder if they would benefit from a low impact (cycling, swimming, etc.) zone 1-2 activity during those weeks, provide stimulus but not tax the system?
I think it may be a mistake to over-focus on 80-20 training. The goal is not to design and execute an 80-20 plan, but to make sure that when you do a session that's an overload, stress time integral greater than your 2-week running average, make sure you then get fully recovered before you do your next overload. That does not mean you have to go out and do enough mileage at slow speed to meet some 80-20 guideline. You do a training session and then you recover before you do another one.,,that's all. Don't force yourself to run miles that you call "recovery" miles just so that you get in your 80%. Just recover dammit! PS, Also, I bet there's no real benefit in doing recovery runs if they are just extending the time you need to truly recover or if they are a much longer time than the amount of time needed for your event...marathoners OK to do 3-hour sessions of course, but milers? Train appropriately to your event.
Yes, and 80-20 only applies to very competitive runners who already clock in a lot of km/miles. If you are the average runner who trains let's say 3 times a week, than you should probably be more like 50-50.
@@jayjaylh Yes, that makes sense to me. I do wonder too though if those "very competitive runners" also often overdo their mileage by running excessive "recovery" miles/km just to meet some goal of 80-20. I suspect that even they'd be as well off just focusing on doing good training sessions followed by recovery, and recovery does not mean one has to be running and taking the risk of prolonging one's recovery by too much recovery running.
Nah There’s a place for recovery runs And unless you truly need the complete downtime, which you sometimes do, easy recovery runs have value I agree that if you are only running 3 days a week, then this doesn’t apply so much But the elite runners and their coaches have this figured out
@@MySongs2445 Elite runners' coaches have this figured out? Along with how many other things they supposedly have had figured out in the past but turned out only not really? I’ve even heart Dr. Seiler saying that he’s not too sure about recovery runs’ value. Yeah, I'm sceptical, but OK, I'll go along. My real point though is that one need not be so slavish/pedantic in following the 80-20 rule of "polarized" training, and that a recovery run's value is questionable, at best may be just junk, at worst may even end up delaying one's recovery rate and hence lengthening time between high quality overload training sessions. One needs to focus on reading one's recovery indicators (feeling in legs and joints, general energy level, "danciness" of the legs, resting heart rate in morning before wake-up, maybe heart rate variability heart), quality and amount of sleep, etc. and disciplining oneself not to train again until fully recovered. Recover dammit! Don’t worry about counting miles and time to try to get some ideal 80-20 distribution.
I’m curious about this. A lot of ingebrigsten training is moderate intensity aka thresholds. Rarely does high intensity and does a good amount of easy.
Search "polarized training." That's essentially what they are talking about with the U-shaped graph. Or 80/20 training. Same thing. Most common term for the moderate intensity is "tempo". Threshold has become almost worthless as a stand alone term in training discussions. Used to mostly mean lactate threshold. Need an added descriptor, like lactate, aerobic, etc.
@@Aldorains I think that’s a bit overly simplified. Seiler creates that shorthand for training after looking at many training lots of endurance athletes including cross country skiiers. But their volume was high - 100+ miles per week. When your volume is lower - < 50 miles per week, the portion of higher intensity needed to make improvements goes up. So what is 80/20 for a 120 mpw runner may be 60/40 for a 30 mpw runner or 40/60 for a 15 mpw runner. Depends on event, mileage, how you respond, fast for slow twitch dominate runner, etc.
@jaymills1720 your original post felt like this was an entirely new concept to you. Simply pointing you down the trail. Apparently you are well informed on the subject.
is this similar with sprinting? some coaches think so. I don't because sprinting is mostly about neural(brain) adaptaions but not metabolic adaptaions.
@@1xRacer that wasnt the question. Everyone knows sprinting is anaerobic. I was wondering if the same strategy would work for sprints. This would mean doing max speed session 3x3 3-5s @95-100% (2-3x week) with full recovery and the other trainings low intensity tempo runs (10x 20-30s @60-65% of max speed). This system was popularized from Charlie Francis. He believed that to get faster we must train close to 100% as fresh as possible. He totally avoided training in the70-90% zone. He said it's too slow to make neural gains but too fast wich results in lactate and fatigue (not good for sprinters).
Yes strides help a lot chiefly because of the neuromuscular development for efficiency. The comment about anaerobic training isn't relevant to strides, that would be intervals and tempo runs which I recommend doing in phase 2 of training. A note on this: Strides are for neuromuscualr development because you can do a high volume of them. We then also use hill sprints for developing teh immediate energy system and neuromuscular development. Althogh hill sprints are faster (and arguably even more beneficial for nerumuscuarl development) they can't be done a meaningfully high volume, therefore strides are a better tactic for developing efficiency...and they work incredibly well
Sure. I mostly agree. The issue is that if you go very short and fast your heart rate “zone” is low even though you’re going very fast. It’s still easy. But yeah the idea of going pretty slow and very fast both often is good advice and staying away from moderate zone 3 zone much of the time
Sir today I do my threshold workout 3x2k in between 7:55-8:10 with 1:30 second rest and 3x1k in between 3:30-3:35 same rest time period and in last i do 2x200m in between 27-29. So sir according to you I'm in shape of breaking sub 4:00 minute 1500m . And sir when I start my first reps of 2k I feel little bit tired but when we go 2nd reps or further reps my body go very smooth. So sir plz guide me according to you and suggest your opinion to break sub 4:00 minute barrie of 1500m . And thre is any suggestions related to my this performance plz tell me I will definitely work on it.
I don’t understand. If your workouts are 2k on 8:00 and 1k on 3:30, those don’t indicate a sub-4 1500. Happy to help you but not sure what you’re asking But the first thing I suggest to do is not view the 4 minutes as a “barrier”. Because a runner who can run under 4 doesn’t see it as a barrier. If you really want that time you have to believe you can do it above all else. Then training. What is your PR currently?
I’ll be sure to fit in 130 miles of running into the 2 hours of free time I have each day, which are the last 2 hours before bed time, coincidentally :)
The importance of speed is really important and I agree. But I don’t agree that someone who runs an easy 100 mpw wouldn’t outperform a runner who runs 10.
![ILLSLICK - THE KING'S LANDING [Freestyle]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/feIJJnNkTfk/mqdefault.jpg)
Matt Fitzgerald talks about the 13 weeks he spent training with NAZ Elite in Flagstaff. He said as they got further into training and closer to race day (Chicago Marathon), he was able to keep up with the Elites on their base mileage day. Not necessarily because he was getting fitter (he was), but because the elites’peak workouts were getting that much tougher, so their easy days were actually getting easier/slower.
Good point. Yea modulation is key for sure!
Great advice. Thank you.
God bless you richly.
Thank you Freddy
I’ve seen a couple of review articles showing that the pros actually typically favor pyramidal training rather than the polarized you are talking about. Lots of variability.
I talk about a triphasic model. Lots of videos on this.
Thanks. One new piece of information that I have twigged to.
I took 2 minutes and 29 seconds of my last 5km PB a week ago. Another less important race in 7 days. Will be good to see if I have locked that in and whether I can bring it down lower in such a short period? I am starting to get closer to course records in my age category. I hope to get there in the next 6 to 12 months?
Wow! That’s an amazing improvement! Great job 👏
Same is true in cycling- it also follows time of year relative to when the season is like you mentioned. You come off a season of racing and you’re tired but also ridiculously strong, so you do longer, heavier rides with mostly zone 2-3, 100+ miles a ride, 2-400/week (fall); this includes starting to build weight training into the mix. Winter the weather sucks, days are shorter, you end up favoring 2 rides per day, warm-up then interval training working speed, 1-300 miles/week, zone 4-5; weight training is heaviest. Early spring rolls around and you start mixing the two and focusing on the distances your races are (60-120 miles), 2-400/week; you cut back on the weight training, maybe even stop. Always taper for a week or two before the season starts- I feel like a lot of athletes don’t set that time aside in their program, this leads to injuries, fatigue/burnout or an early peak but mid results through the season overall.
Cycling season has multiple races per week, generally 3, we always try to push 30-50 mile zone 1-2 rides the day after a race (helps move the lactic acid and byproduct from racing out, get fresh blood and nutrients in).
I’m curious how you program weight training? Do you favor a varied program throughout the year (swimming we always mixed sprint and endurance work together, just building volume until mid season when we’d start to taper for district/state competitions) or more of a seasonal adaptive like cycling? I think the volume is good in running, it’s so damaging on your bones and joints, it’s good to give the body enough volume to adapt and heal; if you push zone 3-5 year round it’s too fatiguing on the overall system. Your comment about running near race pace for distance and taking over a week to recover does not surprise me- I wonder if they would benefit from a low impact (cycling, swimming, etc.) zone 1-2 activity during those weeks, provide stimulus but not tax the system?
I think it may be a mistake to over-focus on 80-20 training. The goal is not to design and execute an 80-20 plan, but to make sure that when you do a session that's an overload, stress time integral greater than your 2-week running average, make sure you then get fully recovered before you do your next overload. That does not mean you have to go out and do enough mileage at slow speed to meet some 80-20 guideline. You do a training session and then you recover before you do another one.,,that's all. Don't force yourself to run miles that you call "recovery" miles just so that you get in your 80%. Just recover dammit!
PS, Also, I bet there's no real benefit in doing recovery runs if they are just extending the time you need to truly recover or if they are a much longer time than the amount of time needed for your event...marathoners OK to do 3-hour sessions of course, but milers? Train appropriately to your event.
@@defeqel6537 Right on and roger that!
Yes, and 80-20 only applies to very competitive runners who already clock in a lot of km/miles. If you are the average runner who trains let's say 3 times a week, than you should probably be more like 50-50.
@@jayjaylh Yes, that makes sense to me. I do wonder too though if those "very competitive runners" also often overdo their mileage by running excessive "recovery" miles/km just to meet some goal of 80-20. I suspect that even they'd be as well off just focusing on doing good training sessions followed by recovery, and recovery does not mean one has to be running and taking the risk of prolonging one's recovery by too much recovery running.
Nah
There’s a place for recovery runs
And unless you truly need the complete downtime, which you sometimes do, easy recovery runs have value
I agree that if you are only running 3 days a week, then this doesn’t apply so much
But the elite runners and their coaches have this figured out
@@MySongs2445 Elite runners' coaches have this figured out? Along with how many other things they supposedly have had figured out in the past but turned out only not really? I’ve even heart Dr. Seiler saying that he’s not too sure about recovery runs’ value. Yeah, I'm sceptical, but OK, I'll go along. My real point though is that one need not be so slavish/pedantic in following the 80-20 rule of "polarized" training, and that a recovery run's value is questionable, at best may be just junk, at worst may even end up delaying one's recovery rate and hence lengthening time between high quality overload training sessions. One needs to focus on reading one's recovery indicators (feeling in legs and joints, general energy level, "danciness" of the legs, resting heart rate in morning before wake-up, maybe heart rate variability heart), quality and amount of sleep, etc. and disciplining oneself not to train again until fully recovered. Recover dammit! Don’t worry about counting miles and time to try to get some ideal 80-20 distribution.
I tend to run as often as I can. Pace depends how my knees feel then I hope for the best in a race😂
What works for you 😂
I’m curious about this. A lot of ingebrigsten training is moderate intensity aka thresholds. Rarely does high intensity and does a good amount of easy.
Search "polarized training." That's essentially what they are talking about with the U-shaped graph. Or 80/20 training. Same thing.
Most common term for the moderate intensity is "tempo". Threshold has become almost worthless as a stand alone term in training discussions. Used to mostly mean lactate threshold. Need an added descriptor, like lactate, aerobic, etc.
Yes
@@Aldorains I think that’s a bit overly simplified. Seiler creates that shorthand for training after looking at many training lots of endurance athletes including cross country skiiers. But their volume was high - 100+ miles per week. When your volume is lower - < 50 miles per week, the portion of higher intensity needed to make improvements goes up. So what is 80/20 for a 120 mpw runner may be 60/40 for a 30 mpw runner or 40/60 for a 15 mpw runner. Depends on event, mileage, how you respond, fast for slow twitch dominate runner, etc.
@jaymills1720 your original post felt like this was an entirely new concept to you. Simply pointing you down the trail. Apparently you are well informed on the subject.
is this similar with sprinting? some coaches think so. I don't because sprinting is mostly about neural(brain) adaptaions but not metabolic adaptaions.
less so because sprinting is more true to anaerobic
@@1xRacer that wasnt the question. Everyone knows sprinting is anaerobic.
I was wondering if the same strategy would work for sprints. This would mean doing max speed session 3x3 3-5s @95-100% (2-3x week) with full recovery and the other trainings low intensity tempo runs (10x 20-30s @60-65% of max speed).
This system was popularized from Charlie Francis. He believed that to get faster we must train close to 100% as fresh as possible. He totally avoided training in the70-90% zone. He said it's too slow to make neural gains but too fast wich results in lactate and fatigue (not good for sprinters).
Yes strides help a lot chiefly because of the neuromuscular development for efficiency. The comment about anaerobic training isn't relevant to strides, that would be intervals and tempo runs which I recommend doing in phase 2 of training.
A note on this: Strides are for neuromuscualr development because you can do a high volume of them. We then also use hill sprints for developing teh immediate energy system and neuromuscular development. Althogh hill sprints are faster (and arguably even more beneficial for nerumuscuarl development) they can't be done a meaningfully high volume, therefore strides are a better tactic for developing efficiency...and they work incredibly well
Zones 2 and 4, not 1 and 5 so much.
Sure. I mostly agree. The issue is that if you go very short and fast your heart rate “zone” is low even though you’re going very fast. It’s still easy. But yeah the idea of going pretty slow and very fast both often is good advice and staying away from moderate zone 3 zone much of the time
@@runelitecoachAnd what about tempo runs?
@@danielnunez2525Zone 4 for tempo running. Part of the high intensity training.
Sir today I do my threshold workout 3x2k in between 7:55-8:10 with 1:30 second rest and 3x1k in between 3:30-3:35 same rest time period and in last i do 2x200m in between 27-29. So sir according to you I'm in shape of breaking sub 4:00 minute 1500m . And sir when I start my first reps of 2k I feel little bit tired but when we go 2nd reps or further reps my body go very smooth. So sir plz guide me according to you and suggest your opinion to break sub 4:00 minute barrie of 1500m . And thre is any suggestions related to my this performance plz tell me I will definitely work on it.
I don’t understand. If your workouts are 2k on 8:00 and 1k on 3:30, those don’t indicate a sub-4 1500. Happy to help you but not sure what you’re asking
But the first thing I suggest to do is not view the 4 minutes as a “barrier”. Because a runner who can run under 4 doesn’t see it as a barrier. If you really want that time you have to believe you can do it above all else. Then training. What is your PR currently?
@@runelitecoach sir my 1500m PR is 4:05
I’ll be sure to fit in 130 miles of running into the 2 hours of free time I have each day, which are the last 2 hours before bed time, coincidentally :)
Ok then
Humblebrag alert
There you’ve said it now follow up
E and H should be in vertical axis, horizontal axis should be time
Ok
First comment
Yahoo! 1st place 🥇
@@runelitecoach I'm the king of the world!!!
If you don’t do speed work you won’t progress. Period. It doesn’t matter how many miles u do per week 10 or 100 miles.
The importance of speed is really important and I agree. But I don’t agree that someone who runs an easy 100 mpw wouldn’t outperform a runner who runs 10.
Most elite runners outside of olympic runners are not even doing more than 70 miles per week and this includes marathon training. lol
That’s not true at all
Heck most college XC runners are upward of that. And most marathoners under 3 are at that or above.