General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Still need a long run? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2006-05-25 12:22 PM

Member
55
2525
Columbus, OH
Subject: Still need a long run?
Background: Running background ( 4:22 marathon in Oct), did one Sprint Tri last July, looking to PR at the same race this year in 7 weeks, have 6-8 hours a week to train.

I'm currently running to the gym to do my swims, 2.2 miles each way. I also usually brick after one of my bikes - 1-2 miles. I'm also running about 5-6 miles once a week. Opinions on whether I need that long run? My bike is my weakest sport, so I want to focus on that, but don't want to have a great ride and screw myself on the run.

Limited training time sucks

Thoughts?


2006-05-25 12:43 PM
in reply to: #434186

User image

Not a Coach
11473
5000500010001001001001002525
Media, PA
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?

How long do those runs take you?

If you have 6-8 hours:

Bike ~3 - 4 hrs.
Run ~1:45 - 2:15
Swim ~1:15 - 1:45

And, yes, you should be doing a long run and a long bike most weeks.  "Long" might be about 1/2 of your volume for the week (so 1.5-2hr ride or 45-75min run).

2006-05-25 12:45 PM
in reply to: #434186

User image

Master
1845
100050010010010025
Athens, Ga.
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?
The race is a sprint? Sounds like the 5-6 miler is a long enough run. I'd definitely focus on the bike. You don't really need to run a 10-miler if it's a sprint. You want speed.
2006-05-25 7:04 PM
in reply to: #434186

User image

Pro
3870
200010005001001001002525
Virginia Beach, VA
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?
The 5-6 miler is long enough to prepare you to finish the race but may not be long enough to really help you develop your aerobic base.  I'm not sure what your pace is but I'd start adding ~10min per week to that long run.  after 3 weeks skip the long run for a week and continue to build again.
2006-05-25 7:17 PM
in reply to: #434186

User image


8763
5000200010005001001002525
Boulder, Colorado
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?

cevans - 2006-05-25 10:22 AM Background: Running background ( 4:22 marathon in Oct), did one Sprint Tri last July, looking to PR at the same race this year in 7 weeks, have 6-8 hours a week to train. I'm currently running to the gym to do my swims, 2.2 miles each way. I also usually brick after one of my bikes - 1-2 miles. I'm also running about 5-6 miles once a week. Opinions on whether I need that long run? My bike is my weakest sport, so I want to focus on that, but don't want to have a great ride and screw myself on the run. Limited training time sucks Thoughts?

marathon PR is 4:22 - what is half mary? / 10k/ 5k?

IMO you are running 1x per week right now. The other runs are good, but not really building any type of aerobic conditioning. I would 2nd what Joel said - 1:15 should be your long run. You can add a little tempo to the end of that - say 10-15' that way you get the most bang for your buck. On the shorter runs to/from the pool, I would add in 5-8 x 15" fast - some foot speed work. I do this all the time, works great and it's good on short runs. Maybe extend that brick run to 30-45'? That should help you a little more than what you are doing now.

Keep your time on the bike, since that's your weakest - and the key to running well off the bike is to not crush the bike. Pace yourself.

2006-05-25 7:27 PM
in reply to: #434186

User image

Elite
2999
2000500100100100100252525
Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?
I agree with Watergirl.  Since it is a sprint, focus on your weak spot, the bike.


2006-05-25 8:13 PM
in reply to: #434186

User image

Champion
4902
20002000500100100100100
Ottawa, Ontario
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?

A long run is relative.  You will be doing a sprint triathlon, which has a 3.1 mile run, so your 5 or 6 mile run, being almost twice that distance can be considered your long run.  Select a Bike Focused Sprint Training Program from the "Articles" section of this site (see link below) and you should be alright.

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cms/index.asp?catid=28

2006-05-26 8:53 AM
in reply to: #434186

User image

Elite
2468
20001001001001002525
Racine, WI
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?

Question for Mike and Joel - if he is running 5-6 miles, has a mary under his belt, and is training for a sprint (feeling that bike is weakest) why increase run mileage at this point? 

I'm just curious.....ok nosey....

2006-05-26 8:56 AM
in reply to: #434186

Member
55
2525
Columbus, OH
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?
Thanks for all the insight, everyone! It looks like I'll be keeping my long run, and adding some speed work to my shorter ones.

And, of course, Ride Lots to build up that biking portion.
2006-05-26 9:33 AM
in reply to: #435058

User image


8763
5000200010005001001002525
Boulder, Colorado
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?
CindyK - 2006-05-26 6:53 AM

Question for Mike and Joel - if he is running 5-6 miles, has a mary under his belt, and is training for a sprint (feeling that bike is weakest) why increase run mileage at this point? 

I'm just curious.....ok nosey....

Good question:
1. Those short runs are runs that you can use to 'supplement' your training, not base your training from. The way I look at his current workload is that he is running 1x per week in reality. Not enough in my opinion.
2. Running in a triathlon happens when? at the end, when you are most fatigued. So, you need to have some endurance and durability. Meaning you get off the bike being able to run as close as you can to your open 5k pace. I don't think his current plan will allow him to do it.

I hope that helps answer your question. :-)

2006-05-26 9:35 AM
in reply to: #435058

User image

Not a Coach
11473
5000500010001001001001002525
Media, PA
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?
CindyK - 2006-05-26 8:53 AM

Question for Mike and Joel - if he is running 5-6 miles, has a mary under his belt, and is training for a sprint (feeling that bike is weakest) why increase run mileage at this point? 

I'm just curious.....ok nosey....

First, I think some people missed that the OP was asking if he should DROP the 5-6mi run.  Right now, he is barely doing enough running to maintain fitness there.  So cutting back just to add some biking will probably not help much in reaching his goal. 

And like Joel & Mike suggested, increasing that run will likely yield some nice benefits (I'm assuming that 5-6mi is under an hour but it may already be more--better to focus on time over distance).  Running longer will help build endurance--still the biggest limiter for most even in a "sprint" race.  Mike's suggestion for some "pick-ups" on the shorter runs will give him the speed work he needs and the tempo segments in the longer runs will improve his strength.

As I noted above, if he really has 6-8hrs/wk, he should have plenty of time to get both enough running and biking in order to hit his goals without sacrificing either.

Edit:  And what Mike says above.



Edited by JohnnyKay 2006-05-26 9:36 AM


2006-05-26 10:47 AM
in reply to: #435058

User image

Pro
3870
200010005001001001002525
Virginia Beach, VA
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?

Okay, you asked...and I got a bit carried away with my response

The short answer is aerobic base. The cycling will certainly help develop his base also but we have to remember specificity...cycling won't optimally train your energy systems to support running. A strong aerobic base will benefit every distance of race. I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't want to make your body more efficient in all 3 sports. I like to think of 3 critical "shift points" for your body...aerobic threshold, lactate threshold, and VO2max. Now in reality we're looking at a continuous pregression but we like to define "thresholds" to allow us to neatly divide our HR or power output into bins. Each one of these shift points represents a level of effort where your body makes an important change in energy systems. Understanding how the body is operating below each one of these shift points is important to understanding how different training intensities will benefit your race goals. Regardless of the distance you plan to race, increasing each of these shift points is important to improving your overall endurance and performance.

Laboratory experiments of running or exercising on an ergometer have shown that the relative contribution of the aerobic vs. anaerobic systems during a maximal 4min exercise is about 65% to 45%. At 2 minutes of maximal exercise the relative contribution switches to 40% to 60%. So generally speaking, anything longer than ~4 min can be considered "endurance" because the majority of your energy to fule that effort will be coming from your aerobic system. In a nutshell, this is why it's important to do continue your long easy runs in Z1/Z2 even if you are planning to race sprints. Training each of the "shift" points is important to maximize endurance performance but I personally believe that we should start at the bottom (base work focused on aerobic threshold) and gradually layer on the more intense sessions to begin developing LT, then finally polishing off with aerobic capacity work around VO2max. This means adding the more intense training sessions in appropriate amounts at the right time of your training phase, not replacing one with the other. Bottom line (my opinion) a regular long run and long ride no matter what time of season will benefit every triathlete regardless of what their race distance is.

Aerobic Threshold - This intensity maximally overloads the slow-twitch fibers. Slow-twitch fibers produce most of the energy and create most of the power for endurance events lasting longer than 4 minutes. Training at or below Aerobic threshold (Z2) is the most effective way to overload endurance fibers. Your aerobic threshold can be determined through the analysis of ventilatory gases like is done during a V02max test and is the point where you are maximizing the ratio of fat to carbohydrate utilization for fuel. Beyond this point your body begins to tap into your limited carbohydrate stores to supplement fat utilization because the body cannot burn enough fat quickly enough to support that level of intensity. Above your aerobic threshold the circulatory system cannot get proportionally more oxygen to the muscles. Since it takes more oxygen to derive one calorie from fat than from carb, more carb and less fat will be burned. lactic acid is produced whenever carbs are burned. Performing basic aerobic workouts at too high an intensity reduces the effectiveness of harder workouts on subsequent days by fatiguing and/or depleting carbohydrate stores of the fast twitch fibers.

Lactate Threshold - This is the highest intensity that the body can recycle lactic acide as quickly as it is produced. At this level your aerobic and anearobic systems are working together in balance. You are using all of your slow-twitch fibers and all of your speed-endurance (FOG - fast oxidative glycolytic) fibers but hasn't tapped into your sprint fibers yet. FOG fibers burn almost exclusively carbohydrate because they are very inefficient at utilizing fat for fuel. Training at or near LT trains the FOG fibers to burn more fat (aerobic) so that they produce less lactic acid and also trains your slw-twitch fibers (enduracne) to burn more lactic acid. This results in both increasing the speed/power output at LT and pushing the LT higher. Bottom line - you can go faster for longer. When doing LT training it is very important to not go too hard. It's much better to be slightly under than slightly over. Going just a tiny bit too hard causes lactic acid to accumulate and significantly prololongs the time required for recovery which will impact workouts in following days. This is probably the best cost:benefit training you can do, but that doesn't mean you should neglect youe aerobic base work and focus on LT training. In order for LT training to be effective you need a solid aerobic base to buil on. I think that LT training can become more of a focus at the right point in your season but there is alot of work to be done before you get there.

V02max - This is more of a ceiling than a shift point. VO2max is the amount of oxygen consumed in one minute of maximal aerobic exercise. Think of V02max as a measure of your potential. Improving VO2max is an important step in maximizing endurance. The higher your VO2max, the greater your contribution from your aerobic system. Aerobic capacity training halps to increase the aerobic abilities of your fast-twitch fibers, which primarily work anaerobically. As with training at or near LT, training at or near VO2 max comes with an even greater cost in terms of recovery time and a little aerobic capacity training goes a long way. It should be used sparingly and at the right time of a training cycle. This is another reason why the sprint athlete doesn't want to be focused just on higher intensity training.

 

As with just about everything I write here on the forums, I'm not coming up with this on my own. I'm simply pulling together information I have learned and collected from lots of other smart people and trying to present it for everyone else to understand. A lot of what I wrote above is summarized from training materials I have from my USAT Coaches Clinic and from Ken Mierke at Fitness Concepts who did my V02 max testing this past winter.

 

CindyK - 2006-05-26 9:53 AM

Question for Mike and Joel - if he is running 5-6 miles, has a mary under his belt, and is training for a sprint (feeling that bike is weakest) why increase run mileage at this point?

I'm just curious.....ok nosey....

2006-05-26 11:25 AM
in reply to: #434186

User image

Elite
2468
20001001001001002525
Racine, WI
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?

Thanks guys and I didn't mean to hijack...but since I did already....

I guess what I was wondering is why not keep the 5-6 mile run and add the speedwork to the already existing short runs, but use the extra time to develop bike endurance/skills for specificity's sake? 

Not to argue in any way...just always trying to learn more

2006-05-26 11:51 AM
in reply to: #435311

User image

Not a Coach
11473
5000500010001001001001002525
Media, PA
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?
CindyK - 2006-05-26 11:25 AM

Thanks guys and I didn't mean to hijack...but since I did already....

I guess what I was wondering is why not keep the 5-6 mile run and add the speedwork to the already existing short runs, but use the extra time to develop bike endurance/skills for specificity's sake? 

Not to argue in any way...just always trying to learn more

Basically, that's what Mike suggested to him in his first post.  Except build the long run up to 1:15 and extend the run off the bike to a "medium" run.  Again, his runing right now is probably not even enough to be considered "maintenance" so just adding more biking is probably not the solution to his ultimate goal (PR in his tri).

2006-05-26 12:49 PM
in reply to: #435359

User image


8763
5000200010005001001002525
Boulder, Colorado
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?
JohnnyKay - 2006-05-26 9:51 AM
CindyK - 2006-05-26 11:25 AM

Thanks guys and I didn't mean to hijack...but since I did already....

I guess what I was wondering is why not keep the 5-6 mile run and add the speedwork to the already existing short runs, but use the extra time to develop bike endurance/skills for specificity's sake? 

Not to argue in any way...just always trying to learn more

Basically, that's what Mike suggested to him in his first post.  Except build the long run up to 1:15 and extend the run off the bike to a "medium" run.  Again, his runing right now is probably not even enough to be considered "maintenance" so just adding more biking is probably not the solution to his ultimate goal (PR in his tri).

I agree with JK (and Joel) - the thing you have to remember is all that biking is a waste if he has to walk the run. And vice versa - all the running is a waste if you go too hard on the bike and are wasted on the run from the hard biking. It's a balancing act. IMO a long run is the key ingredient to any triathlete's diet - probably 45 weeks a year, if you are serious about improving.

2006-05-26 4:29 PM
in reply to: #434186

User image

Elite
2468
20001001001001002525
Racine, WI
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?

OK I see what you both mean.  Looking at it from the standpoint of someone with limited training time, I thought Mike and Joel meant to increase running time at the expense of bike time.

Joel, that was an excellently written explanation.  Very easy to understand.  You should cut and paste and keep that, if you haven't already

Thanks again guys



2006-05-26 5:55 PM
in reply to: #434186

User image

Pro
3870
200010005001001001002525
Virginia Beach, VA
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?

The trick is to do it all.  Even with 6-8 hours available I think a well thought out training plan can accomplish all the goals.  He certainly should put some focus on the bike if that is his weakest event but continuing and extending the long run will be beneficial as well.

Maybe I'll submit that post as an article...what would the actual topic be though?  maybe something along the lines of why the long run is important even for short races.

2006-05-26 6:32 PM
in reply to: #434186

User image

Elite
2468
20001001001001002525
Racine, WI
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?

HMMM...the bulk of it is an excellent explanation of the terms aerobic threshold, lactate threshold...something to do with thresholds.  "The Science behind the Thresholds"  ?   You really didn't go into the benefits of running vs. cycling.

Maybe something IRT why it's important to train beyond your race distances as a lead in?

2006-05-26 6:32 PM
in reply to: #435855

User image

Extreme Veteran
351
1001001002525
Seattle
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?
TH3_FRB - 2006-05-26 2:55 PM

Maybe I'll submit that post as an article...what would the actual topic be though?  maybe something along the lines of why the long run is important even for short races.

"Balanced training when somethings gotta give"

Do!  I copied and pasted into a word document so that I go over it with a highlighter.

2006-05-26 7:12 PM
in reply to: #435855

User image


8763
5000200010005001001002525
Boulder, Colorado
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?
TH3_FRB - 2006-05-26 3:55 PM

The trick is to do it all.  Even with 6-8 hours available I think a well thought out training plan can accomplish all the goals. 

>>>I agree 100%. I averaged 400 hours a year for about 10 years - that's 8 hours per week - when I first started. What I did differently is focus on certain aspects for a time period. I wrote an article about this years ago: http://www.d3multisport.com/articles/sportrotate.html

IN SEASON is much different, and I typically broke it up as:
2:00 per week swimming
3-4:00 per week cycling*
2-3:00 per week running*

*some weeks would be longer bikes, and other weeks would be longer runs.
(This formula usually got me to the FOP in my AG.) So, you can get a lot of BANG for your BUCK if your program is effective.

 

He certainly should put some focus on the bike if that is his weakest event but continuing and extending the long run will be beneficial as well.

Maybe I'll submit that post as an article...what would the actual topic be though?  maybe something along the lines of why the long run is important even for short races.

2006-05-26 8:01 PM
in reply to: #435890

User image

Champion
9407
500020002000100100100100
Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?
mikericci - 2006-05-26 8:12 PM

I agree 100%. I averaged 400 hours a year for about 10 years - that's 8 hours per week - when I first started. What I did differently is focus on certain aspects for a time period. I wrote an article about this years ago: http://www.d3multisport.com/articles/sportrotate.html



Some great info here - just wanted to note that the article Mike is referencing here is extremely useful. I followed this advice in the past off-season and am now enjoying some dramatic fitness gains - if you are looking for a way to improve in one sport (or all three) over the course of a year, I would highly recommend this approach.

Shane

PS - Mike and Joel, thanks again for all the information you share - there are many coaches who share little to nothing and to have you guys on the forums is a definite asset! Many thanks!

Edited by gsmacleod 2006-05-26 8:02 PM


2006-05-26 8:04 PM
in reply to: #434186

Member
55
2525
Columbus, OH
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?
I like that "stepping stone" concept, if I understand correctly, Mike. Maintain in two sports while you build in a third. Then shift that sport over to maintenance mode at the higher level while you build the next sport. That seems a good plan for limited time athletes like myself.
2006-05-26 9:15 PM
in reply to: #435908

User image


8763
5000200010005001001002525
Boulder, Colorado
Subject: RE: Still need a long run?

Chris

I think you can do it anytime of the year, but off-season is best. I like to start with my weakest sport, that way I can fit in two cycles if I need to. It's worked for me and lots of others too.

I think we'll see some fast times out of Shane this season!

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Still need a long run? Rss Feed