why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Featuring TheRunZone?s resident coach Tinman. All participants are welcome to post and reply to topics in this section whether you?re looking for advice, or sharing your own coaching experience.

Moderators: Moderator, Global Moderator

dkggpeters
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:11 pm

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by dkggpeters » Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:42 am

One of the problems that I have experienced and have witnessed from others is that you will notice a nice improvement when doing 5K pace intervals as per how Daniels recommends them for about 4 to 6 weeks then you don't seem to improve anymore.  In my case, I start to go the other direction.  They also provide a lot of stress on both mentally and physically.  I have seen some folks grind them out week after week but yet did not see faster racing times out of them.

I believe that 5K pace intervals have their place and providing the right doses is what is critical.  I find that Daniels recommendation that 5 minute intervals provide the most bang for the buck to not always be true.

I will vouch that CV intervals are highly valuable and the volume doesn't have to be high.  Last year for my Boston buildup I did them every other week (alternated with long tempos) and only did 6 x 1K with the last session being 7 reps.  It was very sustainable and you were not wiped out from it.  The trick is that you should also feel like you can do a couple more reps if you really wanted to.  I noticed improvements throughout the entire training cycle as well.

If you do CV intervals you should consider doing some short hill sprints or 200's afterwards.  I also did 4 x 200 at 1 mile pace with 200m recoveries.

monica
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:37 pm

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by monica » Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:22 am

dilluh wrote: I mean that 4000m is not that much total distance for that pace (CV). You mentioned that you did your 300s and 400s at VO2 max which is not CV. Granted, those reps are shorter but that's still quite a bit of volume of 5k pace work. Also like you mentioned, which I think may be part of it, is that if you don't have a good aerobic foundation to start with, VO2max work can really be tough on you. I think this is what I was finding when I was trying to translate Livingstone's book for myself. I thought I had a good enough aerobic base to jump into 1 or 2 VO2max workouts per week but it was clear from the erratic running that ensued that I wasn't.


So okay, by volume you did mean a combination of intensity and distance covered. Yea, 4000m covered for 10k pace is easily seen as relatively less volume (40%) than 4000m covered for 5k pace (80%). :)

I don't know what's considered as "good aerobic foundation". I've heard the term before but I've never seen anyone specify what's "good enough". What conditions need to be satisfied for that? Would you be able to say?

I know that it's a small difference but there is something about doing 5k pace work that takes significantly more out of me than 10k pace work. 90% of VO2max and VO2max aren't that different, but apparently they are for me.
I understand you there. For me too there is a difference, not small. I actually feel the difference a lot even when racing. I've run my 10K races well but not my 5K races, so far. (Though, shorter than 5K stuff is again something I can do well.)

dkggpeters wrote: One of the problems that I have experienced and have witnessed from others is that you will notice a nice improvement when doing 5K pace intervals as per how Daniels recommends them for about 4 to 6 weeks then you don't seem to improve anymore.
Afaik 4-6 weeks is often the recommended time for such speed work in training. So I suppose this is to be expected.

If you do CV intervals you should consider doing some short hill sprints or 200's afterwards.  I also did 4 x 200 at 1 mile pace with 200m recoveries.
Thanks for that bit of advice, I'll keep this in mind. :)
Last edited by monica on Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

dkggpeters
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:11 pm

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by dkggpeters » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:21 pm

[quote="monica"]

I don't know what's considered as "good aerobic foundation". I've heard the term before but I've never seen anyone specify what's "good enough". What conditions need to be satisfied for that? Would you be able to say?

[/quote]

You need to be in good enough shape and have the capacity to be able to handle the workouts that you are doing.
Last edited by dkggpeters on Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

monica
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:37 pm

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by monica » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:46 pm

[quote="dkggpeters"]
[quote="monica"]

I don't know what's considered as "good aerobic foundation". I've heard the term before but I've never seen anyone specify what's "good enough". What conditions need to be satisfied for that? Would you be able to say?

[/quote]

You need to be in good enough shape and have the capacity to be able to handle the workouts that you are doing.
[/quote]

Yes but anything else to specify a "good enough" foundation? Or does one always have to find out the hard way that they don't yet have the capacity to handle VO2max workouts for example?

dkggpeters
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:11 pm

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by dkggpeters » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:53 pm

[quote="monica"]
[quote="dkggpeters"]
[quote="monica"]

I don't know what's considered as "good aerobic foundation". I've heard the term before but I've never seen anyone specify what's "good enough". What conditions need to be satisfied for that? Would you be able to say?

[/quote]

You need to be in good enough shape and have the capacity to be able to handle the workouts that you are doing.
[/quote]

Yes but anything else to specify a "good enough" foundation? Or does one always have to find out the hard way that they don't yet have the capacity to handle VO2max workouts for example?
[/quote]

You are never going to jump into a higher volume workout without building up to it.  You would start by doing something like 8 x 1 minute or 8 x 400m and slowly build the volume up by either doing more reps or increasing the length of a rep.  8 x 1 minute shouldn't be that stressful if you run them at the right intensity.  Obviously you will have had weeks of easy running prior to jumping into a session.

You can also slowly build up while trying to build an aerobic base by doing 8 x 20 sec, then 8 x 30 sec, 8 x 40 sec.
Last edited by dkggpeters on Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BoilerTom90
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 407
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:21 am
Location: Arlington Heights, IL

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by BoilerTom90 » Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:03 pm

[quote="monica"]
[quote="dkggpeters"]
[quote="monica"]

I don't know what's considered as "good aerobic foundation". I've heard the term before but I've never seen anyone specify what's "good enough". What conditions need to be satisfied for that? Would you be able to say?

[/quote]

You need to be in good enough shape and have the capacity to be able to handle the workouts that you are doing.
[/quote]

Yes but anything else to specify a "good enough" foundation? Or does one always have to find out the hard way that they don't yet have the capacity to handle VO2max workouts for example?
[/quote]

Monica,

I think I have struggled with the same question over the years.  How do you know when you have enough of a base/foundation and can move on to more intense training?  It's a great question.

With Tinmans' training though, those phases aren't quite as obvious as they might be with other training plans.  He might have you do short CV reps (1 min to 2 min) with a week or two of training under him, while you think you are or should be in the base building phase.  This is consistent with the philosophy that base building isn't all just easy running and striders. If you look at the way training evolves, after a few weeks of the shorter CV reps, he starts to increase the length/time of each rep.  I'm nearly 2 months into training with Tinman again, and my CV reps are just now starting to approach 2 to 3 minutes, but he had me doing 1 minute reps by the 2nd or 3rd week.

So, to answer your question, there is no magical time when your foundation is good enough to start CV reps. Start the short CV reps early. 

Also, while in the base building phase, longer reps at Tempo (Tinman Tempo, not Threshold) pace can be done to help build a really strong base.  As with CV reps though, it's a sensible progression.

monica
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:37 pm

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by monica » Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:52 pm

Thanks guys, both of you've been really helpful. :)

@BoilerTom90, that's interesting about the building up CV and tempo stuff right from the start while base building. That's definitely an approach I've never seen/tried. But, it does make sense. I have this whole summer here, sounds like perfect timing for this.  8)

dilluh
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:40 pm

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by dilluh » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:56 pm

I’ve been thumbing through Steve Magness’ new book “The Science of Running” and in one chapter he explains several theories of periodization. The more classic style that I think many have heard of has runners developing a large base of moderate aerobic running before more intensive sessions around LT or VO2max begin followed by sharpening. Slightly contrary to this he explains the “funnel model” which he said is not a new method of training but has been made popular more recently by Renato Canova who is an Italian coach of many Kenyan marathoners and olympic marathon gold medalist Stefano Baldini. This method focuses on specificity of the harder workouts to the event trained for. Instead of the goal being to build up an aerobic foundation before you move on to “harder workouts", the idea is to progress the workouts intensively (speed) and extensively (distance) right from the start. The workouts start in the base phase with a focus on easy intensive (speed) and easy extensive (distance) and as time progresses those workouts get more specific to the goal race. So you might start in the early season doing some 30-60 second 5k reps with adequate recovery within an easy run as your intensive (speed) workout and for extensive, maybe some marathon paced (or even slower) reps on the roads of a half mile with a mile easy between during a mid-long run. Again, this is early season and these are easy sessions but as the season progresses to a goal race (say a marathon), those intensive (speed) workouts would be honed into longer reps at 5k or CV pace and the extensive workouts could be long runs with a large portion at 90% of goal marathon pace. Those are far more difficult workouts but the idea is that you’ve eased into them right from the get-go and the workouts now are more closely related to the requirements of the race. I think the idea has merits and (correct me if I’m wrong) I think some of Tinman’s ideas fall along these lines. I like that there is almost immediate focus on both stamina and speed early on in the schedule. Geogre Malley (malmo on LRC and former US record holder in the steeplechase) used to say that HS kids don’t “get speed” in the few weeks before the first XC meet in the fall and you need to work on it at least a bit during the entire summer (see summer of malmo). Summer of Malmo seems to be the Funnel Model in Zen form. The workouts he suggests are only guidelines and they really aren’t that difficult (and aren’t meant to be) but they set an athlete up for success once the fall rolls around AND they won’t beat you up in the process (consistency is key, train don’t strain, etc). I think this is a significant deviation from the idea that base should be a high volume of easy mileage with some strides thrown in and then WHAM, here come the VO2max sessions. Good stuff to discuss!

Schebo
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:12 am

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by Schebo » Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:39 pm

I have never met an elite runner who been doing only easy running for a prolonged period during base training. The concept of running repeats at around 10k pace with a short active recovery during base phase has been around for ages. I have a training book written by Anders Gärderud in the 1980s where he advocates such a training approach.

Tinman
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 4283
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:02 am

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by Tinman » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:23 pm

I think people did not understand Lydiard's training method well, and the consequence was runners doing mileage without having variation in training intensity. In fact Lydiard prescibed a strong paced 10 miler each week during the base (marathon) conditioning that all runners he worked with did. A quick 10 mile run has a simar effect as a few half mile to mile paced reps at CV or 10 km pace; the only difference is the intervals at CV or 10 km pace more closely resemble the racing stride for track runners.
Tinman
(coaching available)
Inquire via email:
runfastcoach@gmail.com

dkggpeters
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:11 pm

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by dkggpeters » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:38 am

Fartleks are great during base building as well.

dilluh
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:40 pm

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by dilluh » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:32 am

Yet again, something that Lydiard prescribed during base... I think he called for a "park fartlek" once a week along with the steady 10 miler and long run.

dkggpeters
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 640
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:11 pm

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by dkggpeters » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:01 pm

Tinman,

From my recollection I remember seeing 10 miles at 75% effort (stated as 3/4 effort runs) which to me was always confusing.  Was Lydiard referring to something similar as moderate pace which would be around MP +30 or was he referring to something a little harder?
Last edited by dkggpeters on Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dilluh
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:40 pm

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by dilluh » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:25 pm

From "Healthy Intelligent Training" --

"Certain days were designated as higher aerobic effort days. For instance, on Mondays and Fridays, 10 mile (16 kilometer) “steady state” efforts were to be run at a good effort, which at the start of the “buildup” might mean runs of 65 minutes on Monday and 62 minutes on Friday for Magee. By the end of 8 weeks, these steady state runs were covered in a natural progression at 58 minutes and 55 minutes respectively. Nowadays we’d call these runs sub-threshold tempo runs, or marathon-pace medium distance runs."

Livingstone, Keith (2012-03-01). Healthy Intelligent Training, 2nd Ed (Kindle Locations 1575-1579). Cardinal Publishers Group. Kindle Edition.


Looks like it was based on their current fitness level and gradually got closer to MP but they're still 30 sec per mile off of what these guys were running for the marathon. I think this is good evidence for an often forgotten zone of training - stuff slightly slower than MP (or a touch faster than moderate) is great marathon and stamina work.

dilluh
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:40 pm

Re: why the short recoveries with CV reps?

Post by dilluh » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:31 pm

I take part of that back, 5:30 pace for Magee is only about 10-15 seconds slower than his marathon pace and I'm guessing these steady state runs progressed into full on MP runs after base. The idea still applies I think.

Post Reply