How I write a custom running training plan

[GreatLakes]

I haven't done a ton of research on this topic. Most of my information came from pretty general recommendations which was reflected in durations and the necessity for recovery. So I'd limit carb intake on any run less than 90 min and allow it on anything longer than 90 min. The primary purpose being making sure a person was fully prepared for the next training run. The idea being runs over 90 min start to dip "too much" into the glycogen stores to be fully prepared for the next run. So an allowance of carb intake was made. But runs less than 90 min didn't push this threshold much, and so limiting carbs allowed the body to work some on fat adaptation.

I don't generally recommend doing the glycogen depletion training (runs longer than 120 min without carbs) until it's been shown that other improvements in quality of training won't take you where you want to go. It's just slightly more risky, but can be beneficial if done correctly.

I do remember listening to this runnersconnect podcast on a similar topic:

https://runnersconnect.net/running-...y-training-bob-seebohar-ms-rd-cssd-cscs-mets/

I seem to remember one of the key things I got out of it was that a metabolic efficiency test was useful for in the moment, but that the bodies response could be changed in as few as a few weeks. So with that being said, I was interested in doing one, but cautious about spending too much (since the data could be irrelevant as quickly as 2 weeks later). Now if they had a staggered system where you got to test multiple times over the course of several weeks, then that's something that would be far more interesting. One thing this does reinforce is the idea of carb loading and the idea of fat adaptation 5 days prior leading to potential benefits.

My guess is this will provide some benefits, but likely in most cases only a marginal increase in performance. But, what works for one person may or may not work for everyone. So if you've exhausted other options in improving performance, then this is the next logical step.

Thanks for the info. I do agree that the test is only good as a snapshot and I was going to look at it as a way to establish a base and know where I am starting. It seems from the little I've read so far that the benefit to becoming fat adapted has to do with laying a better underlying aerobic base which should adapt over time, meaning you push your crossover point into a higher heart rate. Doing so allows you to run longer and faster before you have to cross over into anaerobic and gives you more headroom so to speak. I am just at the beginning of this though so I may be completely misunderstanding this at the moment.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Thanks for the info. I do agree that the test is only good as a snapshot and I was going to look at it as a way to establish a base and know where I am starting. It seems from the little I've read so far that the benefit to becoming fat adapted has to do with laying a better underlying aerobic base which should adapt over time, meaning you push your crossover point into a higher heart rate. Doing so allows you to run longer and faster before you have to cross over into anaerobic and gives you more headroom so to speak. I am just at the beginning of this though so I may be completely misunderstanding this at the moment.

I'd agree with this. One of the biggest separators between marathon runners is the ability to hold lactate threshold at a set pace. I'd be surprised if this physiological response isn't in some way related to fat adaptation and metabolic efficiency.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

Interestingly, the training plan that I am using for the NYC virtual marathon has me running my long runs at a pace 30-45 seconds per mile faster than my goal pace. Maybe it is because my long run is still in the 12-15 mile range, but I have always run my long runs at or slower than my goal marathon pace. I am not having any problems with the runs, but it is contrary to what I have been told to do in the past. Maybe it is because my goal pace isn't very fast - 12:30/mile.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Interestingly, the training plan that I am using for the NYC virtual marathon has me running my long runs at a pace 30-45 seconds per mile faster than my goal pace. Maybe it is because my long run is still in the 12-15 mile range, but I have always run my long runs at or slower than my goal marathon pace. I am not having any problems with the runs, but it is contrary to what I have been told to do in the past. Maybe it is because my goal pace isn't very fast - 12:30/mile.

That is interesting. I can't think of a training plan that has that kind of disparity in a long run pace. This is the adaptive training plan you've talked about before, right? What kind of information do you feed it? Is it possible it's ignoring your goal marathon pace and instead adapting based on the data coming in to what it believes is your actual goal marathon pace? Like you say your goal pace is a 12:30, but it actually thinks you're capable of running the marathon at a 11:15 min/mie (or something similar)? Thus, the pacing structure is being altered based on the feedback you're providing it.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

That is interesting. I can't think of a training plan that has that kind of disparity in a long run pace. This is the adaptive training plan you've talked about before, right? What kind of information do you feed it? Is it possible it's ignoring your goal marathon pace and instead adapting based on the data coming in to what it believes is your actual goal marathon pace? Like you say your goal pace is a 12:30, but it actually thinks you're capable of running the marathon at a 11:15 min/mie (or something similar)? Thus, the pacing structure is being altered based on the feedback you're providing it.

It adjusts strictly based on my imported runs from Strava - you do not get a chance to input a "goal" pace or finish time. It will not adjust based on a manually entered time - only times synced with Strava (guess it doesn't trust me). It adjusts both my training paces and my estimated race time based on Strava, which drives all of the training paces, and the goal marathon pace. My goal is a 12:30 mile, but Runtrix had my estimated race pace at 13:10. I think that I could probably manage 11:30 safely, but am being very conservative given my lack of training this year.

At any rate, I really took it easy on my 12 miler yesterday and averaged 12:22 miles. My average HR was only 142, so really an easy and relaxed run. My Runtrix goal pace for the run was 12:21 - 12:51 minute miles, so I finished at the bottom end of that. But remember that this is with my marathon pace at 13:10. It was clearly a good suggestion for my current fitness level, but it does not match up with Runtrix' race pace for the marathon. And all of my long runs have followed this pattern - paces faster than my marathon pace. Only my Tempo runs include runs at my marathon pace.

Because I finished at the lower end of my suggested training zone yesterday, my future paces have been lowered. My marathon pace dropped from 13:10 to 13:04.

This plan is working. I am getting stronger and faster every week, even when running conservatively. I just have never seen a plan like this.

 

[DopeyBadger]

It adjusts strictly based on my imported runs from Strava - you do not get a chance to input a "goal" pace or finish time. It will not adjust based on a manually entered time - only times synced with Strava (guess it doesn't trust me). It adjusts both my training paces and my estimated race time based on Strava, which drives all of the training paces, and the goal marathon pace. My goal is a 12:30 mile, but Runtrix had my estimated race pace at 13:10. I think that I could probably manage 11:30 safely, but am being very conservative given my lack of training this year.

At any rate, I really took it easy on my 12 miler yesterday and averaged 12:22 miles. My average HR was only 142, so really an easy and relaxed run. My Runtrix goal pace for the run was 12:21 - 12:51 minute miles, so I finished at the bottom end of that. But remember that this is with my marathon pace at 13:10. It was clearly a good suggestion for my current fitness level, but it does not match up with Runtrix' race pace for the marathon. And all of my long runs have followed this pattern - paces faster than my marathon pace. Only my Tempo runs include runs at my marathon pace.

Because I finished at the lower end of my suggested training zone yesterday, my future paces have been lowered. My marathon pace dropped from 13:10 to 13:04.

This plan is working. I am getting stronger and faster every week, even when running conservatively. I just have never seen a plan like this.

A quick google search didn't yield a ton of data on the program, other than it's primary basis is aerobic (so similar to the 80/20 concept). They used a lot of big words, but didn't really say anything beyond it being adaptable and dynamic. It's definitely an ideal type situation, but I'd love to hear their justifications for how their program works. I'll be interested to hear how it goes for you. If a 12:22 for 12 miles felt easy at a HR of 142, I wonder if it's underselling you with the estimated 13:04 pace for a marathon. In the past, how would that HR of 142 compare to other types of runs you've done (like is that HR similar to an easy run, long run, marathon tempo run, hm tempo run, lactate threshold pace, etc.)?

 

[BuckeyeBama]

A quick google search didn't yield a ton of data on the program, other than it's primary basis is aerobic (so similar to the 80/20 concept). They used a lot of big words, but didn't really say anything beyond it being adaptable and dynamic. It's definitely an ideal type situation, but I'd love to hear their justifications for how their program works. I'll be interested to hear how it goes for you. If a 12:22 for 12 miles felt easy at a HR of 142, I wonder if it's underselling you with the estimated 13:04 pace for a marathon. In the past, how would that HR of 142 compare to other types of runs you've done (like is that HR similar to an easy run, long run, marathon tempo run, hm tempo run, lactate threshold pace, etc.)?

135 - 142 has been my target zone for an easy run. Maybe it is purposely underselling the marathon pace to manage expectations and to get runners to run more slowly than they might overall. Still, seems like a dishonest way to achieve that. Thing is, it is working for me so it is hard for me to complain.

 

[DopeyBadger]

135 - 142 has been my target zone for an easy run. Maybe it is purposely underselling the marathon pace to manage expectations and to get runners to run more slowly than they might overall. Still, seems like a dishonest way to achieve that. Thing is, it is working for me so it is hard for me to complain.

Did you have to feed any of your history into it? Like does it know you have years of experience running, or does it assume the first strava you entered into Runtrix is one of your first runs? I could see how it's managing expectations for a brand new runner by placing the predicted marathon tempo to be much slower than "easy" pace.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

Did you have to feed any of your history into it? Like does it know you have years of experience running, or does it assume the first strava you entered into Runtrix is one of your first runs? I could see how it's managing expectations for a brand new runner by placing the predicted marathon tempo to be much slower than "easy" pace.

It did not ask, but I did not choose a beginner or conservative plan. I chose a moderate plan. I put in that I was currently running 25 miles per week as my base. It built that plan based on that and my Strava load. I only have about 3 months of data in Strava.

Sorry, I also entered my most recent 10k run time of 64 minutes.

 

[DopeyBadger]

It did not ask, but I did not choose a beginner or conservative plan. I chose a moderate plan. I put in that I was currently running 25 miles per week as my base. It built that plan based on that and my Strava load. I only have about 3 months of data in Strava.

Sorry, I also entered my most recent 10k run time of 64 minutes.

So that makes sense. The long run pace for a 10k of 64 is a 12:13 min/mile (based on M Tempo + 9%). So the only thing out of ordinary then would be the predicted marathon pace of 13:04. When using a conversion exponential of 1.15 in a Riegel calculation (which is an average marathon performance according to two separate data sets), it would predict a 12:47 min/mile marathon pace. So it'll be interesting to see how that value moves over the rest of the training cycle.

 

[kleph]

Alright. I'm in. Let's see the magic at work.

 

[TeeKo]

Hi Dopey Badge,
In the spring you shared a plan with me to train slower, race faster that has five runs per week. Each week, four runs are easy and one is a tempo run. Long runs are 60 to 90 minute. Tempo runs are 30 to 40 minute.
Over the 13 weeks, every Monday run is an easy 15 or 20 minute run.
Why are these runs so short and what is the purpose of running for just 15 or 20 minutes?
I know there’s always method. What is the reasoning? Thank yo!

 

[DopeyBadger]

Hi Dopey Badge,
In the spring you shared a plan with me to train slower, race faster that has five runs per week. Each week, four runs are easy and one is a tempo run. Long runs are 60 to 90 minute. Tempo runs are 30 to 40 minute.
Over the 13 weeks, every Monday run is an easy 15 or 20 minute run.
Why are these runs so short and what is the purpose of running for just 15 or 20 minutes?
I know there’s always method. What is the reasoning? Thank yo!

I believe this is the conversation you are referencing:

https://www.disboards.com/threads/p...-cutoff-confirmed-times.3699036/post-61711203https://www.disboards.com/threads/p...-cutoff-confirmed-times.3699036/post-61711640
With this training plan recommendation: Higdon Winter

https://www.halhigdon.com/training-programs/more-training/winter-training/


So with training plan development there are two key considerations:

1) Bridge from where you are to where you want to be.
2) Stimulus -> Recovery -> Adaptation

You were moving up from 3 x 30 min training weeks, and then 4 x 60 min training weeks that were beating you up. You had a desire for structure and doing more. So I was looking for a training plan that increased the number of days per week, but was also not a huge jump from where you were.

More specifically to this question, is about the 15-25 min easy days on Mondays. What is their purpose? Their purpose is two-fold. They are adding extra stimulus on a 5th day, but not a huge stimulus that it impedes your ability to recover. There is some research to suggest that even a small short run like 15-30 min can elicit a response in the body to increase recovery and not dampen it. This is connected to the possible second purpose of the run. The core of training is stimulus -> recovery -> adaptation. By minimally adding in a stimulus you are forcing the body to recover quicker between bouts of exercise. This then causes an adaptation.

Now, the follow-up could be, if 15-30 min is good, why not do 45-60 min? Again it goes back to the same premise. While 30 min is good, 60 min could be too much from where you were entering the plan. That means instead of reaping a sufficient recovery level leading to adaptation, you may end up stuck in a rut of stimulus-> recovery X stimulus-> recovery X stimulus -> recovery. Never reaping the full desired effects of adaptation. A way to think of it is as "Surviving the training instead of thriving because of it". You're "doing" it, but you're not reaping the benefits from it.

Endurance training takes patience over weeks, months, and years. A progressional build up. So a year from now you may follow a similar plan, except your Monday's would be 60 min, your Satuday's 120 min, etc. etc. As an example, Elites typically do doubles almost every day of the week. A 90 min morning run and then a 30-45 min evening run. They're following the same pattern of manipulating the recovery cycle. But it's not something you or me could jump into from where we are today. They built to that level of training over years of consistent effort.

 

[TeeKo]

Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful, detailed answer! In April, my work shifted back into high gear and the fall HM I had hoped to run was canceled. I lost focus and wasn't following the plan but remembered "easy run" and started running slower. I remembered "tempo run" and did that one to two times per week. Well, a funny thing happened. I started running more days per week...because it was so much easier. So even though I have less time, I am running more often because the running is taking less out of me! So it worked! I got the plan back out because now that I am in 5 day a week running shape, I thought I would give it a try lol. Seems like your plan worked for me despite my somewhat haphazard application.

Disboards needs a thread called Paging Dopey Badger!
I get on here to read your advice to other runners because I always learn from you.

Thank you!