Can not get faster

andrea9873

I started running for the first time ever last Super Bowl Eve (go Giants!)
my first 3 miles ever. I joined a local training group to get me to my first 5K. since last March I've added several more races to my list. Over the summer I spent a lot of time adding strength training and I was able to shave off a whole 5 minutes of my 5 and 10K races times in Nov and December respectively.

I'm currently training for my first half marathon which will happen in less than 4 weeks. I've put off strength training since I signed up for the race in early November and I think it's impacting my running now. I've slowed down drastically, I've lost muscle and have put on Holiday weight, How did I even gain weight prepping for a half? Too many cookies probably.
I'm afraid of getting swept up by the vans at the half. Is it too late to go back to strength training now? I have started to clean up my nutrition too hope that helps. Right now my long runs prove that I'm slowing down. my Tuesday Thursday runs are just as slow. Any thoughts?

sleauxrunner

I'll tell you a few things my run coach has taught me:

Strength training is a big part of running. Find time for it.

Training runs should be at a slower pace than your race pace, except maybe speed work.

Gaining a little weight while training for distance will happen.


Are you doing any speed work? If not, look up intervals and tempo runs. The group am in do 1 speed work run a week, alternating between the two.

Don't worry about the van. You will be faster that you think because of sheer excitment of the race!! Have a great first!

scottb81

A regression in pace can often be traced to running too fast during training runs or doing too much speedwork with not enough aerobic easy running to support it. My guess is that you have been racing a lot of your training runs and have both gotten tired and not properly developed an aerobic base.

Right now my long runs prove that I'm slowing down. my Tuesday Thursday runs are just as slow.

If that really is the problem then strength training won't do anything to fix it. The solution is lots of miles at a proper pace (around 75% or less max heartrate).

M_lifts

Hey! I am doing my first half in 6 weeks! good luck

I do my long runs really slowly as making the distance is the key rather than speed. I can run upto 11 miles so far. I do an interval session, an easy run and a long run at the weekend. The other days I crosstrain (childcare issues! and full time work), I do a mixture of insanity and strength work as I like vary workouts to stop boredom.

Why did you stop strength work? I would try and icorporate that into your training again.

Good luck for your first! I always worry that I will be too slow! especially when you consider the cut off points for races! However, I reckon the excitement of the race will keep us both going.

SteveTries

I think scottb81 probably has the right idea.

Are you sure you're not just getting a case of nerves leading up to the event? How is your current training structured? What are the components of the week? What is your current long run distance?

tkillion810

I wouldn't focus on adding strength training now, as you'll soon be heading into taper period. Definitely consider including it in your next training cycle. For now, focus on good nutrition and positive thoughts about the upcoming race! You'll do great!

MinimalistShoeAddict

A regression in pace can often be traced to running too fast during training runs or doing too much speedwork with not enough aerobic easy running to support it. My guess is that you have been racing a lot of your training runs and have both gotten tired and not properly developed an aerobic base.

Right now my long runs prove that I'm slowing down. my Tuesday Thursday runs are just as slow.

If that really is the problem then strength training won't do anything to fix it. The solution is lots of miles at a proper pace (around 75% or less max heartrate).

Scottb81 is right. I followed his advice regarding proper HR for training runs and have seen great results. You may feel funny slowing down to the correct HR at first. However like he said the reward will be in building a much stronger aerobic base. That same aerobic base will allow you to run much faster on race day without running out of energy.

alanlmarshall

How often do you run? You shouldn't run every day if speed is your goal.

hula808

Is there a way to determine how fast you should be running if you dont use a HR monitor? I average 6'1 - 6'3 /kilometre,,,but speed has stalled. I've repeatedly heard run slower longer but not sure how slow I should slow down to for my long runs.
THX!

marikevr

Is there a way to determine how fast you should be running if you dont use a HR monitor? I average 6'1 - 6'3 /kilometre,,,but speed has stalled. I've repeatedly heard run slower longer but not sure how slow I should slow down to for my long runs.
THX!

Rule of thumb is to do an easy run at a pace that you could still hold a conversation easily without getting out of breath.

CarsonRuns

How often do you run? You shouldn't run every day if speed is your goal.

This is a terrible generalization. The number of days that your body is capable of running is determined by your level of fitness which is developed by running over time. Some people can only run 3 days per week. Others can run every day and still develop speed if they properly plan their workouts.

schmenge55

I do not think it is too late to start adding strength training back, but I would not make it intense at this point. I would focus on three things: Core work, glute work and lots of stretching (unless you do this already). Those longer runs are going to tighten you up and that too will slow your pace.

You will beat the bus! Just have fun

alanlmarshall

How often do you run? You shouldn't run every day if speed is your goal.

This is a terrible generalization. The number of days that your body is capable of running is determined by your level of fitness which is developed by running over time. Some people can only run 3 days per week. Others can run every day and still develop speed if they properly plan their workouts.

It seems reasonable to assume that the OP is not one of those people. She is new to running.

It has been proven that running more than 4 days a week will reduce speed performance in distance running for ameteurs at all fitness levels. You can get faster, of course, but not as much and as quickly as if you trained with optimal recovery and cross training. The high mileage myth has been disproven in study after study.

Perhaps it is different for highly trained, superfit, pro or near pro athletes, bu that is clearly not what we are talking about here.

Even if I am wrong about this, running 3 or 4 days a week and cross training will help the OP run faster.

tappae

It has been proven that running more than 4 days a week will reduce speed performance in distance running for ameteurs at all fitness levels. You can get faster, of course, but not as much and as quickly as if you trained with optimal recovery and cross training. The high mileage myth has been disproven in study after study.

I'm an amateur with no natural skill at running and I saw a dramatic increase in my rate of improvement when I slowed all my runs down to conversational pace and increased from 2 or 3 days per week to 5 days per week, peaking at around 50 miles per week. When my aerobic fitness improved, my speed at any given level of exertion also improved. After a few months, when I added speed work back in, I was faster than I ever had been, even though I had not been training fast at all.

As I'm currently increasing my mileage again, I would love to read these studies you've mentioned, if you could share some links.

alanlmarshall

It has been proven that running more than 4 days a week will reduce speed performance in distance running for ameteurs at all fitness levels. You can get faster, of course, but not as much and as quickly as if you trained with optimal recovery and cross training. The high mileage myth has been disproven in study after study.

I'm an amateur with no natural skill at running and I saw a dramatic increase in my rate of improvement when I slowed all my runs down to conversational pace and increased from 2 or 3 days per week to 5 days per week, peaking at around 50 miles per week. When my aerobic fitness improved, my speed at any given level of exertion also improved. After a few months, when I added speed work back in, I was faster than I ever had been, even though I had not been training fast at all.


As I'm currently increasing my mileage again, I would love to read these studies you've mentioned, if you could share some links.

Couldn't find the studies themselves quickly, but here is some independent verification:

http://www.roy-stevenson.com/running-training.html
"Furthermore, many studies have shown that running as little as three days per week results in marked improvements (4.8%) in VO2 max."

Your improvement was likely due to increases in endurance because of the increased mileage. You probably would have gotten most of that from 30 miles a week. If some of that had been x training it would lower the risk of injury. Current science says that you could have increased your speed even more with fewer miles mixed with some speed training.

Some are resisting this because it goes against what they have longed believed, but the evidence is clear. For this thread it might be best for the OP to do some research and make an informed decision about what training program might work best. I am only repeating what I have learned from my own research of the subject.

CarsonRuns

It has been proven that running more than 4 days a week will reduce speed performance in distance running for ameteurs at all fitness levels. You can get faster, of course, but not as much and as quickly as if you trained with optimal recovery and cross training. The high mileage myth has been disproven in study after study.

I'm an amateur with no natural skill at running and I saw a dramatic increase in my rate of improvement when I slowed all my runs down to conversational pace and increased from 2 or 3 days per week to 5 days per week, peaking at around 50 miles per week. When my aerobic fitness improved, my speed at any given level of exertion also improved. After a few months, when I added speed work back in, I was faster than I ever had been, even though I had not been training fast at all.


As I'm currently increasing my mileage again, I would love to read these studies you've mentioned, if you could share some links.

Couldn't find the studies themselves quickly, but here is some independent verification:

http://www.roy-stevenson.com/running-training.html
"Furthermore, many studies have shown that running as little as three days per week results in marked improvements (4.8%) in VO2 max."

Your improvement was likely due to increases in endurance because of the increased mileage. You probably would have gotten most of that from 30 miles a week. If some of that had been x training it would lower the risk of injury. Current science says that you could have increased your speed even more with fewer miles mixed with some speed training.

Some are resisting this because it goes against what they have longed believed, but the evidence is clear. For this thread it might be best for the OP to do some research and make an informed decision about what training program might work best. I am only repeating what I have learned from my own research of the subject.

These studies show that you can make quick improvements in your overall speed, but it is not sustainable. You have to have a large aerobic base to support on-going development of speed. This comes from running lots of mileage over time. If you don't have this base, you can't continue to improve your performance. You will plateau until you stop doing speed work and do (guess what!) more aerobic base work. As I have stated many times before. Show me a world class distance runner that trains 3 days a week (or uses the FIRST system) and then I'll give it consideration as a legitimate, long term training program. Until then, I'll consider it a quick fix that will only work for a short period with flat-lining results.

alanlmarshall

It has been proven that running more than 4 days a week will reduce speed performance in distance running for ameteurs at all fitness levels. You can get faster, of course, but not as much and as quickly as if you trained with optimal recovery and cross training. The high mileage myth has been disproven in study after study.

I'm an amateur with no natural skill at running and I saw a dramatic increase in my rate of improvement when I slowed all my runs down to conversational pace and increased from 2 or 3 days per week to 5 days per week, peaking at around 50 miles per week. When my aerobic fitness improved, my speed at any given level of exertion also improved. After a few months, when I added speed work back in, I was faster than I ever had been, even though I had not been training fast at all.


As I'm currently increasing my mileage again, I would love to read these studies you've mentioned, if you could share some links.

Couldn't find the studies themselves quickly, but here is some independent verification:

http://www.roy-stevenson.com/running-training.html
"Furthermore, many studies have shown that running as little as three days per week results in marked improvements (4.8%) in VO2 max."

Your improvement was likely due to increases in endurance because of the increased mileage. You probably would have gotten most of that from 30 miles a week. If some of that had been x training it would lower the risk of injury. Current science says that you could have increased your speed even more with fewer miles mixed with some speed training.

Some are resisting this because it goes against what they have longed believed, but the evidence is clear. For this thread it might be best for the OP to do some research and make an informed decision about what training program might work best. I am only repeating what I have learned from my own research of the subject.

These studies show that you can make quick improvements in your overall speed, but it is not sustainable. You have to have a large aerobic base to support on-going development of speed. This comes from running lots of mileage over time. If you don't have this base, you can't continue to improve your performance. You will plateau until you stop doing speed work and do (guess what!) more aerobic base work. As I have stated many times before. Show me a world class distance runner that trains 3 days a week (or uses the FIRST system) and then I'll give it consideration as a legitimate, long term training program. Until then, I'll consider it a quick fix that will only work for a short period with flat-lining results.

If your argument is "It works, but only on the day of the race," then I think we can leave the discussion there.

As for world class runners, well, we aren't them, are we? The FIRST system was not dosigned for them, so it would make no sense for them to use it. But, pro runners rest, recover, and cross train. I would guess that the total training to running volume is similar. They do easy runs every other day, for example. If a pro trains twice a day, and one of those is a run and one is cross or strength training or an easy run, that is analogous to a hobbyist training once a day and alternating runs with cross training.

CarsonRuns

If your argument is "It works, but only on the day of the race," then I think we can leave the discussion there.

As for world class runners, well, we aren't them, are we? The FIRST system was not dosigned for them, so it would make no sense for them to use it. But, pro runners rest, recover, and cross train. I would guess that the total training to running volume is similar. They do easy runs every other day, for example. If a pro trains twice a day, and one of those is a run and one is cross or strength training or an easy run, that is analogous to a hobbyist training once a day and alternating runs with cross training.

No, that's not my stance at all. It's that you can only improve so much on those types of plans before you have to increase your workload to make additional gains. In order to be a better, faster runner, you need to run more. The FIRST system and other similar programs work great for some people and they get everything they expect from them. I, on the other hand, come from the paradigm of getting the maximum performance from this aging body before I start to backslide do to said aging. I have probably 5 to 8 years left before that happens. I want to have measurable gains over that entire time, not just peak out in a year or two because I chose to use what I feel (and I'm not the only one) is a shortcut.

alanlmarshall

I would argue, and the research seems to show, that after a recovery period repeating a FIRST style program with new, faster paces based on recent gains, would result in continued gains in speed and endurance. I've done this and acheived a half marathon PR and then a 5K PR over a period of 7 months or so. If someone wants to improve on that with significantly increased total training time, then that kind of program won't suit them, but the principles of proper recovery and cross training to prevent injury will still apply.

For the OP, a neophyte to distance running, starting out with a low overall training volume but a high ratio of running to cross training by running every day doesn't make sense. Maybe someday, after years of training and improving VO2 max etc, a more intense program like yours will be best, but starting out that way risks injury or burnout and provides less intial gains in performance.

Plus, as you've stipulated, she'll run faster at the race.

scottb81

VO2max is maximized within months and is not the sole indicator of running ability. It isn't even a very good indicator of running ability. I had mine measured on a treadmill test with the oxygen mask once as part of an Army experiment. It measured at 73 while at the time I was running no more than about 14 miles a week (none of it really speed training). If that number was nearly as important as everybody thinks it is then I would be an olympic marathoner. But I am not.

Besides that it is mostly genetic and no amount of any type of training is going to get somebody past their genetic limits.

VO2max is nearly meaninless unless one also has developed the full extent of their aerobic capacity. That is done in one way only - miles and time (measured in years). If someone's body is unable to withstand the rigors of everyday running then crosstraining is a good alternative. However, if they can run everyday without injury then running will give a better training effect payoff - specificity.

FIRST is a good program for somebody that doesn't want to run everyday. However, just so that everybody reading this understands, it is not a program that will save training time. It is 3 times a week running hard and 3 other times a week crosstraining. There is no time savings unless someone is cutting the crosstraining short in which case they are not really doing a FIRST type program.

alanlmarshall

VO2max is maximized within months and is not the sole indicator of running ability. It isn't even a very good indicator of running ability. I had mine measured on a treadmill test with the oxygen mask once as part of an Army experiment. It measured at 73 while at the time I was running no more than about 14 miles a week (none of it really speed training). If that number was nearly as important as everybody thinks it is then I would be an olympic marathoner. But I am not.

Besides that it is mostly genetic and no amount of any type of training is going to get somebody past their genetic limits.

VO2max is nearly meaninless unless one also has developed the full extent of their aerobic capacity. That is done in one way only - miles and time (measured in years). If someone's body is unable to withstand the rigors of everyday running then crosstraining is a good alternative. However, if they can run everyday without injury then running will give a better training effect payoff - specificity.

FIRST is a good program for somebody that doesn't want to run everyday. However, just so that everybody reading this understands, it is not a program that will save training time. It is 3 times a week running hard and 3 other times a week crosstraining. There is no time savings unless someone is cutting the crosstraining short in which case they are not really doing a FIRST type program.

I said VO2 max ****etc.****

*****It is 3 times a week running hard and 3 other times a week crosstraining.***** (It's actually 2 days XT plus strength training)

That's the point. You train nearly every day either way. The question is does the risk of injury outweigh the benefit of event specific endurance. For someome who has been running for a year like the OP, the evidence and even you seem to agree that the answer is yes.

The purpose of the FIRST program is not to save time, but to train optimally based on science rather than tradition or myth. Any serious, effective training will require working out most days.

alanlmarshall

For the OP if you are still reading:

Run hard (in distance or pace) 3 days a week. 1 long run, 1 speed workout, 1 tempo or hills.
Crosstrain or run easy or a combination of the two 3 days a week, depending on who you found convincing or your own research.
Rest one day a week.

Gradually increase distance and pace. There are many programs available online or elswhere to help with that. You will get faster.

scottb81

The purpose of the FIRST program is not to save time, but to train optimally based on science rather than tradition or myth. Any serious, effective training will require working out most days.

I was pretty sure you understood that but I have seen many people here and elsewhere interpret it to mean only working out 3 times a week. I just wanted to make sure everyone else understood it.

What we do agree on is that if you want to keep improving and achieve a high degree of fitness and a high degree of success within whatever genetic limits one has then it will require working at it nearly every day.

CarsonRuns

For the OP if you are still reading:

Run hard (in distance or pace) 3 days a week. 1 long run, 1 speed workout, 1 tempo or hills.
Crosstrain or run easy or a combination of the two 3 days a week, depending on who you found convincing or your own research.
Rest one day a week.

Gradually increase distance and pace. There are many programs available online or elswhere to help with that. You will get faster.

I can get on-board with this. I'd lean toward more running and less cross training, but that was already pretty obvious. It's not just based on tradition and/or myth either. It's based on science and results, just as you profess the FIRST program to be.

You know how the saying goes. "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"..

arc918

I tried the FIRST program when I was recovering from injury a couple years ago. With each run being a quality run (tempo, VO2max, long) I found I really missed my easy runs/junk miles.

I would much rather run on my easy days, instead of cross-training, but that's my preference.

With FIRST one needs to cross-train with purpose.

My biggest issue with FIRST was that they were presenting results as if they were a study showing X minutes of improvements. In fact there was no way to know what kind of training the runners had done prior to FIRST or if they would have raced even better on a more tradition higher mileage plan.

alanlmarshall

Are there studies that demonstrate improved performance from high mileage training? I would be interesed if someone can point me in a direction to search. You'd think someone over at the olympic committee or something would be all over this for some more definitive evidence one way or the other.

arc918

Are there studies that demonstrate improved performance from high mileage training? I would be interesed if someone can point me in a direction to search. You'd think someone over at the olympic committee or something would be all over this for some more definitive evidence one way or the other.

In all things running, the ONLY study that matters is what each of us finds works best for us.

If you've had good results from FIRST, please share your experience with us.

For me, after 25 marathons and a *kitten*-ton of halfs, I find I race best off of higher mileage. The other trick is "knowing oneself as runner." Going out at some arbitrary goal pace and trying to hold on when your training doesn't support it is a recipe for disaster in the marathon.

alanlmarshall

It's based on science and results

I was referring to this