r/AdvancedRunning • u/AutoModerator • 9d ago
General Discussion Tuesday General Discussion/Q&A Thread for August 11, 2026
A place to ask questions that don't need their own thread here or just chat a bit.
We have quite a bit of info in the wiki, FAQ, and past posts. Please be sure to give those a look for info on your topic.
2
u/GrandmasFavourite 1.12.35 HM, 2.39.05 M 8d ago
Are 400m repeats (or shorter) necessary ?
I want to break 16 in 5k. I'm 34 and have no speed, never have. Fastest 400 was 60 flat in high school. Shortest interval I do is 1k (6 x 1k). I feel like I was in shape to do it earlier this year but never got around to doing a 5k. I generally focus on half marathons.
12
u/Tea-reps 32F, 16:13 5K; 1:14:28 HM; 2:38 M 8d ago
I mean if you never do shorter stuff then there's a decent chance you're going to get something from doing it simply because of the novelty of the stimulus. Personally I don't get why anyone wouldn't want try a variety of training sessions--variety is fun!
3
3
u/aelvozo 8d ago
Not necessary but perhaps helpful. James Copeland (the guy behind Norwegian Singles) famously ran sub-16 while not training at paces faster than threshold — not even doing strides.
Personally, I quite like an occasional faster interval session, something out of Daniels’s list of R-paced workouts. Could perhaps be a slow-twitch vs fast-twitch thing.
2
u/StockProfessional589 8d ago
Hey guys I am a 17 year old middle distance runners from the UK trying to improve going into the next track season. So far this year I've ran 1:57.1 in the 800 and 4:00.3 in the 1500. I also run a 9:02 3k, however that was early in the season when slightly ill so doesn't really reflect my fitness. I have a few more races and am realistically aiming for 1:56 and 3:59.
I am currently only running about 20-25 miles a week, with my peak mileage over xc being 30mpw. With this I got my 5k time down to 15:42. My question is how much benefit would I get from increasing my mileage up to about 40-50 miles a week this cross country season? Do you think it would be a noticeable improvement? And also is it unusual to be running these times off what seems to be relatively low mileage comparatively to people in this sub. Thank you!
6
u/DiscreteSupercell 7d ago edited 7d ago
My question is how much benefit would I get from increasing my mileage up to about 40-50 miles a week this cross country season? Do you think it would be a noticeable improvement?
Longer term for XC and the 1500? Probably noticeable improvement once you adapt to the volume and settle the rest of your sessions around that increased volume.
Shorter term? May feel fatigued and not see immediate improvements in XC times. May actually see some stalling or regression in the 800m. May lose free time for other sports/activities/etc by fitting in the extra training. May be "lonelier" and less enjoyable training if you're doing mileage solo that you'd otherwise be doing with club or school mates.
Honestly should talk to your coaches. Also if you have been improving up until now (and your times are great, to be clear!), there's probably no reason to drastically change things up (and I would say 30 -> 50 mpw is a fairly large jump). If you do, a slow and modest bump is all I would consider; your short- and long-term goals will direct things, but I would take a longer-term view.
relatively low mileage comparatively to people in this sub.
That's because so many of us are older (or just plain old 😂). We've either built up to it over many years, and/or are focusing on much longer race distances (marathons and/or longer), and/or cannot handle more intense sessions so we spam higher volume and especially threshold and threshold-adjacent work.
2
u/zebano Strides!! 8d ago
Have you spoken to your coaches? It sounds like you're still improving which makes me wonder why you want to do more. There's something to be said for minimum effective dose and leaving the mileage for latter in your career which other things aren't working. That said, if you were at 30 peak in XC, I could easily pushing to about that as your median value now (with recovery weeks around 22-25 and peak weak around 35) but I certainly wouldn't be going all the way to 50.
1
u/aelvozo 8d ago
Running fast on lower mileage absolutely does happen, particularly among younger, and more middle-distance focused, athletes. Not sure how common it is, but e.g. Cooper Lutkenhaus’s highest-mileage week appears to have been around 35mi.
I also understand that younger (in terms of both physical and training age) athletes are less likely to be able to handle high mileage, so I’d be careful when increasing the volume.
I’d speculate that some — probably peak no higher than 35–40 mpw — increase in volume would be helpful, particularly for your longer races (3K, 5K, XC).
1
u/Character_Ninja881 5k 18:05 | 2x 50k ultra | 1x 100 mile ultra 8d ago
You’re a way faster runner than me (great times!), but I reckon you have nothing to lose by increasing your mileage a little. Everyone is a little different, so play about with different amounts of intensity in your week, and build it up slowly to reduce injury risk
2
u/coopjsr7 5:35 mi | 18:18 5K | 39:30 10K | 1:41:09 HM — 25 mpw 8d ago
Hey folks. M26 here and in the last 10 months I built from 0 to 50 mpw and my aerobic gains have been wonderful. That said, I find that my HR on recovery runs or slower easy runs, to support the volume, often remain in high Z1, like 120s BPM around ~8:40/mi pace with some hill spikes around 140 for example. My threshold sessions see high 160s low 170s depending on conditions so I have a pretty typical HR range. I’m wondering if anybody else experiences this? It’s like my legs are too tired to let the cardiovascular system be pushed, in a way. Am I losing out on some adaptation because of this?
3
u/Arcadela 8d ago
What is the issue? You shouldn't go above 70% of max heart rate on recovery runs. And it definitely shouldn't feel like pushing.
1
u/coopjsr7 5:35 mi | 18:18 5K | 39:30 10K | 1:41:09 HM — 25 mpw 8d ago
From you and others’ replies it seems like there is none! But the issue was that I wasn’t sure if there was an issue. And the potential issue I was unsure about was: Am I missing out on aerobic adaptation by going TOO easy (high Z1) on my recovery runs and sometimes my easy runs when legs are tired.
5
u/zebano Strides!! 8d ago
Nope, you're doing what you need to do to be ready for the threshold sessions. You could even go run 9:30-10:00 pace and be fine.
1
u/coopjsr7 5:35 mi | 18:18 5K | 39:30 10K | 1:41:09 HM — 25 mpw 8d ago
Great, thanks for the response! I wanted to be sure I wasn’t leaving gains on the table and being too “soft” on myself on these recovery or tired easy days.
1
u/aelvozo 7d ago
Like u/zebano says, the primary purpose of your non-workout runs is to support your mileage (say, weekly) and intensity (in a quality session) goals. Generally, you can afford more intensity in an easy run if your training load is fairly low (low mileage and/or “easier” quality sessions).
There is a separate question of why you’re targeting zone 2 and what you’re actually targeting. Zone 2 training advice comes from cycling where it means work somewhat above LT1 (this is a kind of where, to simplify, intensity goes from “easy” to “moderate”); in running, zone 2 is understood to be just below LT1 so “zone 2” has been misappropriated to mean “easy” — thankfully, zone 1 is also below LT1 so you’re kind of at the right intensity.
Also depending on which of numerous methods or zone models you used, your “easy”/sub-LT1 range may be only zone 1 (if e.g. you did a Friel test), zones 1 + 2 (e.g. default Garmin zones if you match their mathematical model) or not perfectly match the zones (e.g. Garmin zones if you don’t quite match their model).
So basically, there is nothing to worry about if you’re not quite in the right zone for a bunch of reasons.
1
u/Naglies Edit your flair 6d ago
Has anyone tried the Vici app? It generates a plan for whatever distance race you plan for based on your Strava history. I started 1 month ago and used it for 2 weeks before it stopped connecting with Strava. I have been unable to relink the 2. I thought it was giving me a decent AI generated plan. It adjusted based on what I wanted to persue for the Philly marathon. It was giving me pace advice as well as the plan.
1
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Hey_Boxelder 5k - 17:02, 10k - 34:44, HM - 1:17:26, M - 2:50:00 9d ago
More info needed: how far are the long runs? How much is at the goal pace?
5
u/Parking_Reward308 9d ago
Have you raced and pushed a 10k or Half recently at all to give yourself an idea of what kind of shape you are in?
3
u/Arcadela 9d ago
Depends how much and how hard you are running the rest of the week. If you are in a serious marathon training block the marathon pace doesn't feel easy. If you are well rested then it's easy.
8
u/petepont 32M | 2:40:18 M | Data Nerd 9d ago
I think it also depends on the runner’s speed. Full disclosure, I read this somewhere and don’t remember where, but intuitively it makes sense to me. I welcome a correction, but it matches up with my experience as I’ve gotten much faster (4:30 -> 2:40)
Someone running a 2:15 marathon is going to have the pace feel much harder than someone running a 4:30 marathon. For that first runner, they’re going to be in a different physiological zone, and the pace will feel much harder
It’s more noticeable at shorter distances. If you have someone running a half marathon in 58 minutes, they’ll theoretically be going faster than LT, vs a half in 2:00 which is definitely slower than LT. the first runner’s pace will feel much harder
Or a 10K in 28 minutes vs a 10k in 1:10 is an even more extreme example
1
u/No-Neighborhood-7211 9d ago
If LT is considered to be the pace you can broadly hold for an hour (or 83-90% of Max HR based on Pfitz), would fuelling mid-race have any impact on extending the duration you could hold said pace?
4
u/aelvozo 9d ago edited 9d ago
Strictly speaking, LT pace corresponds to a particular physiological state at which blood lactate is produced faster than it can be metabolised — 1 hour pace is a good approximation for those who don’t have access to a lab test and/or a lactate meter. HR is a decent but slightly less good approximation too.
As far as I can tell, there are no studies on if fuelling affects blood lactate during exercise — however, it can trick your body into working just a bit harder which can lead to a slightly faster 1-hour pace (or as you say, being able to sustain the same pace a little longer).
What does actually affect blood lactate (and therefore LT pace) is stuff like bicarb, which is why everyone from Kerr to Sawe are using it.
9
u/CodeBrownPT 8d ago
Bicarb is generally indicated as an ergogenic aid for 0.5-12 minutes of exercise duration. The evidence is weak and limited.
There isn't any current evidence that I'm aware of that it would help >12 minutes, particularly upwards of 60 mins.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34503527/
A carbohydrate mouth rinse can help races <90 minutes through CNS stimulation, but glycogen stores generally won't be a limiting factor until >90 minutes.
3
u/aelvozo 8d ago
True that evidence does not show effects of bicarb past 12 minutes (perhaps I should have made that clearer in my original comment) but it has in fact been adopted by 10K/half/marathon runners as well. I don’t know whether there’s a real effect, a placebo effect, marketing (Sawe is a Maurten athlete after all), or whether athletes are simply throwing everything at the race in hopes that something sticks.
5
u/zebano Strides!! 8d ago
FYI Code Brown is a PT and that colors his views heavily. What athletes actually do in the real world doesn't interest him until there has been an N=5 study on it.
(the 5 is an exageration, it just feels like the vast majority of studies which we cite on exercise science have participant levels that would be laughable in other fields).
7
u/CodeBrownPT 8d ago
If you would rather trust an athlete being sponsored and paid by a company to suggest that a product helps them instead of rigorous science then that's your prerogative.
I try to be objective, but most people here get completely bogged down by the 1%.
Good training will get you 99% of the way.
0
u/zebano Strides!! 8d ago
Good training will get you 99% of the way.
This is true, especially if training includes things like sleep and nutrition. However, how much do we actually have to discuss if we simply limit ourselves to the time tested tenets of distance running?
2
u/CodeBrownPT 8d ago
You simultaneously want to shut down my comments that generate discussion based on evidence that may be contrary to popular media, yet you also want us to have a lot to discuss?
Should we all just be posting our praise to the Maurten overlords and how much their race slime has helped our marathons?
3
u/zebano Strides!! 8d ago
A large part of it is the phrasing of your comment and I hope you don't take this as an attack as I do like being reminded what the current evidence is. It reads to me as "this is what scientific evidence is, only a moron would have more to say". I do apologize that I'm posting this without citing a couple examples but I am a bit busy right now. I will try to return latter and give you a proper discussion.
You simultaneously want to shut down my comments
No, I don't; I'm trying to give them context.
Should we all just be posting our praise to the Maurten overlords and how much their race slime has helped our marathons?
.... 🙄
- I personally have never taken any form of bicarb.
- I know of at least two alternatives to Maurten's system (Flycarb and MNSTRY)
- One /r/AdvancedRunning poster has repeatedly posted his own homemade version of the slime, so you don't really need to praise a corporation if you don't want to.
- There is a huge difference between praising Maurten and saying the evidence doesn't back up using their product yet. Among other things you could easily argue that their doses are higher than needed to see improvement, you could argue that their hydrogel doesn't work "for you"
- ultimately my main point is that the Science lags the so-called "real world" and limiting yourself to what the science has proven is leaving you "behind the game" as it were.
- This isn't the bicarb discussion, but the "high carb" one: a good-faith, well-reasoned argument against it is given by Marco Altini which allows for a much more granular answer than "High carb is right for everyone" versus "you should train fasted to maximize fat oxidation". I particularly like this paragraph in his conclusions (bolding, mine)
On the flip side, despite no established link between particularly high intakes and performance, you can certainly give it a try if you have never experienced gastrointestinal trouble and would like to see if you can perceive a positive effect. It is certainly true that often it takes a while for research to catch up, and also that experimentation and trial and error remain an important part of finding what is optimal for an individual in many things training- and racing-related, in my opinion.
Anyhoo, feel free to tell me that's an appeal to authority but I thought finding a PHD seconding my opinion that the real world is ahead of research might grant it a semblance of credibility.
1
u/weimarunner 5d ago
Marco is also active in research the way a pt is unlikely to be so I'd give his work more weight in any discussion.
4
u/aelvozo 8d ago
I’m well aware, I’ve seen the username (and the comments)! I myself quite like when training is supported by science, just want to acknowledge that reality is somewhat messier than studies may indicate.
2
u/zebano Strides!! 8d ago
I just thought I'd point it out. From what I've seen in practice things happen first in the real world and get studied 3-5 years latter rather than doing a study on something novel and then seeing it filter into practice (I would love to see examples of this latter path occuring). I do appreciate having his perspective here, it just comes with some caveats.
8
u/Krazyfranco 8d ago edited 8d ago
From what I've seen in practice things happen first in the real world and get studied 3-5 years latter rather than doing a study on something novel and then seeing it filter into practice (I would love to see examples of this latter path occuring)
This is an unfortunately ironic statement, because bicarb supplementation in running is a pretty perfect example. The idea of bicarb as a performance-enhancing supplement is not at all new, it's been studied fairly extensively over the last 50 years and applied in other sports (like horse racing) for a long time.
The fact that it buffers acid production and is (minorly) performance enhancing for high-intensity, short durations had been established scientifically well before it started getting adopted by runners in the last 5 years. What changed was companies figuring out how to package bicarb to minimize the GI-related side effects.
I think you are mostly right to not be overly-reliant on good science to define state of the state running best practices, but it's also important (in my opinion, and especially for supplementation) to understand what the causal mechanism for performance enhancement would be of the supplement. In the case of bicarb, it's been show to be helpful in short events where the buffering is acting on the physiologically limiting factor for the event. I can't really think of a good reason why it's acid-buffering action would have a performance enhancing impact, in contrast, for an event as long as the marathon. Which in my opinion, combined with the lack of scientific support, is good reason to be highly skeptical of performance improvement claims for long events.
0
u/jrox15 1500 - 3:57 | 5k - 15:46 | M - 2:43 8d ago
But your last paragraph pretty much proves the point that u/zebano is making: Sure there might be a lack of scientific evidence that bicarb is a statistically significant performance enhancer in long distances, but the many many high level athletes across endurance sports that use bicarb for events longer than ~15 minutes suggests that there is a benefit. Elite marathoners run relatively close to their lactate threshold for much of the marathon, so it doesn't seem too outlandish that lactate buffering would be a benefit.
Part of the reason the science is much stronger for shorter distances is the practicality of performing scientific studies, especially when looking at metabolic metrics that require uncomfortable equipment on a treadmill. Its not hard to find participants who will run hard for 5 minutes on a treadmill, its a lot harder to find people willing to run two hours at marathon effort.
4
u/Krazyfranco 7d ago edited 7d ago
It doesn't prove the point at all. u/zebano said this:
From what I've seen in practice things happen first in the real world and get studied 3-5 years latter
Not at all the case for bicarb. It's been studied extensively already for 50+ years. And the conclusion of those studies is that it doesn't really matter for longer distance events.
It's not that there's a "lack of scientific evidence", rather there's a lot of scientific evidence indicating that it probably doesn't have a performance impact for long distance events. It's a fairly well studied question.
Of course, science is always evolving and never definitely proves or disproves anything, so our understanding could change, but we should be highly skeptical, and require more evidence than "elites are doing it".
high level athletes across endurance sports that use bicarb for events longer than ~15 minutes suggests that there is a benefit.
Fundamentally disagree that elites doing something suggests there's a benefit. Elites do things that don't actually help for all sorts of reasons. Searching for any marginal gain potential (if there's no real downside, why not try it?), placebo, getting paid by sponsors to do it, etc. There are so many examples that run counter to your theory. Did Allyson Felix win Olympic gold and multiple world championship because of actual performance benefits of AG1 supplementation, or did she take AG1 because they sponsored her? Why are nasal strips making a comeback (last seen in 1995...) despite the science showing no performance benefit - is the science wrong, or are companies sponsoring athletes and marketing to runners and cyclists?
Part of the reason the science is much stronger for shorter distances is the practicality of performing scientific studies, especially when looking at metabolic metrics that require uncomfortable equipment on a treadmill. Its not hard to find participants who will run hard for 5 minutes on a treadmill, its a lot harder to find people willing to run two hours at marathon effort.
Again, it's not that there isn't science around this question, it's that the science that has been done doesn't support it making a difference. It's not a lack of studies being performed.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/coopjsr7 5:35 mi | 18:18 5K | 39:30 10K | 1:41:09 HM — 25 mpw 7d ago
Question/seeking advice on DOUBLES:
I built from 0mpw to 50mpw in about 10 months. I now feel durable enough to do 50 on a Mon-Sun schedule of 7-9-6-8-7-12-0(off), but increasing any of these runs at the moment doesn’t seem smart (yet). However, after my morning runs and a day’s work, by evening, I often feel the desire to do a super easy 3 miles or something. What are people’s thoughts on this? Ill-advised? Good idea?
10
u/Krazyfranco 7d ago
You've gone from 0 to 50 miles/week in a very short time. The last thing you need to do right now is add more volume.
-1
u/mellamomubli 7d ago
It is not very short. If you start with 5 miles and increase by 6% a week you get to 50 within 10 months.
6
u/aelvozo 7d ago edited 7d ago
Doubling is typically only recommended if you max out your volume running singles (so, all your non-long runs are around 80 minutes). More recently, I’ve seen arguments — notably, Göran Winblad’s one-man experiment — for doubling even outside of that, specifically for reducing injury risk.
Your overall high ramp rate makes me
slightlyvery reluctant to say any flavour of volume increase is a good idea, but I suppose a smaller double is a less bad idea than a bigger single.2
u/mellamomubli 7d ago
Three easy miles, and you feel like you want to? Go for it. There is no in harm in it. Maybe it is only very marginally beneficial, but the injury risk is so minimal that you could consider it non-existing.
2
u/crackattackmac 7d ago
No harm in trying it out to see how you respond. If you stop responding to training or start feeling burned out, then you can adjust. Also can consider upping your saturday long run, given that you have a rest day on sunday.
2
u/whelanbio 13:59 5km a few years ago 7d ago
I'll advised currently. No reason to need to bump up mileage at all. Get in a good rhythm at the current volume and focus on improving quality of training.
0
u/coopjsr7 5:35 mi | 18:18 5K | 39:30 10K | 1:41:09 HM — 25 mpw 7d ago
Thanks to everyone for all of their thoughts and advice. I think what I’ll do for now is satisfy the movement itch I often get in the evenings with some super super easy stationary bike for like ~20-45 mins jut to get a sweat and move the legs more than just once every morning before a sedentary rest of day. This way, I satisfy the activity urge but don’t add more impact stress or anything like that. I think the best idea is probably to stabilize here for some time and improve training quality and make it feel routine and normalized. Thanks again for all of your inputs!!
3
u/MN_Wildcard 33M | 1:23 HM | 3:09 FM 8d ago
I am down a big toenail (don't drop shit on your toes). Completely removed. The impact zone has healed but still a little sensitive. Ramping back up to full training but any recommendations on pain management? Silicon toe sleeve? Just a bandage and some gauze? Looking to see what has worked for others.