posted Apr-21-2007 07:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
Nobby,

Thanks for the great stuff thusfar.

I have a couple thoughts and was hoping you'd have some replies: I think what Aba (and initially AndyHass said) is not about hitting 100 mpw as a kind of physical benchmark, but more of a "mindset" if you will. In other words, people being reluctant to find and redefine their "limits". In other words, to really "go for it" and see what happens--Drive if you will.

High mileage, to my mind, is one representation (among many) of that drive, although I'm not entirely certain if mileage is the best measure. Rather, what's your thought about running on time, as opposed to mileage? Didn't Lydiard advocate this? It seems obvious that Sell's 150 mpw would in no way be equal to a 2:45 marathoner's 150 mpw in terms of simple time on feet. To complicate matters further, as Andy pointed out, what are you *doing* during those 150 weeks?

It would seem to me mileage is important when trying to hit a certain pace on workout (race, time trial, tempo, etc.). But in your general, overall aerobic efforts, wouldn't the runner be better served by running for a given duration over a specific mileage--after all, the training effect is to based on the time the athlete operates in a particular training zone. Moreover, if the athlete covers 5 miles on month, and six weeks later, can cover 6.25 miles in the same time w/ the same effort, then that tells the athlete/coach that appropriate progress is occuring.

Crap: the baby is starting to cry. More later, sorry about the truncated message!

---

I was thinking the same thing. It seems that the backlash to "100 mpw" comes from runners, like me, are still relatively new to running and not in the same league as a lot of the experienced runners. For us, 100 mpw is just not realistic. It would be stupid for me to even try. On the other hand, over the past 18 months, I've seen my "easy" paces gradually improve so now I cover a little more distance each time out. What once seemed crazy now seems possible (for example, I can now envision 60 mpw)

The ironic thing about this thread is that I advocated its early death. Yet I kept watching out of morbid curiosity. Now, the pendulum has swung and I'm for the first time starting to understand the Lydiard principles (I still can't figure out the lacing, though) and just how common-sense easy they are -- which is again the polar opposite of the pseudo-physiotechnodrivel that started this thread.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 09:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
How many US kids are trained on significant mileage and long runs in HS? I went to college never having run more than 7 miles continuously. I never ran more than 11 miles continuously in college under my coach's training (15 miles on my own off-season).

This was pre-internet, maybe kids today know a little better, I hope??

---

Nope! My daughter is a senior and ran 4 dpw, with a long run of 8k while doing XC last fall. In her case it was a lack of good coaching, not the coach's fault though. HS is small and doesn't have running expertise. In spite of the lack of running she managed to go to the Ontario senior HS XC championships and placed mid pack of about 230 runners.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 10:46 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
Non sense. The main reason why there are so many injuries is running technique(SLOPPY), the cushion shoes(motion control/stability/thick heel padding), and the fast pace track interval workouts for people with little or no base. That is what is happening.

People are petrified to raise their HR past 150 bpm, they think they are going to explode. I seriously doubt they can over-train with this retarded outlook.

Look at the med tent. It's full of injuries. Nothing to do with over-training. Most people run 3-4x per week and they're really happy if they cover 25 miles in a week. Too much mileage? I don't think so.

---

Slow down...I think we agree on most things. A sloppy gait will cause injury much sooner after more miles (and a few track workouts). For some runners, 25 mpw is overtraining. So overtraining can be defined as running more miles than your body can tolerate, whether that's 25 or 125.

Shoes are a very common cause of injury. The medical literature is full of studies showing this (but you'll never see Runner's World write about it for obvious reasons). Read Maffetone's Fix Your Feet (Lyons Press) or the literature -- it's shocking (there a great thread in Cool Running -- in Gear -- called Running Shoe Hype). Shoes are the common cause of sloppy running -- one cannot run properly in most training shoes (among other things they force you to land on your heel which is not a running gait).

Speed is the other part of overtraining we both mentioned. Very common problem. Speed kills, be careful out there.

Overtraining in its full definition is a well accepted cause of injury by clinicians and those doing research in sports.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 10:53 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
High mileage, to my mind, is one representation (among many) of that drive, although I'm not entirely certain if mileage is the best measure. Rather, what's your thought about running on time, as opposed to mileage? Didn't Lydiard advocate this?

---

I only run by time (and heart rate), and in my log only record time, not miles. I often don't know how far I've gone (I vary my courses almost daily). Maffetone emphasizes time instead of miles, as did Lydiard.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 10:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
I really don't like the title of this thread (The Truth About Milage). There is no truth. It's individual to say the least. Someone stated (I'm paraphrasing) that he is willing to sacrifice his body for a few more seconds in a race. What? Unfortunately, it's a common attitude. No pain, no gain. Makes me think of football players who become sick and obese soon after retirement. Endurance athletes have different body types, but as a clinician in this arena for over 35 years, we're starting to see similar problems. People who beat themselves up year after year, pay for it. Running in itself is not harmful, for the knees, hips, spine, etc. It's how we run that hurts us now, and later.

Overtraining is the most common reason for injuries of all types, and diminishing performance. What's interesting is that for many, the first indication of overtraining is a jump in performance. That usually makes the runner excited, thinking the program is working so I'll keep doing it (and other runners see what you're doing and...hey...he's really improved...let's follow his schedule...).

Two of the most common reasons for overtraining are too high milage, and too much speed.

There are some great training ideas presented here, but the key is to match them to your needs. Measuring as many things as possible will help keep you on track (such as a treadmill test that measures RQ vs. HR, VO2max, etc.). That's why I like using a heart monitor. If used effectively it can help you get more out of training without overtraining. It's a way to individualize your training and racing.

---

You do not understand the sport.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 11:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:

Slow down...I think we agree on most things. A sloppy gait will cause injury much sooner after more miles (and a few track workouts). For some runners, 25 mpw is overtraining. So overtraining can be defined as running more miles than your body can tolerate, whether that's 25 or 125.

Shoes are a very common cause of injury. The medical literature is full of studies showing this (but you'll never see Runner's World write about it for obvious reasons). Read Maffetone's Fix Your Feet (Lyons Press) or the literature -- it's shocking (there a great thread in Cool Running -- in Gear -- called Running Shoe Hype). Shoes are the common cause of sloppy running -- one cannot run properly in most training shoes (among other things they force you to land on your heel which is not a running gait).

Speed is the other part of overtraining we both mentioned. Very common problem. Speed kills, be careful out there.

Overtraining in its full definition is a well accepted cause of injury by clinicians and those doing research in sports.

---

Speed doesn't kill; stupidity does.

The old school guys would laugh at your comments.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 11:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
For us, 100 mpw is just not realistic.

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 11:13 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 11:24 AM            

Do you have any sort of rule of thumb, a max number of hours per week, beyond which you're more likely suffer from overtraining or injury?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 11:30 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 11:33 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
You do not understand the sport.

---

Really? You do not understand anything I wrote, despite it being quite clear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:The old school guys would laugh at your comments.[/B]

---

I am an old school guy, an educated one too.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 11:38 AM            

I know a guy that started running, and was down to 31 minutes for 10k in
3 years. He wasn't holding back.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 02:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by martinjames:
[b] For us, 100 mpw is just not realistic.

---

I think that we midpackers (the vast majority of road race participants) should base our mileage around:

- How much time we are willing to commit;
- How many races we want to run;
- How much we want to improve.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 02:27 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 04:08 PM               

Better still. Lydiard was almost always with his runners and ran with them. One time he told Ray Puckett to run Waitakere 3 times in a row. On the third day, Ray turned to Arthur (yes, he was running with him) and said, "Man, my legs are raw!" Arthur said, "So are mine," and pressed on.

The point is; that it's very difficult to "coach" anybody without being there. When Lydiard was coaching (and running with) his runners, he knew exactly what they were doing. They were running 100 miles a week at very high end aerobic level. When he started dealing with people by correspondence and he would prescribed them to run 100 miles a week, he didn't know that they weren't as fit as his runners. His runners were running 15 miles in about 1:30 whereas others might take more than 2 hours to complete 15 miles. In other words, they were doing "too much training" (and let me get back to this later). That's when he turned to a time-based training schedule. He reliazed that, regardless of the speed, as long as they run for 1:30 or 2:00 or whatever, they'll get the desired benefits. On the other hand, if someone who's fast would go out and run, say, 12 miles and he would come back in 1:15 whereas his buddy would run nice and strongly and run 1:35; the latter runner actually gain better result because he is running "longer".

Later Lydiard found out that, by doing their marathong conditioning on time-based schedule, they got better results because now they took pressure off themselves. Instead of turning around that corner and thinking, "Damn, I was there 2 minutes faster last week," and start to press on when he/she shouldn't, you just go out and run for 1:30. When you come back, feeling good, in 1:28; well, I would turn the corner a bit and get that extra 2 minutes just to make it 1:30, but you'd be feeling so much more relaxed.

One thing to be careful with is that those runs should not be sooooo relaxed that you thorw the effort out the window. I would definitely include at least one farlek work a week and, depending on the situation and background of training, one day when you do some sort of hill exercises. Initially I wouldn't worry too much about tempo run or LT run or whatever you want to call them; as you get fitter, you'll be running faster and further within the same duration of the run.

Now it seems that quite a few people might have gotten Lydiard principles a bit too far and thinking like, say, 2-years of conditioning is better than just 3 months... Well, there IS such thing as too much training. For example, Japanese runners took Lydiard's teaching to the heart and they run a lot. But when in 1991 Lydiard came to Japan for the last time, he actually criticized Japanese to be running too much and not emphasize other ingredients enough, particularly sprinting running technique. That actually shows in the fact Japanese middle distance sucks; also even some good distance runners cannot match other runners in the final sprint (Fukushi, Chiba, etc.). Interestingly, Lydiard wasn't concerned about so-called "overuse injuries". He was more concerned with tightening of the muscles; developing too much muscle viscosity. That "limit", once again, I believe is so much higher than most people imagine. Consider the fact runners like Dave Bedford and even Jeff Julian ran upward of 200 miles a week and most Japanese elite runners train, and perform well, at 1000~1200km a month; that's close to 200 miles a week.

I've been working on Part II of the Lydiard Presentation (we will be presenting both Part I and Part II for the first time in CA next month with Rock 'n Roll Marathon group, by the way). It is the application of the Lydiard principles. If not 100mpw, why not, for example, 100km a week (62 miles)? We present Lydiard's time-based schedule as well. I still think, however, even if you are training 100km a week instead of 100 miles. you should work your way up to somewhere around 2 hours on weekend regardless of the distance run.

Now, if I may, there might be one thing I would be curious to see what the original poster means by this "genetic advantage". As I stated earlier, I'm a pretty good artist. I can free-hand paint a wardrobe for Maria's room (okay, too much detail...) and it looks darm good! So I have this "talent". But that ain't help my running one bit. Duh! you would say. But then take a look at this; some people might have talent in endurance, they can just get out and run very far or very long time and think nothing of it. Some might have talent in speed, they can run fast and it's most obvious when you go to some elementary school sports day. Let's face it; some kids are so much faster than others. So they both have talent; which one comes out first in a distance event? Some actually have talent in "not getting injured". They have such strong physique that they won't even die even if you try to kill him! Remember Deek was nicknamed a "tree trunk"? I don't know if he ever gotten injured... Some lack this particular talent and they are very fragile. Ralph Doubel or Henry Marsh would get injured easily and would have to be nurtured. So was Mary Decker Slaney. So they lack talent? How do you measure "talent"? Kenayns are known to have larger mitochondoria that generates energy. They have long legs and skinny calves... So how come NO Kenaysn have ever won the Olympic gold medal in the marathon?

We have so many quantifiable measures to say so-and-so is talented and so-and-so is not. Whatabout those unknown factors or something we cannot measure? Nakamura used to say that Seko was "talented". Not because he was a high school champion; but because he can "maintain this concentration day after day after day..." That single-mided determination and strong faith in his coach and the program. He would walk 30km (I have no idea how long it took him) when he's injured. He couldn't run for a long time between 1981 Fukuoka and 1983 Tokyo marathon. He couldn't run the marathon for 2.5 years. He had injury after injury, problem with his liver... (I guess he didn't have this genetic advantage? ;o)). Nakaumra used to say that physical "talent" has limits. But there's no limit to "trying hard." "When you thnk about it, rain drops from the corner of the roof is so 'talented'. It keeps dropping, day after day after day... And finally it goes through a gigantic rock after hundreds of years."

There's a guy Lydiard coached by the name of Jon Robinson. Lydiard said he was the slowest runner he'd ever coached. But he loved to run. He was running all the time, everywhere (sort of like Lindgren). He joined Lydiard's school when he was 15. He never won any race. Then he came out when he was 38 and won New Zealand marathon championships in something like 2:18. He went on to Germany a few years after that as a 40-year-old and won the master's world championships marathon.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 04:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidD:
Overtraining is the most common reason for injuries of all types, and diminishing performance.
What's interesting is that for many, the first indication of overtraining is a jump in performance. That usually makes the runner excited, thinking the program is working so I'll keep doing it (and other runners see what you're doing and...hey...he's really improved...let's follow his schedule...).

---

DavidD,
We are having a civilized conversation.

Ok on to your What's interesting is that for many, the first indication of overtraining is a jump in performance.

I must say, I am completely intrigued by this statement. Over-training is an accumulated workload on the body over a period of several months where insufficient proper time was given for adaptation. The CNS is unable to 'gear' up. The athlete was training on the edge, and eventually fell over into the precipice.

Here are some symptoms of over-training; the atlete is stale, major bodyweight fluctuation, difficulty sleeping at night, moodiness, irritation,loss of appetite etc... and the list goes on.

When you see a jump in performance, it means the workload was applied correctly. The athlete adapted and went on to a greater fitness level.

I believe you are confusing the terms over-doing it and over-training. Big difference.

Over-doing is a 'short term' abuse if you will. This can be easily rectified. Over-training is 'longer term' abuse and will take several months and sometimes up to a year to control the damage. Remember damage is not only in the body but up there in the mind also.

Good topic. Good conversation.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 04:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by RRainey:
(I wasn't sure if I could edit.)

Further the amount you can train is genetically determined.
I know that at over 40 miles/week I have intermitent injury. For a brief period when I was younger I did 60-80. If I did that now at nearly 50, injury!

I

---

Well, as they say, argue for your limitations and they're yours ...

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 04:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by martinjames:
[b] For us, 100 mpw is just not realistic.

---

Yes, in my opinion.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 04:58 PM               

You had mentioned throwing in fartlek runs during your training. Is this done during the marathon conditioning phase? I'm always worried about losing fitness during this period and usually throw in a progression run once a week. The rest of the time I'm trying to run just hard enough so that I can keep doing it every day. I'm sore during the whole period. I don't know if that is normal either? During that ten week block I run around 100 miles per week and usually do it in singles. I have a fifteen mile run that I do multiple times during this phase. I average about 50 13+ runs in a period of 100 days.
I am probably the definition of the least talented runner around. I'm 190 lbs. 6'3" and I work as a construction worker which makes my upper body a bit too large for running. My coach is from New Zealand. Without really knowing it I had been on the Lydiard program for a while. I picked up one of his books one day and realized that my friend had made me into a Lydiard based runner. I went from being a 2:54 marathoner with an IV in my arm after the finish to a 2:40 marathoner with a beer in my hand at the finish.
My friend pretty much allows me to coach myself through the base period for reasons you have stated. Day to day he doesn't know how I am. Some days I will dig for eight hours straight at work come home and run my 15 mile route doing 8:30 - 9 pace as that is my high end aerobic level on that day. I've asked him what I should pace myself at and his response was to push where I could still converse with someone but I should ride that edge. Some days that edge is 6:30 pace others as slow as 9:00 pace. I've gotten very comfortable knowing how hard to push and I never really know how fast I will run until I'm a mile into my run.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 06:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian McN:
Nobby,

You had mentioned throwing in fartlek runs during your training. Is this done during the marathon conditioning phase? I'm always worried about losing fitness during this period and usually throw in a progression run once a week. The rest of the time I'm trying to run just hard enough so that I can keep doing it every day. I'm sore during the whole period. I don't know if that is normal either? During that ten week block I run around 100 miles per week and usually do it in singles. I have a fifteen mile run that I do multiple times during this phase. I average about 50 13+ runs in a period of 100 days.
I am probably the definition of the least talented runner around. I'm 190 lbs. 6'3" and I work as a construction worker which makes my upper body a bit too large for running. My coach is from New Zealand. Without really knowing it I had been on the Lydiard program for a while. I picked up one of his books one day and realized that my friend had made me into a Lydiard based runner. I went from being a 2:54 marathoner with an IV in my arm after the finish to a 2:40 marathoner with a beer in my hand at the finish.
My friend pretty much allows me to coach myself through the base period for reasons you have stated. Day to day he doesn't know how I am. Some days I will dig for eight hours straight at work come home and run my 15 mile route doing 8:30 - 9 pace as that is my high end aerobic level on that day. I've asked him what I should pace myself at and his response was to push where I could still converse with someone but I should ride that edge. Some days that edge is 6:30 pace others as slow as 9:00 pace. I've gotten very comfortable knowing how hard to push and I never really know how fast I will run until I'm a mile into my run.

---

Brian:

It sounds like you are doing things right. Yes, I mean during the marathon conditioning phase. I think one of the things most people overlook is the fact, ask your coach, Lydiard's runners ran a lot of hills. Some of the most rugged running courses are in Auckland and Seattle (for me). If you run a lot of hills during this "slow" running period, you don't lose "speed" that much. So for most of us, it is almost imparative that you run, at least once a week, do some sort of striding at easy relaxed effort (not getting into too much anaerobic), spring or bound up the hills, run around uneven soft surface to stretch around your ankles, etc. For that, I'd recommend fartlek being one of the best ways to achieve that.

I truly admire your dedication. While some of us complain about 40-hours a week of office work, some people do physical work and get out and put the effort in. I guess the advantage is that you get so freakin' strong! Bill Baillie was a carpenter, carrying bricks up and down and all. Remember one thing though; sometimes if you dig on one side all the time, you get muscle imbalance. I noticed that during the winter here in MN when I have to shovel the snow. If you can, alternate the side so you get balanced muscle development. But if you "feel sore" all the time, you might want to take a look at your whole program. Think about how Kenny Moore trained; within a 9-day cycle, he would do 25~35 mile run, one day long intervals and one day short intervals. Other 6 days were easy. He did all the point training and add however many days of easy days his body required. You need to make sure you are building up, not breaking down; and you're getting stronger, not digging deeper into the stress situation.

Good luck and keep up with your "feeling based" training!

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 06:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
I still can't figure out the lacing, though

---

Here's the diagram for Lydiard lacing: http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/training/lacingthelydiardway.html

As you know, if you have the odd number of shoe lace eye-let, you really can't do it. In this case, I'd either punch another set of holes on the top or bottom of the sides; or do conventional criss-cross lacing either on the top or the bottom (usually on the top). Sometimes the material is so soft that you really can't do this lacing because the material would wrinkle up. Well, then I guess you can't. I remember when I brought him to the US in 1999, the shoes I got for him had one of those D-ring type of shoe lacing system. When I went to pick him up at the airport, I could see he had struggled to do the lacing. So I cut all those D-ring things off and punched holes along the side (even number) so he could do his regular lacing. Be a little creative.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 06:49 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 07:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian McN:
Thanks Nobby. I install fences so it's carrying things all day and the post hole digger. I'll keep your advice in mind and try to switch arms with the pry bar enough.
The reason I had asked about the soreness is I remember reading something from Lydiard saying the soreness will subside once you get used to things so I appreciate your input with that. I developed a hip problem with two months to go until Boston and was forced to cut a lot of my hilly training out of my schedule and I know I went down hard because of that. Aerobically I was OK but the pounding limited my ability to move so I died to a 249. My friend had also told me that a nice hilly run is like a fartlek in itself even at a slow pace. The hip is feeling better after the taper so I'll make sure to get back to it.
Thanks for the advice. Particularly with the soreness issue.

---

Lydiard said something like "You should not be alarmed by temporary exhaustion; but you should watch out permanent fatigue..." Something like that. In order to identify the differences, you need to rely, more than anything else, your own feeling. When we got together with Frank Shorter in regards to his support for Lydiard Foundation, two things he emphasized most with Lydiard principles were: high mileage training and feeling based training.

It is amazing, however, how much stress human body will get used to and get stronger. It's the power of adaptation and I really don't think current science has seen the limit to that. I'm not saying that human being can jump over a building or anythnig like that. There was this martial art master who believed he could beat a lion (he did beat a bear and killed an ox with bare hands). He said, "A lion is strong, but they don't know how to become stronger. We are weak (as a human being) but we know how to get stronger" and the first step to become stronger is to know your own limitations.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 07:08 PM               

What is purpose/benefits of Lydiard Lacing?

------------------
Todd

IP: Logged

posted Apr-21-2007 09:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
Ok on to your [b] What's interesting is that for many, the first indication of overtraining is a jump in performance.

I must say, I am completely intrigued by this statement. Over-training is an accumulated workload on the body over a period of several months where insufficient proper time was given for adaptation. The CNS is unable to 'gear' up. The athlete was training on the edge, and eventually fell over into the precipice.[/B]

---

It's an intriguing observation not often discussed (it's mentioned in a couple of books, I'll think of which ones in a moment).

Your definition of overtraining is good. In the earliest stages the sympathetic nervous system starts to show overactivity -- in a real sense it's overly geared up (This early stage is sometimes referred to as the sympathetic stage). This means our muscles are a bit high strung, there's a higher resting and training heart rate, and stress hormones (cortisol and adrenalin) are above normal. In short, we're ready to go, and there's usually a small window that results in better performance (maybe even two or three races).

I refer to this as overtraining because the markers (such as cortisol) are abnormal. Also, there's usually a slowing of pace at the same heart rate, so there's a loss of aerobic function (which should not happen during anaerobic training or racing unless it's for too many weeks).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
Here are some symptoms of over-training; the atlete is stale, major bodyweight fluctuation, difficulty sleeping at night, moodiness, irritation,loss of appetite etc... and the list goes on. [/B]

---

These are some common signs and symptoms when you're well into overtraining. Testosterone diminishes, immunity runs down, insulin goes up, etc. The very earliest part of overtraining, though, is not as obvious (to the athlete or coach) or difficult to differentiate from normal little aches. Some of these early indicators can be measured, such as the stress hormones, heart rate changes, reduced RQ, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
When you see a jump in performance, it means the workload was applied correctly. The athlete adapted and went on to a greater fitness level.
[/B]

---

The athlete has the opportunity to adapt by making whatever corrections are needed (the purpose of tapering). If he or she doesn't recognize the potential problem of early overtaining, more clear indications follow (often with some physical injury).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
I believe you are confusing the terms over-doing it and over-training. Big difference.

Over-doing is a 'short term' abuse if you will. This can be easily rectified. Over-training is 'longer term' abuse and will take several months and sometimes up to a year to control the damage. Remember damage is not only in the body but up there in the mind also.[/B]

---

Are you referring to "over-reaching"? This is an important part of training. But too much over-reaching turns to overtraining. So over-reaching precedes overtraining if allowed to go that far. Overreaching is a great state to go into, but you have to be healthy, and for many athletes, it should be followed by more rest.

Ideally, you can approach this very early overtraining state and perform well, then back off (with lower milage and reduced speed work, and a lot more rest) and you'll maintain your high level of function. This is what some call a "peak" which can last for weeks if done right.

IP: Logged