| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
 posted May-14-2007 12:18 PM
  
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
This thread is called "The Truth About Mileage" and the real simple truth about mileage is that doing more of it will make you faster until you reach the point where the returns have diminished so much that you're either hurting yourself all the time or shuffling along so slowly to get the miles in that they aren't of much benefit. That's true whether we're talking about miles run in a year, a month, a week, or in a single day.
What about 6 months down the road, when you cut mileage and have
increased speed and strength from all the shuffling that you did.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 12:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rengle:
[b]This thread is called "The Truth About Mileage" and the real simple truth about mileage is that doing more of it will make you faster until you reach the point where the returns have diminished so much that you're either hurting yourself all the time or shuffling along so slowly to get the miles in that they aren't of much benefit. That's true whether we're talking about miles run in a year, a month, a week, or in a single day.
That's true.[/B][/QUOTE]+2 The debate centers around what level of mileage that people predict will be the point of no additional benefit. Additionally, predictions of optimal mileage/load are null and void in those training programs focused on actually finding the optimal training mileage/load for an individual. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com [This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-14-2007).]
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 01:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Additionally, predictions of optimal mileage/load are null and void in those training programs focused on actually finding the optimal training mileage/load for an individual.
Richard, can you cite which training program indicate they are focused on optimal training mileage or loads? The closest I see are references by McMillan and Pfitzinger for optimal pacing of particular workouts, but I don't see either of them presenting generic programs and claiming they are optimal training, nor do I see this elsewhere. [This message has been edited by JimR (edited May-14-2007).]
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 01:33 PM
Even someone like Ernst van Aaken, who was as much an advocate of doing loads of slow running, thought that once you go so slowly that you aren't using the same form you use when running at more "normal" speeds you're being counterproductive. I'm not going to draw arbitrary time lines, but when people start taking 4-5 hours to cover 20-25 miles I think they've reached the point of counterproductivity. I thrived on 100-150 mile weeks when I was in my 20s. I COULD have done 250 mile weeks if I'd shuffled along like some people do now. But you don't want to get that far away from your racing pace, and I'm a huge advoctae of doing loads of comfortable miles. But again, you need to balance that with some reasonable pacing.
As to the business of how much mileage and where the point of counterproductivity strikes, there is no overall answer. I still can run 150 mile weeks if I want to but doing that at 54 brings me much closer to that shuffling stage than I think is worthwhile. In general though, I think that most people today could do many more miles than they do without reaching that point. Many confuse the tiredness that comes with pushing yourself to a higher level of mileage with overtraining. I know that I was often exhausted most of the time when I would add another 20-30 mpw to what I normally did. Eventually, I got used to it, but I always remembered Brendan Foster's quote that a runner was someone who went to bed at night feeling tired and who woke up the next morning feeling even more tired.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 01:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JimR:
Richard, can you cite which training program indicate they are focused on optimal training mileage or loads?
jim, Are you suggesting there are training programs not focused on finding one's optimal training mileage/load? ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 01:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
jim,Are you suggesting there are training programs not focused on finding one's optimal training mileage/load?
It's not a suggestion, it's question. Can you cite which training program indicate they are focused on optimal training mileage or loads?
IP: Logged |
StealthRunner
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 02:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
Even someone like Ernst van Aaken, who was as much an advocate of doing loads of slow running, thought that once you go so slowly that you aren't using the same form you use when running at more "normal" speeds you're being counterproductive. I'm not going to draw arbitrary time lines, but when people start taking 4-5 hours to cover 20-25 miles I think they've reached the point of counterproductivity. I thrived on 100-150 mile weeks when I was in my 20s. I COULD have done 250 mile weeks if I'd shuffled along like some people do now. But you don't want to get that far away from your racing pace, and I'm a huge advoctae of doing loads of comfortable miles. But again, you need to balance that with some reasonable pacing.
As to the business of how much mileage and where the point of counterproductivity strikes, there is no overall answer. I still can run 150 mile weeks if I want to but doing that at 54 brings me much closer to that shuffling stage than I think is worthwhile. In general though, I think that most people today could do many more miles than they do without reaching that point. Many confuse the tiredness that comes with pushing yourself to a higher level of mileage with overtraining. I know that I was often exhausted most of the time when I would add another 20-30 mpw to what I normally did. Eventually, I got used to it, but I always remembered Brendan Foster's quote that a runner was someone who went to bed at night feeling tired and who woke up the next morning feeling even more tired.
Thanks for posting this.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 02:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JimR:
It's not a suggestion, it's question. Can you cite which training program indicate they are focused on optimal training mileage or loads?
Yes, I understand it's a question. I'm trying to understand if you believe training programs are or are not generally focused on finding one's optimal training mileage/load. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 02:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JimR:
It's not a suggestion, it's question. Can you cite which training program indicate they are focused on optimal training mileage or loads?
Yes, I understand it's a question. I'm trying to understand if you believe training programs are or are not generally focused on finding one's optimal training mileage/load. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 02:33 PM
Richard:Seriously, thanks for starting this thread. It's been a blast! I've learnt a lot. I agree with you; all of us would, and should, try to find our "optimum" training, not just mileage but intensity and type of workout as well. I do, however, have a problem when you start talking about this "prediction" based on some sort of scientific research which you seem to claim somehow that you can determine on the individual. I'd say that you will NEVER know what the upper limit of training load unless you get out and do it. I'd say, as Lyidard used to always say, that NO ONE can tell you, even the best exercise physiologist in the world, can tell you what the limits are for any given individual. Some may develop slowly; some develop quite fast. Some perform well with low(er) mileage while some perform well with tons of running. You may try to run a lot and get sluggish and don't perform well one year and then you'll turn around and cut back your mileage and boom, you run well. Who are we to say this is NOT based on the high mileage training you did the year before? Some day, maybe some day, one can say what the potential of the individual by checking the cell or blood from his/her foot; they'll tell him/her what he/she is going to be. And I hope to God it'll never come! (remember the movie, "Gattaca"?) Some day science can tell you who runs how fast and then what's the point of competition? In real life competition, lesser talented runner CAN, and very many occasions they HAVE and continue to do so, beat more talented ones BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW! So...in this regard, I'd have to say, "So what's your point?" While scientists are busy trying to figure out a way to "predict" what the limits are for the individual's training load, I think coaches and runners are too busy getting out and expand the envelope. Andy: I see your point (on Takahashi's training) but I think (though necessarily haven't confirmed with coach Kiode personally) she was doing that type of ultra run/hike much earlier. Where she screwed up is leaving coach Koide (for whatever the behind-the-scene reason they might have had) and having her coach(s) actually working FOR her and moving away from previous "winning pattern". How Japanese took the Lydiard principles to their heart is to develop this huge aerobic base/leg strengths BEFORE they move onto more race specific training. Most people seem to find one way or the other as "the best formula".
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 02:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fuzz:
Last fall I got good results using Pfitzinger's 18/55 schedule. Some of the mid-week medium-length runs were tough -- stuff like "12 miles, with 7 at half-marathon pace" -- just plain murder when it's 90F+. But I believe those runs were key, and I'm thinking of incorporating a version of them this summer. Which is why your comments are very helpful.
I've kept these mid week mid longs in the last few weeks and I managed a 1:33 half yesterday, still about a minute longer than my PR, but I think it's a heck of a lot better than it would have been without them (winter training for me has been suck this year). I don't have the tendency to fade as much over longer runs. I'm banking much of the info that nobby et. al. are relaying here and work towards the fall.
IP: Logged |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 03:40 PM
Nobby, I'm sure you're in a better position to know the specifics than me. I just read the press releases. As memory recalls it said that after they Olympics she began adding a ton of jogging and even walking to push time-on-feet to ridiculous levels. However we all know how accurate such articles are....they're the same type that people quote to claim Coe never ran more than 35 mpw.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 03:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
+2The debate centers around what level of mileage that people predict will be the point of no additional benefit. Additionally, predictions of optimal mileage/load are null and void in those training programs focused on actually finding the optimal training mileage/load for an individual.
Can I make a well-intentioned suggestion? Be a little more clear. As a general matter, I never really know what you're trying to say. This is a good example. I see words I recognize, but after at least 7 readings, I still can't decipher it. I even broke down your last sentence to see if it would help. "Predictions of X are worthless in programs focused on finding X." That's doubletalk, no? Maybe just a simple subject-verb-object structure would help. A sort of Hemingway On Running.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 03:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
+2The debate centers around what level of mileage that people predict will be the point of no additional benefit. Additionally, predictions of optimal mileage/load are null and void in those training programs focused on actually finding the optimal training mileage/load for an individual.
Can I make a well-intentioned suggestion? Be a little more clear.
As a general matter, I never really know what you're trying to say. This is a good example. I see words I recognize, but after at least 7 readings, I still can't decipher it. I even broke down your last sentence to see if it would help. "Predictions of X are worthless in programs focused on finding X." That's doubletalk, no? Maybe just a simple subject-verb-object structure would help. A sort of Hemingway On Running.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 04:02 PM
Andy:That's interesting... You see, I know Koide personally and I'm in a good position to get tons of information from Japan as well. They had two different targets for 2000 Sydney Olympics marathon and 2001 Berlin marathon. For Olympic marathon, because of the nature of the course (undulation), their target was to "build her legs" to withstand the ups and downs of Sydney course. I know they used Magnolia in Boulder extensively for that. For Berlin, where she becamse the first woman to go under 2:20, their target was to sustain fast pace. So just knowing that much, I would expect them to do more "leg-building" type of work, whatever it might be, before the Olympics. I wonder the actual content of the interview was that she did lots of easy jogging and/or walking to recover from the Olympic effort...??? I wouldn't know...
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 04:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
+2The debate centers around what level of mileage that people predict will be the point of no additional benefit. Additionally, predictions of optimal mileage/load are null and void in those training programs focused on actually finding the optimal training mileage/load for an individual.
Can I make a well-intentioned suggestion? Be a little more clear.
As a general matter, I never really know what you're trying to say. This is a good example. I see words I recognize, but after at least 7 readings, I still can't decipher it. I even broke down your last sentence to see if it would help. "Predictions of X are worthless in programs focused on finding X." That's doubletalk, no? Maybe just a simple subject-verb-object structure would help. A sort of Hemingway On Running.
IP: Logged |
runfastcoach
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 04:14 PM
In my opinion, there is no perfect way to determine the optimal mileage for other people, but it is reasonable for a good coach to indentify an amount that works fairly well for a particular individual by simply paying attention to how a runner responds over time to mileage. *It is why working with a good coach for an extended period of time has a way of improving the whole process of training. Mistakes will be made and identified, corrections will be given, and the process improves. That takes time!By the way, there's no way for a coach to identify responses to training if the athlete run further or substantially faster than requested. If I tell Joe to run 12 miles at a moderate level (let's say 7:00 pace) and he runs 16 milesat 6:30 pace and doesn't tell me, how in the world am I supposed to figure out what works best for him? A self-coached runner has to pay attention to details, too. Writing down distance covered, the pace, the weather, and the terrain all can be quite helpful. Writing down hours and quality of sleep and even if diet was changed substantially from normal can be useful. It's all common sense. Unfortunately, it is also common for runners to assume that if they run the same amount of miles as an elite runner that they will reach the elite level too. Once, several years ago, two adults asked me to set up training scheudles for their kids. I wrote out the (identical) schedules on pieces of paper for each parent. The two families went their separate ways over the summer. In mid-October, I saw the two kids who supposedly used my training schedules, and I talked to their parents. One partne was happy and the other was disappointed. It turned that the schedules were not followed in the same manner. One boy's father had him run about half again more than I had prescribed in August. In early September, at their home course, that boy ran 16:40. The other boy ran 17:01. The one who started faster in early September was running nearly a minute slower by mid-October. The one who was running slower in early September was running just a hair under 16 minutes in mid-October. I asked them to detail what had been done so that I can figure out what was happening. The one who had started fast but ran slower was basically burned out and had overworked. (This was the training schedule I prescribed: June - per week: 4 runs of 35-40 minutes per day, mostly EZ, 1 long run of 50-60 minutes over rolling hills. 1 day of rest per week. July - per week: 4 runs of 45-50minutes per day, EZ, sometimes moderate, plus 2 runs of 60-70 minutes over rolling hills. 1 day of rest per week.
August - per week: 4 runs of 50-55 minutes per day, EZ but sometimes moderate, plus two runs of 70-80 minutes over rolling hills. 1 day of rest per week.
I found out that the kid who was running slowly in October had been running 80-90 minutes per day in August. The other kid did what was prescribed, no less no more. Was it the perfect training schedule? Probably not, but that kid was not overworked and he had plenty of energy to train during the cross-country season. To summarize: How much mileage a runner should do per week may not necessarily be the right question to ask. What are you (or your athletes) able to do over the long-term? If they run slower now but they stick to it and grow steadily, is that such a bad thing? Lydiard, I imagine, would say that he'd rather a kid build up their conditioning steadily and work on long-term progress instead of hammering away at 400m reps and not having enough energy to keep on growing over time. Take care, Tinman
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 04:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by martinjames:
Can I make a well-intentioned suggestion? Be a little more clear.
I did ask him to point to an example or two so we could understand it better, but all he did was respond with a question about what I believe. What I think he was trying to say is that training programs apparently tell you to 'find your optimum training load' or something to that effect but don't offer any 'tools' to do this. I don't think I've seen a lot of/any training programs like this at all, which is why I asked him to cite an example.
IP: Logged |
runfastcoach
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 04:49 PM
In my opinion, there is no perfect way to determine the optimal mileage for other people, but it is reasonable for a good coach to indentify an amount that works fairly well for a particular individual by simply paying attention to how a runner responds over time to mileage. *It is why working with a good coach for an extended period of time has a way of improving the whole process of training. Mistakes will be made and identified, corrections will be given, and the process improves. That takes time!By the way, there's no way for a coach to identify responses to training if the athlete run further or substantially faster than requested. If I tell Joe to run 12 miles at a moderate level (let's say 7:00 pace) and he runs 16 milesat 6:30 pace and doesn't tell me, how in the world am I supposed to figure out what works best for him? A self-coached runner has to pay attention to details, too. Writing down distance covered, the pace, the weather, and the terrain all can be quite helpful. Writing down hours and quality of sleep and even if diet was changed substantially from normal can be useful. It's all common sense. Unfortunately, it is also common for runners to assume that if they run the same amount of miles as an elite runner that they will reach the elite level too. Once, several years ago, two adults asked me to set up training scheudles for their kids. I wrote out the (identical) schedules on pieces of paper for each parent. The two families went their separate ways over the summer. In mid-October, I saw the two kids who supposedly used my training schedules, and I talked to their parents. One partne was happy and the other was disappointed. It turned that the schedules were not followed in the same manner. One boy's father had him run about half again more than I had prescribed in August. In early September, at their home course, that boy ran 16:40. The other boy ran 17:01. The one who started faster in early September was running nearly a minute slower by mid-October. The one who was running slower in early September was running just a hair under 16 minutes in mid-October. I asked them to detail what had been done so that I can figure out what was happening. The one who had started fast but ran slower was basically burned out and had overworked. (This was the training schedule I prescribed: June - per week: 4 runs of 35-40 minutes per day, mostly EZ, 1 long run of 50-60 minutes over rolling hills. 1 day of rest per week. July - per week: 4 runs of 45-50minutes per day, EZ, sometimes moderate, plus 2 runs of 60-70 minutes over rolling hills. 1 day of rest per week.
August - per week: 4 runs of 50-55 minutes per day, EZ but sometimes moderate, plus two runs of 70-80 minutes over rolling hills. 1 day of rest per week.
I found out that the kid who was running slowly in October had been running 80-90 minutes per day in August. The other kid did what was prescribed, no less no more. Was it the perfect training schedule? Probably not, but that kid was not overworked and he had plenty of energy to train during the cross-country season. To summarize: How much mileage a runner should do per week may not necessarily be the right question to ask. What are you (or your athletes) able to do over the long-term? If they run slower now but they stick to it and grow steadily, is that such a bad thing? Lydiard, I imagine, would say that he'd rather a kid build up their conditioning steadily and work on long-term progress instead of hammering away at 400m reps and not having enough energy to keep on growing over time. Take care, Tinman
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 06:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
Richard:Seriously, thanks for starting this thread. It's been a blast! I've learnt a lot. I agree with you; all of us would, and should, try to find our "optimum" training, not just mileage but intensity and type of workout as well. I do, however, have a problem when you start talking about this "prediction" based on some sort of scientific research which you seem to claim somehow that you can determine on the individual. I'd say that you will NEVER know what the upper limit of training load unless you get out and do it. I'd say, as Lyidard used to always say, that NO ONE can tell you, even the best exercise physiologist in the world, can tell you what the limits are for any given individual...
Nobby, You and I agree - I don't believe anyone, even the best exercise physiologists in the world or the best coach on the planet, can predict what the optimal mileage or training load is for any one particular person. Only through diligent, consistent training can one eventually find their own personal optimal training load. When I spoke about predicting optimal weekly mileage I was referring to the numerous debates on this forum on the topic of weekly mileage. For example, some runners on this forum believe strongly in the superiority of relatively high mileage training. These runners often take me to task for suggesting that those with average to below average running talents are likely to find their optimal training mileage to be significantly lower than that of above average or elite runners. The idea that some might find their optimal training mileage to be well below that of the elites is often met with outright rejection and ridicule. In both cases, the high mileage advocates and I, are predicting what we believe to generally be the optimal training load for a person or group. Our predictions are based on our personal beliefs about what constitutes optimal training. In my case, I go one step further and say that no matter what I predict to be optimal for any person, each person has to put in the work over time to discover their own optimal training. In fact, you can't really figure out what is too much training for you until you train too much. Only by training too little, just right, and then eventually too much will you figure out what is right for you. I suggest that the single most important thing in running is to find your own individual optimal training load. If it's 100mpw then that's what you should run. If it's 40 mpw then that's what you should run. The weekly mileage isn't the important thing. The prediction isn't important either. The important thing is finding out what works best for you. Maryt provides a pretty good example of finding your optimal training vs. predicting optimal training, I think. She has discovered over many training miles and years that her long run must be at or very near the distance she intends to race in order for her to complete the race without signficant physical stress. She has found what works best for her. Yet some here seemingly rejected what maryt has found through experience to work for her because what works best for her contradicts their personal beliefs and predictions about optimal training. It appeared to me that they tried to tell her what she was doing was wrong or uneccessary because it didn't agree with their own personal beliefs about optimal training. The real world didn't agree with the prediction, so the real world experience was rejected in favor of the prediction. So, in summary, I don't believe anyone can predict what is optimal for anyone else. I believe we can generalize to some degree for various groups of people based on their level of talent, but each individual must find what works best for him/her. And in the case where our personal beliefs don't match real life results, then the personal beliefs need to be modified. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
Pinnochio
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 07:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Nobby,Maryt provides a pretty good example of finding your optimal training vs. predicting optimal training, I think. She has discovered over many training miles and years that her long run must be at or very near the distance she intends to race in order for her to complete the race without signficant physical stress. She has found what works best for her. Yet some here seemingly rejected what maryt has found through experience to work for her because what works best for her contradicts their personal beliefs and predictions about optimal training. It appeared to me that they tried to tell her what she was doing was wrong or uneccessary because it didn't agree with their own personal beliefs about optimal training. The real world didn't agree with the prediction, so the real world experience was rejected in favor of the prediction.
Long runs are only one aspect of training, and it seems to me that no one was suggesting this aspect was inappropriate. The only disagreement was over how long they should be. Frankly, when highly experienced coaches give me advice, I am inclined to accept it rather than someone else's personal experience, particularly when my goals are different from theirs. On the principles of training, I don't see where your philosophy agrees with very many (if any) of the leading coaches, and more importantly, I don't see where you have had any success using your methods where it counts....in races. Your times are getting slower as you age. Mine are getting faster. I follow Lydiard's training advice. You don't. Why would I want to follow your advice?
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 08:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Nobby,You and I agree - I don't believe anyone, even the best exercise physiologists in the world or the best coach on the planet, can predict what the optimal mileage or training load is for any one particular person. Only through diligent, consistent training can one eventually find their own personal optimal training load. When I spoke about predicting optimal weekly mileage I was referring to the numerous debates on this forum on the topic of weekly mileage. For example, some runners on this forum believe strongly in the superiority of relatively high mileage training. These runners often take me to task for suggesting that those with average to below average running talents are likely to find their optimal training mileage to be significantly lower than that of above average or elite runners. The idea that some might find their optimal training mileage to be well below that of the elites is often met with outright rejection and ridicule. In both cases, the high mileage advocates and I, are predicting what we believe to generally be the optimal training load for a person or group. Our predictions are based on our personal beliefs about what constitutes optimal training. In my case, I go one step further and say that no matter what I predict to be optimal for any person, each person has to put in the work over time to discover their own optimal training. In fact, you can't really figure out what is too much training for you until you train too much. Only by training too little, just right, and then eventually too much will you figure out what is right for you. I suggest that the single most important thing in running is to find your own individual optimal training load. If it's 100mpw then that's what you should run. If it's 40 mpw then that's what you should run. The weekly mileage isn't the important thing. The prediction isn't important either. The important thing is finding out what works best for you. Maryt provides a pretty good example of finding your optimal training vs. predicting optimal training, I think. She has discovered over many training miles and years that her long run must be at or very near the distance she intends to race in order for her to complete the race without signficant physical stress. She has found what works best for her. Yet some here seemingly rejected what maryt has found through experience to work for her because what works best for her contradicts their personal beliefs and predictions about optimal training. It appeared to me that they tried to tell her what she was doing was wrong or uneccessary because it didn't agree with their own personal beliefs about optimal training. The real world didn't agree with the prediction, so the real world experience was rejected in favor of the prediction. So, in summary, I don't believe anyone can predict what is optimal for anyone else. I believe we can generalize to some degree for various groups of people based on their level of talent, but each individual must find what works best for him/her. And in the case where our personal beliefs don't match real life results, then the personal beliefs need to be modified.
Thank you. I still have trouble with terms like "training load" and appreciate your use of "optimal mileage" instead. This post was much easier to understand and, frankly, made sense. There are times when you make statements that are couched in jargon and intended to sound controversial, but when you spell it out clearly, it all sounds very mainstream. This post is a good example. Nobby et al will correct a beginner like me, but your post actually sounds kind of like the Lydiard philosophy. You started this thread off saying that the Running Times article was "the first time I've read anyone other than me say that high levels of inborn talent likely enable one to run and benefit from higher weekly mileages." I really don't know what "talent" means in running either, but if it means that some people will benefit from lots of miles more than others, I feel like I've read that a lot of times. Isn't the Lydiard focus on time spent running v. total mileage recognition of that fact? Similarly, somewhere on this thread, a poster observes that "I feel men seem to behave better with total mileage." Again, as a general statement doesn't that say that people react differently? My take on the Maryt discussion, btw, is that some people said that what worked for her wouldn't work for everyone. (I know it wouldn't work for me.) Anyway, I appreciate the clarity.
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 08:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
When I spoke about predicting optimal weekly mileage I was referring to the numerous debates on this forum on the topic of weekly mileage.
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Additionally, predictions of optimal mileage/load are null and void in those training programs focused on actually finding the optimal training mileage/load for an individual
?
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 08:33 PM
Perhaps this will help alleviate your confusion."In both cases, the high mileage advocates and I are predicting what we believe to generally be the optimal training load for a person or group. Our predictions are based on our personal beliefs about what constitutes optimal training. In my case, I go one step further and say that no matter what I predict to be optimal for any person, each person has to put in the work over time to discover their own optimal training." An example to help you: MaryT asks us both for training advice.
JimR to maryt: "I believe high mileage is best."
R99 to maryt: "I believe some will perform optimally from high mileage and some will perform optimally from much less mileage." You and I are predicting what level of mileage is best. Then we spend years debating on this forum our particular beliefs about mileage. Years later maryt returns and tells us:
maryt: "I've been training for many years now, experimenting with various training programs and have discovered that 45 mpw is optimal for me." Our predictions were of no consequence because maryt varied her training over time to figure out what was optimal for her. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 09:23 PM
No, I'm just wondering why you changed your statement from 'training programs' to 'debates on this forum'.
IP: Logged |
 |
