| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
tigger
Cool Runner |
 posted May-16-2007 08:23 AM
  
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Wow, rengle. That is one of the more insulting things I've read on this forum.
Good Heavens! You mean you actually rank this up there with the things you and Kemibe and others have said about each other? Surely you jest! I think it was blunt, but it accurately describes the picture maryt was presenting of herself. She claims the principles apply to everyone but she also says they didn't apply to her. And that's what rengle said. I think somewhere a couple of hundred posts or so ago I asked the question about the impact of aging on recovery and the answer (I think it was Nobby, but I could be wrong.) I got was that it generally took longer to recover from a hard workout. Maryt has already said she found longer long runs to be better for her, but maybe they also were the reason she needed those days off to recover. One mistake begat another so to speak.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 09:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
OK, you win. I agree that studies of limited numbers of subjects prove nothing. Say! Do any of the studies you've mentioned in the past have large enough groups to be significant?Still....this is specific to running and you have to admit that maryt described someone extremely unusual in terms of improvement ability. But it was someone who went from merely yards per day to regularly running 50 miles per week. (Let me also add that I think 50 miles per week is pretty impressive for a weekend warrier. I have never averaged that much for more than a few weeks, and so I know how hard it is to maintain.) If that isn't improvement I don't know what is. And even at 50 miles per week, do you think she could have increased her distance just a little bit more....say another 50 yards per week? So if you accept this outlier as real, and you accept what Kim is saying (and Nobby and rengle) about 40 years of observing all types of runners, are you prepared to change your opinion on low responders?
tigger, Are you suggesting that the standard for accepting data should be only research that contains a large number of subjects? That would mean no data from research with a small number of subjects is acceptable. And, of course, absolutely no anecdotal data is acceptable since it doesn't even come close to reaching the standard.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 09:24 AM
I think Rengle was just venting at maryt's whining.Rengle, apologize and move on.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 10:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by StealthRunner:
Ok, Nobby, I’m going to bite on this one.Someone started a new thread, directed at you, called “Base Building”. Kim Stevenson posted a schedule on it. I assume when he states to run “within yourself” he means at a comfortable pace. What I would like to know is, where does hill bounding and running drills fit into a running schedule, and for how long in terms of weeks? Like you, I had started to work on bounding a few weeks ago. Very sore buttocks! I guess I found out were I was weak. I’m doing much better, plus I feel it has really helped my running along with high knee and butt-kick drills. I’ve been doing the hill bounding once a week after a good warm-up of several miles and a few drills. I also throw in a few drills when warming-up before each run. Am I on the right track? Cathy
Things are getting a bit hostile (I must say, I might have started it...) but I still owe you a reply. I believe you're on the right track. My answer to your specific question (where and how long hill training should fit in) would be; wherever and however long you feel it's necessary. It seems like you are benefitting from that type of exercises; you should just insert here and there throughout your program, even during the conditioning phase. Little often is the way to go about. 15 minutes every other week would be better than try out an hour (hill exercise, that is) and die after the 3rd week. Keep at it for a long-term program. My girl is responding to these drills really well; I'm in fact considering somehow incorporating drills in the gym during the winter without sacrificing the distance work. Make sure you are doing the drills correctly (to have some experienced eyes by you would be best). I just noticed Monday (I do the drills with her) that my girl was clinching her fists when doing high knee drills. It's not "practice makes perfect"; it's "perfect practice makes perfect." You can do this "technique" drills wrongly as much as you can but not get the deserved results if done incorrectly. Small things like clinching the fists would matter. Keep your back straight; relax your arms and shoulders (Dellinger used to have an exercise called "zombie" to completely relax your upper body)... Same thing with hill training. This is why I'm not particularly too hot with this so-called alactate hill sprint throughout the year. When you try to "sprint" up the hill, first thing you'll notice is people swinging arms all over the place, shoulders swinging side to side, feet spreading outward, grittin teeth... You'll get strong; but not in a very efficient way. Mary: Like I said, I'm very sorry. Yours is truly an interesting story and I shall keep that in mind as we move forward, giving lectures and meeting and coaching people. One last thing, though; I wouldn't use example of Rodgers at 50 for the advantage of low-mileage training. He can do that because of thousands of miles that he has accumulated in the earlier years.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 10:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
tigger,Are you suggesting that the standard for accepting data should be only research that contains a large number of subjects? That would mean no data from research with a small number of subjects is acceptable. And, of course, absolutely no anecdotal data is acceptable since it doesn't even come close to reaching the standard.
No, but a nice dodge of my question! Accepting DATA can be done regardless of sample size. DATA is always correct, in the context of error limits. However, making generalized inferences based on small sample size can get you in trouble. There is a branch of mathematics called statistics that deals with this. To illustrate....if I weigh a can of tuna I can only say what that particular can weighs. I cannot infer the weight of other cans because the tuna packing process is not exact. There is error involved in the process. However if I weigh several hundred cans of tuna I can give a level of confidence on the weight of an entire production line of tuna cans. I guess I WAS suggesting that the hundred or so years of coaching experience by these gentlemen, where they have worked with thousands (note - this is the sample size) of athletes, should count heavily when generalizing training principles and giving training advice to those of us who are less experienced. Their personal levels of success, (as runners) and their professional level of success far exceeds yours. Do you agree?
[This message has been edited by tigger (edited May-16-2007).]
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 10:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
I think Rengle was just venting at maryt's whining.Rengle, apologize and move on.
Ok. I'll apologize for the bluntness. But I've been where MaryT was and wanted to get beyond that. My first marathon took 4:34 and came off of about 40 mpw. She may say that showed talent because it was faster than she could run, but if you allow for age and gender differences I think our performances were very comparable and like her, I thought that I simply had no ability and that there was no point in training more because my lack of talent wouldn't allow me to do much more and even if I did it wouldn't help.
But luckily, we didn't have the "benefit" of studies about low responders then so I started thinking that people who want get better at an activity at which they aren't very good need to practice that activity more, not less. I looked at what people like Shorter and Galloway were doing and decided that if they could run 140 mile weeks I at least could get to 70 or 100.
It was hard. I was always tired and at first I wasn't at all sure it was doing me any good. But after six months of that I took an hour and five minutes off my marathon and had preceded that by having a better cross country season than I could ever have imagined. Eventually I ran even more and took nearly another hour off of my best marathon.
As the sport got more popular and attracted more slow runners, I thought that one thing I could do to encourage those slow runners was to use myself as an example to prove that it's possible to get much faster than you ever could imagine if you train yourself properly. What I've found though is that nearly all of those slow runners simply tell me that I got that fast because I'm talented and that frustrates me. Obviously I was more talented than I thought, but I only found that talent by working really hard and by not falling into the trap of thinking that I was untrainable or a "low responder."
I don't really expect many people to want to do the 100-150 mile weeks that I did. But MaryT writes about not doing well in marathons on 50 miles a week. Well, I couldn't have done well on fifty mile weeks either. Some people can. I have a friend who was ninth at Boston once on less than that. Life isn't fair. Seventy was sort of the minimum for me and I think that a lot of people who are stuck with slow marathon times and are in the 40-50 mpw range, or less, simply need to run more if they want to get faster. I once had a conversation with a guy who couldn't get a Boston Qualifier and he thought it was because he was overtrained. He was doing 35 mpw.
Of course you can tinker with any level of mileage and squeeze some improvements out of what you're doing and yes, many people need rest days. That was the whole basis of Kenny Moore's training, but he was still doing two runs of four miles on his easy days. John Keston only runs about three times a week, but goes for 2-3 hours at a time and walks a lot on the intervening days. That's an adjustment he's made to age. But he's still getting in REGULAR training.
I wouldn't argue with MaryT about needing rest days. Two a week sounds fine. Maybe she'd even do better with three. But having those rest days should allow her to do some fairly ambitious running on the other 4-5 days each week, not just on a day everyweek or two. If she really couldn't get well under five hours for the marathon and really wanted to it's because she's doing something wrong, not because she's a low responder. I have a cousin who had more than half a lung removed who's run 3:47 without going over four hours in any single run.
So I am sorry if I was overly blunt. I really admire anyone who has a go at the marathon and am sort of in awe of people who stay on their feet for five hours or so. But I also don't think that those people should accept the inevitability of taking so long to do their marathons if they don't want to. Every one is trainable. Everyone can improve. On the one hand MaryT tells us that. She went from not being able to run a quarter mile to finishing marathons. In the next breath she's telling us that no matter what she does she couldn't have improved any further at the marathon because she doesn't benefit from regular, consistent, training and I think that second part is a bad, bad message to present to inexperienced runners.
IP: Logged |
mrinertia
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 10:54 AM
I just wanted to say thank, from the bottom of my heart, to nobby, tinman,kim, et al. I've been running for a year and while I've made decent progress, I've struggled with mediocrity. There has been more good information in this thread that I've gathered in a year's subscription to RW. I feel like like the shackles of substandard performance can now be unlocked. Thank, thank you, a thousand times. ------------------
42
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 11:21 AM
One more thing Richard. My personal running performance has improved year by year while my running frequency and duration has increased. I have gone from running 4 dpw to 7 dpw, and from 30 mpw avg to 45 mpw avg. Last year I improved my 10k PB from 55 min to 52 min. This year I improved my HM time from 2:01 to 1:57. My 5k time has not improved, but I recently ran 7 seconds off my PB set 7 years ago. All of this is due to following the principles set out by Lydiard and recommended by the coaches contributing to this thread. Results are important in running. In fact, that is how we judge success. Research is interesting but it counts very little if it doesn't lead to better results.
IP: Logged |
thereshegoes
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 11:26 AM
maryt--you're story is interesting. I thought back to my own beginnings. I'm not sure why our stories ultimately divurge.I started running on August 1, 2004. At that time it was more "running" and less running. It was a struggle for me to walk 2 minutes run 1 minute for a continuous 30 minutes, 5 days a week. I plugged away, until sometime in October I could run a solid 30 minutes at about a 10:00 pace. I kept at it. I ran slow. I didn't care. I bumped up the miles of one run a week. I think I ran 9 miles once in December of that year. By February of 2005 I was consistently running 25ish miles a week. I ran a 5k during that month and almost threw up to get in just a hair under 24:30. As the Spring progressed I found I could hold a 8:00 pace on the treadmill. I'd end my runs incredibly sweaty and red-faced. My legs started hurting. I thought I was great! The treadmill was probably miscalibrated and I'm sure I looked like an idiot. You live you learn. Luckily the weather got nice and I started running outside where I didn't have a pace staring at me on a console. I'm sure I slowed way down. By August of 2005 I was up to about 40 miles a week over 6 days. I got excited and went nuts and started running 7 days a week and added track runs--basically 800s as hard as I could or some other ingenious workout. I ran a cross country 5k in 22:50 in September. In October I was injured. I worked my way slowly back and by January of 2006 I was ready to start training for a half-marathon. Luckily I knew a runner who knew what he was doing enough to help me make a training plan. On a Jack Daniels influenced plan I trained for about 3.5 months. I slowed my easy runs down to about 9:00 or even slower. I did one track or tempo workout a week. I worked on building up my long run--I maxed at 16. My weekly mileage went up to a high of 45. In May of 2006 I ran my first half-marathon in 1:38. I did something similar for the next 6 months, although I peaked at 60 mpw. In October of 2006 I ran my first marathon in 3:25. 6 months later, my prs are 5k (19:42), 5m (32:07), 1/2M (1:31:57). I ran a marathon PR in boston this year--3:18. I started from about zero fitness. Then I started training smarter (I hesitate to use "smart" not sure it was optimal, but better than what I was doing!) I don't think I'm all that talented. I just work hard and believe I can improve.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 11:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by mrinertia:
I just wanted to say thank, from the bottom of my heart, to nobby, tinman,kim, et al. I've been running for a year and while I've made decent progress, I've struggled with mediocrity. There has been more good information in this thread that I've gathered in a year's subscription to RW. I feel like like the shackles of substandard performance can now be unlocked. Thank, thank you, a thousand times.
I'd have to say; thank you. That was the nicest thing. I'd have to admit, I guess I was a bit down about all this MaryT debate and YOU lifted me up (I don't know about others but it did help ME at least!). Thanks.
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 11:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
This is why I'm not particularly too hot with this so-called alactate hill sprint throughout the year. When you try to "sprint" up the hill, first thing you'll notice is people swinging arms all over the place, shoulders swinging side to side, feet spreading outward, grittin teeth... You'll get strong; but not in a very efficient way.
I'll have to pay more attention to form as I'm doing my hills. I have 3 distinct terrains...I've got a long gradual hill of about 400 meters, a couple of short hills,one moderate and the other quite steep, of about 80 meters each, and a good long staircase. I do try to make sure it's the legs doing the work and not the rest of me. edit:
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
I'd have to admit, I guess I was a bit down about all this MaryT debate and YOU lifted me up (I don't know about others but it did help ME at least!). Thanks.
you need to see some of the debates between mary and kevin (beck) that have happened here. This was nothin' [This message has been edited by JimR (edited May-16-2007).]
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 12:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
I think Rengle was just venting at maryt's whining.Rengle, apologize and move on.
No need for rengle to appologize. If there is one person in the last several pages of this thread who has consistently been insulting, condecending and rude, it's Maryt. Rengle, Nobby and others have been extraordinarily patient with her in my opinion.
IP: Logged |
obsessor
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 01:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by thereshegoes:
maryt--you're story is interesting. I thought back to my own beginnings. I'm not sure why our stories ultimately divurge.I started running on August 1, 2004. At that time it was more "running" and less running. It was a struggle for me to walk 2 minutes run 1 minute for a continuous 30 minutes, 5 days a week. I plugged away, until sometime in October I could run a solid 30 minutes at about a 10:00 pace. I kept at it. I ran slow. I didn't care. I bumped up the miles of one run a week. I think I ran 9 miles once in December of that year. By February of 2005 I was consistently running 25ish miles a week. I ran a 5k during that month and almost threw up to get in just a hair under 24:30. As the Spring progressed I found I could hold a 8:00 pace on the treadmill. I'd end my runs incredibly sweaty and red-faced. My legs started hurting. I thought I was great! The treadmill was probably miscalibrated and I'm sure I looked like an idiot. You live you learn. Luckily the weather got nice and I started running outside where I didn't have a pace staring at me on a console. I'm sure I slowed way down. By August of 2005 I was up to about 40 miles a week over 6 days. I got excited and went nuts and started running 7 days a week and added track runs--basically 800s as hard as I could or some other ingenious workout. I ran a cross country 5k in 22:50 in September. In October I was injured. I worked my way slowly back and by January of 2006 I was ready to start training for a half-marathon. Luckily I knew a runner who knew what he was doing enough to help me make a training plan. On a Jack Daniels influenced plan I trained for about 3.5 months. I slowed my easy runs down to about 9:00 or even slower. I did one track or tempo workout a week. I worked on building up my long run--I maxed at 16. My weekly mileage went up to a high of 45. In May of 2006 I ran my first half-marathon in 1:38. I did something similar for the next 6 months, although I peaked at 60 mpw. In October of 2006 I ran my first marathon in 3:25. 6 months later, my prs are 5k (19:42), 5m (32:07), 1/2M (1:31:57). I ran a marathon PR in boston this year--3:18. I started from about zero fitness. Then I started training smarter (I hesitate to use "smart" not sure it was optimal, but better than what I was doing!) I don't think I'm all that talented. I just work hard and believe I can improve.
Awesome story. Mine is similar. First run in 2002 was 3.8 miles in 45 minutes. Felt like it about killed me. Could not run and could hardly walk for a week. (wow - that was a challenge - wonder if I could do it again?) then, Ran for a year until I could run ONE mile faster than 7:00. Then pushed beyond 40mpw, where I became stronger and had fewer little nagging injuries than the first 18 months of "training." Then escalated and diversified my training, longer, faster, more miles, etc., and yes, there's the occasional injury and always the risk of injury. Now 34 - ran a 2:34 marathon last December. I'll run under 2:30 this year. "Easy" and "natural" and "talent" - these are words used by people who do not go out there and "do" it. Sure - it exists, but boy is it ever blown out of proportion. You don't pop out of the womb ready to run a marathon; there's very little luck in long distance running.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 01:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
One more thing Richard. My personal running performance has improved year by year while my running frequency and duration has increased. I have gone from running 4 dpw to 7 dpw, and from 30 mpw avg to 45 mpw avg. Last year I improved my 10k PB from 55 min to 52 min. This year I improved my HM time from 2:01 to 1:57. My 5k time has not improved, but I recently ran 7 seconds off my PB set 7 years ago. All of this is due to following the principles set out by Lydiard and recommended by the coaches contributing to this thread. Results are important in running. In fact, that is how we judge success. Research is interesting but it counts very little if it doesn't lead to better results.
tigger, Your training & performance, so far, seem to be very close to the training/performance guidance in the power running training guide. I hope you continue to keep us up to date on your training and performance over the next 5-10 years or so. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com [This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-16-2007).]
IP: Logged |
mrinertia
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 02:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
I'd have to say; thank you. That was the nicest thing. I'd have to admit, I guess I was a bit down about all this MaryT debate and YOU lifted me up (I don't know about others but it did help ME at least!). Thanks.
It's obvious from your postings that you care a LOT about running and runners. I'll keep you posted as I progress from a bit slow (where I am now) to "fast for a novice big guy" and finally on to just plain fast. My next two races are a 10k on June 8th, which I will attempt to PR @ 54:00 (This will be a stretch for now), then a HM on July 28th which I easily expect to beat my previous 2:10:53, probably even drop below 2 hours. You are a great asset to this sport and have totally changed the way I view myself and my potential as a runner.
IP: Logged |
willamona
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 02:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DanMoriarity:
No need for rengle to appologize. If there is one person in the last several pages of this thread who has consistently been insulting, condecending and rude, it's Maryt. Rengle, Nobby and others have been extraordinarily patient with her in my opinion.
Agreed. maryt usually brings that type of thing on his/herself. It has been like that in just about every thread I have seen them participate. S/he seems to have a very short fuse so it really makes me wonder how they were capable of running for 5 hours at a shot as it takes a ton of patience. In all honesty though, maryt is actually being nice here compared to what I have seen him/her say in the past. They have not brought up the many college degrees yet..... ------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 02:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
tigger,Your training & performance, so far, seem to be very close to the training/performance guidance in the power running training guide.
If that's the case then I must assume you have copied it from my original source. Elsewise it is a total coincidence. And you STILL have not answered my questions. Ah, never mind. We both know what the answers are.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 03:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
If that's the case then I must assume you have copied it from my original source. Elsewise it is a total coincidence.And you STILL have not answered my questions. Ah, never mind. We both know what the answers are.
tigger, I'm not sure what you are referring to with the comment "I must assume you have copied it from my original source". You posted your performance/training info a few posts up. I note that it is very close to the to the training/performance guidance I provide in part 1 of the power running training guide that has been posted on my web site for quite some time now. Still haven't answered your questions? Are you referring to the data discussion from earlier? If so, yes, we both know what the answers are. We can go through it if you insist, but since we both know the answers already and it won't change the facts of how we individually treat both research & anecdotal data it would seem to not be the best use of our time. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 03:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
If that's the case then I must assume you have copied it from my original source. Elsewise it is a total coincidence.
Tig, I think he means prediction numbers of 10k and 1/2 marathon. Somewhere in that stuff he's referring to, Richard uses McMillan's pace calculator to build a bunch of 'performance prediction data' or something to that effect. I don't think Richard indicates anywhere he used Gregs site to put the info together, although I may be wrong on that part, I haven't looked at his site in a while.
[This message has been edited by JimR (edited May-16-2007).]
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 03:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
tigger,
Still haven't answered your questions? Are you referring to the data discussion from earlier? If so, yes, we both know what the answers are. We can go through it if you insist, but since we both know the answers already and it won't change the facts of how we individually treat both research & anecdotal data it would seem to not be the best use of our time.
Boy can you ever dodge and weave! Do I need to point out to you that a statement ending with one of these "?" is a question? For example....from a few posts ago...
"Their personal levels of success, (as runners) and their professional level of success far exceeds yours. Do you agree?" Here is another unanswered question.... "Still....this is specific to running and you have to admit that maryt described someone extremely unusual in terms of improvement ability. But it was someone who went from merely yards per day to regularly running 50 miles per week. (Let me also add that I think 50 miles per week is pretty impressive for a weekend warrier. I have never averaged that much for more than a few weeks, and so I know how hard it is to maintain.) If that isn't improvement I don't know what is. And even at 50 miles per week, do you think she could have increased her distance just a little bit more....say another 50 yards per week? So if you accept this outlier as real, and you accept what Kim is saying (and Nobby and rengle) about 40 years of observing all types of runners, are you prepared to change your opinion on low responders?"
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 03:47 PM
tigger,My apologies. There are lots of questions in this thread and multiple side topics of conversation going on. I find it too difficult to answer every single question and respond to every topic addressed to me. Short answer to your questions - yes/maybe and no. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com [This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-16-2007).]
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 04:02 PM
Richard, I have another question. You say this on your website?
"As an ex-Green Beret with formal training in exercise science, I don't really care about tradition or theory, I care about results. I believe that power running gives me the best results and I believe it will do the same for you."
Can you now tell us what has happened to your personal running results over the last 20 years? Can you tell us who has used your program and had the kinds of results Nobby has had or Kim or rengle or tinman? This is very important.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 04:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by willamona:
Agreed. maryt usually brings that type of thing on his/herself.
I'd be willing to bet that if no one told maryt her personal experiences were wrong, or implied that she really hasn't really tried to improve her performance, or told her any of the other things that would insult any one of us, that she wouldn't "bring this type of thing on his/herself".
------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 04:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
I'd be willing to bet that if no one told maryt her personal experiences were wrong, or implied that she really hasn't really tried to improve her performance, or told her any of the other things that would insult any one of us, that she wouldn't "bring this type of thing on his/herself".
Another way to put it is that if everyone agreed with Mary she wouldn't be so disagreeable! That's true!!
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 05:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by maryt:
Didn't seem to help just dropping down even 30% or so until I added in the 2 rest days.What really seemed to make a difference was dropping total milege just 10% down to 40-45, adding in a couple of rest days, but then making the long runs longer. As I said, by the time I really figured out what worked best for me, I was already getting past my prime, so I don't know for sure how fast I might have been if I had paid more attention to recovery sooner. When I got those long runs up to 15 miles or so every other week, the extra mileage in the long run seemed to help more than extra miles total for improvement in the shorter races.
Thanks. I was really trying to see if you were checking how patterns in changes affected results as opposed to just the changes themselves, i.e. did transitioning from this to that have more impact then staying at that for a long time. It's easier to know to look for these things these days than I'm sure it was back then, since we have this wonderful misinformation highway to guide us through.
IP: Logged |
 |
