| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
 posted May-19-2007 08:22 AM
   
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
For the record, you don't have the first clue as to my personal situation or the health issues I have that impact my training. You display an amazingly high level of arrogance and ignorance when you make any claim about my capabilities, limitations, or my training/performance...
Dude, let me put this simply: what are your PRs? List them, pre-injury, whatever. People tend to listen to people who have a track record of solid results. Period. I don't give a sh*t about the science and your research, etc. I care about what you've run. Nobby, Rengle, etc. have solid running resumes. Post yours. I don't care about Noakes. I don't care about stats. Put up or shut up. ------------------
My User Profile
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 08:38 AM
I would be more interested in someone's progression rather than what they have for PR's. I know of a coach who has coached several Olympians in the mile who has never actually broken 5 minutes for a mile himself.
I don't think Richard is a bad guy, just think he has a lot to learn about this sport he claims to be an expert in. To his credit this is a great thread. It has introduced some great experts to this forum which is a lot more civil than Let's run. The personal attacks are not necessary. We should try to argue just the points. Nobby, Rengle, Kim, and Tinman have taught us that.
IP: Logged |
runawayjesse
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 08:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by willamona:
Dunmore is about 45 minutes to an hour from here depending on traffic. I don't live in Exeter any more. Quit being defensive and relax. Where do you find the information on the meetings (both SOAR and these long runs you mention)? This is what I am asking. I do not see this stuff on the local site or even in the threads there. Where is this state park at? I only know of Francis-Slocum (too far from here). I know how to find the races and I am checking out a local one this weekend. I would love to meet the kind of people you speak of, especially if there are any closer to my neck of the woods. And unfortunately, whether you believe it or not, two people thought I was too slow to even continue conversations with me at the last local race I attended in the Wilkes-Barre area (this was in reaction to my first marathon time, not my race time that day). I can not fix that in a person. All I can do is keep my ears open for local info. That is all I am going to do at the race this weekend as I am not running (just another freakin' 5k. Too many 5k's here.) Maybe I will get a better reaction with my latest marathon time, if it comes up. Just someone to at least bounce ideas off of every now and then would be nice.
In short, go to races, post on the local message board. It helps to use your real first name. On the main page you will see group run announcments. They do weekly group runs at Lake Scranton(thursdays at 6:00 AM. Women attend this one), one in forty fort I think, than Kyle does Lackwanna state park once a month. If you are looking for runners in your neighborhood simply start a thread. Put together a run. Introduce yourself, tell everybody how you train, tell them your pace, your goals. If you are looking for coaching again post a thread. You can even start by just asking for advice. Get a feel for who knows there stuff. Most of the best runners post under their full name. When you see them at a race(usually winning an award) simply go up and introduce yourself. They will know you from the forum by now. Usually you will get an invite to go do other things(drink beer)with them. This is how I met people when I srtarted running. Off hand i can think of a few 4 hour women training for this year. If you are looking for races in your neighborhood email the site adminstrator Mike M.
I was not being defensive at all.I'm sorry you took me that way. Just trying to help. Maybe I should just stop talking. I wouldn't want you to start droping chill pill icons on me(LOL). Good Luck and see ya around!
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 09:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Brian McN:
I would be more interested in someone's progression rather than what they have for PR's. I know of a coach who has coached several Olympians in the mile who has never actually broken 5 minutes for a mile himself.
I don't think Richard is a bad guy, just think he has a lot to learn about this sport he claims to be an expert in.... To his credit this is a great thread. It has introduced some great experts to this forum which is a lot more civil than Let's run. The personal attacks are not necessary. We should try to argue just the points. Nobby, Rengle, Kim, and Tinman have taught us that.
Good point on the progression: okay, then let me ask how has Richard progressed? Fair enough about civility. HOWEVER, to be blunt, I am frustrated with Richard. He calls into question Andy's expertise when the man runs 1:12 half the week his daughter's born. He eggs on Nobby about not coaching any "slow" runners. These are the people who have track records of getting improvements, who show love, dedication, and knowledge to the sport. I suppose that's what led me to my peevish tone. At the end of the day, we should be civil to Richard, but Richard's civility has also waned in spots. That said, I apologize about the tenor of my previous post.
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 09:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by willamona:
And unfortunately, whether you believe it or not, two people thought I was too slow to even continue conversations with me at the last local race I attended in the Wilkes-Barre area (this was in reaction to my first marathon time, not my race time that day). I can not fix that in a person. All I can do is keep my ears open for local info. That is all I am going to do at the race this weekend as I am not running (just another freakin' 5k. Too many 5k's here.) Maybe I will get a better reaction with my latest marathon time, if it comes up. Just someone to at least bounce ideas off of every now and then would be nice.
Well, Will, screw those two people. Seriously. Want to talk progression: dropping an hour from a marathon time, that's progression. And while some dingbats may not appreciate the improvement, any runner worth their salt will appreciate the work and hard effort put forth. THAT SAID: short races don't have to be crap races. It's good development, IMHO, to step away from the mary once in a while to develop some speed with shorter distances. Some runners, after recovering from the marathon, will even do a short summer track season. That, to me, can lead break up the grind of constant marathon training--both physically and mentally...
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 10:45 AM
I just criticized Richard elsewhere for starting yet another thread about whatever he happened to read last week. So, to put my money where my mouth is, let me ask the Lydiardites (that word seems very odd) about this "FIRST" program and whether you've seen first-hand differences in results between those running regularly and those running 3x/week. Richard points to a new book "Run Less, Run Faster" by 3 exercise physiologists (Bill Pierce PhD, Scott Murr, & Ray Moss). Runner's World seems infatuated with this program and, as a relative beginner, it has a certain appeal. The FIRST people claim that, in Richard's words, "a very high majority of the experienced marathoners subjects either ran a PR or beat their most recent marathon performance" using the plan. Richard claims these runners were "experienced" and used to running 5-6 days/week and that average improvement was nearly 20 minutes. That, to me, sounds like a lot. Richard carefully distinguishes the "elite" runners to prevent people from pointing to those ambitious training programs. I suppose there's a little chicken v. the egg there. Are they elite because they're naturally faster or because they trained better? As a working father of three boys between the ages of 7 and 12, the idea of running just 3x/week is alluring (although there are also 2 days of cross-training also), especially if it's going to produce better results than running more often. Having said that, the whole program reeks of gimmick -- although I can't really say why. One of the things that strikes me about the program is that the three workouts are pretty intense. Most of the long runs are close to marathon pace. At first blush, these plans look a lot like traditional running programs except that the easy run days are cross-training and the intensity is ratcheted up a bit. Am I missing something?
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 11:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by martinjames:
I just criticized Richard elsewhere for starting yet another thread about whatever he happened to read last week. So, to put my money where my mouth is, let me ask the Lydiardites (that word seems very odd) about this "FIRST" program and whether you've seen first-hand differences in results between those running regularly and those running 3x/week. Richard points to a new book "Run Less, Run Faster" by 3 exercise physiologists (Bill Pierce PhD, Scott Murr, & Ray Moss). Runner's World seems infatuated with this program and, as a relative beginner, it has a certain appeal. The FIRST people claim that, in Richard's words, "a very high majority of the experienced marathoners subjects either ran a PR or beat their most recent marathon performance" using the plan. Richard claims these runners were "experienced" and used to running 5-6 days/week and that average improvement was nearly 20 minutes. That, to me, sounds like a lot. Richard carefully distinguishes the "elite" runners to prevent people from pointing to those ambitious training programs. I suppose there's a little chicken v. the egg there. Are they elite because they're naturally faster or because they trained better? As a working father of three boys between the ages of 7 and 12, the idea of running just 3x/week is alluring (although there are also 2 days of cross-training also), especially if it's going to produce better results than running more often. Having said that, the whole program reeks of gimmick -- although I can't really say why. One of the things that strikes me about the program is that the three workouts are pretty intense. Most of the long runs are close to marathon pace. At first blush, these plans look a lot like traditional running programs except that the easy run days are cross-training and the intensity is ratcheted up a bit. Am I missing something?
I'll be an arrogant SOB and say this again; If you are satisfied with 3:40 marathon, the program seems just fine. In fact, I would give even easier. When I gave a program to runners I have helped in the past, I didn't even give them repetitions; the longest run was "only" 3 hours; and they (almost) all came out sub-4. That was their goal; they wanted to finish the marathon and hopefully break 4-hours. They did. I'd apply that to a program like Higdon's. I always thought his "novice" or "beginners" schedule was too hard. I see he's changed it a bit but I still think it's too hard (for someone who wants to just finish). It's interesting such a book just recently came out; there's book called something like "No Need for Speed"; and I guess we'll just sit back and watch American performances take a nose-dive... Afterall, we can lose 20 pounds by doing no exercise and in 3 weeks and eating McDonald...
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 11:55 AM
Okay, I'd be a bit more civil this time. I think what a lot of people miss out is, as Tinman mentioned numerous times here as well, BALANCE. I honestly think majority of "joggers" train way too hard. My wife goes out and train with a marathon training group; she would give me their schedule; and I would tell her to cut this and cut that... If they do Yasso 800, I might tell her to just run 1 lap hard instead of 2; and take 3 laps for recovery...or cut down the numbers in half...something like that. And she constantly goes out and beat those who train "harder". Doesn't mean she doesn't train hard. She trains hard when she's supposed to; she trains easy when she's supposed. As for training "more days", there's this thing called "unnecessary necessity" in Zen teaching (my advantage of coming from different culture...); it's basically this: When you walk, all you need is a strip of, what, a half a foot width. The rest of the floor (or ground) you don't even touch; they are "unnecessary". So you remove that and basically you have a balance beem in gymnastics. How many of you can walk on it nice and smoothly. At worst, it probably gives you "psychological" comfort. Of course, scientists may ignore that because it's not "quantifiable". There's NO such thing as "junk mile". They ARE doing something. In fact, in his recent book, Toshihiko Seko preached the importance of easy jogging because you "spend most of training jogging". Personally, easy jogging in between has much more value than "pschological comfort" from my own personal experience. By the way, that training program is nothing new. I think Galloway's marathon program was very similar to that which he wrote 20 years ago.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 12:50 PM
Give myself an excuse to stop cleaning the house (per my wife's order to keep my Green Card) to be a bit more specific...Martin; I believe easy jogging in between days are absolutely necessary in fact for better recovery. When my butt was so sore from Monday night drills, I had to get out Tueday and Wednesday on a cross country course to stretch out. It helped immensely. Same thing last summer when we were training for Chicago marathon (well, not me); I had to get out in the morning for an easy morning jog "for recovery". I took a look back at Galloway's program. I believe it's a better program because it has a lot more recovery jog days. Also, I'd have to agree with Mary here, his program calls for a long run one week followed by repetitions the next week (alternate 2-week cycle). I would personally structure so you'll be doing, say, tempo run one week, hill training the next week, and repetitions the third week but continue a long easy aerobic running throughout one a week whatever the duration might be. Personally, to have tempo run and repetitions and a long run in one week with NO recovery jog is absurd. Sure, some people improved. I'd very much be interested in their background though. If you take someone who's been running, say, 50MPW for several years at the same plodding pace day in and day out (you may call that "experienced"); cut back his/her work load (mileage) and give some faster stuff; they'll improve. You perform what you've taught your body to do. If you plod day after day after day, regardless of how long; you'll plod in the actual "competition". Going back to Seko's story; Seko said that his break-through (in thinking) was when he saw Soh brothers going out and "jog" for 1:30 on easy days. "As a marathon runner," he says, "you need to teach your body to recovery while running." If you can teach your digestive system to do something it didn't used to; surely you can teach your body to do that as well! Speaking of Seko's training, when you look at his training schedule, he would do what he calls "point workouts" 2 or 3 days in a row sometimes. But he would take 4 or 5 or 6 days of recovery. Of course, his recovery day may be: 12km in AM and 20km in PM. They are all "jogging" mind you--something exercise physiologists may call "junk miles" (or kilometers). [This message has been edited by Nobby (edited May-19-2007).]
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 12:53 PM
Can you run a decent marathon on three training days a week? Absolutely. Might it be faster than the 3:40 Nobby mentions? Maybe, depends who you are. Will it be as good as you'd run if you ran on the intervening days? Not likely.
The idea of running hard when you do run and then resting or doing some sort of alternate exercise has been around for a good while. It derives from the idea that easy runs do nothing but help you recover so why not do away with them? That's where the concept of "junk miles" originated.
But as Nobby says, there is no such thing. Run for even 15-20 minutes easily and you still get your heart rate up, you still get increased cardiovascular capacity and so on. Run a bit more and you get more of the same. If you're really pressed for time and you were only going to do those three hard runs each week and use the other days to keep up with your non-running activities I'd see the point. If you're going to run hard three times a week and still spend time on the intervening days exercising, your best use of those days is to run more.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 01:08 PM
Nobby wrote:"' Speaking of Seko's training, when you look at his training schedule, he would do what he calls "point workouts" 2 or 3 days in a row sometimes. But he would take 4 or 5 or 6 days of recovery. Of course, his recovery day may be: 12km in AM and 20km in PM. They are all "jogging" mind you--something exercise physiologists may call "junk miles"" Nobby, by point workouts do you mean speed or stress for 2 or 3 days in
a row? Why does this work for some people? How does your body interpret this type of overload? I believe that the Chinese were doing something called crash training?
If you pound your body when it's already sore or fatigued, do you get
a greater level of supercompensation? What about injury?
IP: Logged |
willamona
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 01:25 PM
Jesse, That seems like a ton of info to give out just to say hi and ask a question. Nobby, this is some really good stuff you have. Keep it coming. Martinjames, thank you. I just found out my neighbor is thinking about qualifying for Boston again (she qualified once along with a friend of hers, but they did not end up going). I guess I just literally ran into someone to bounce ideas off of...LOL ------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 01:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
Nobby wrote:"' Speaking of Seko's training, when you look at his training schedule, he would do what he calls "point workouts" 2 or 3 days in a row sometimes. But he would take 4 or 5 or 6 days of recovery. Of course, his recovery day may be: 12km in AM and 20km in PM. They are all "jogging" mind you--something exercise physiologists may call "junk miles"" Nobby, by point workouts do you mean speed or stress for 2 or 3 days in
a row? Why does this work for some people? How does your body interpret this type of overload? I believe that the Chinese were doing something called crash training?
If you pound your body when it's already sore or fatigued, do you get
a greater level of supercompensation? What about injury?
Yay! Another excuse to take a break from cleaning! ;o) They (Nakamura school) used to call it "sandwitch system"; you might do 40k tempo followed by 3X5k followed by 60km "easy" run; or 20X400m followed by 45km followed by 12X1000m...something like that. Sort of like Hansen's philosophy but a bit harder and followed by lots of "recovery" days. You never want to do two days of speed in a row. I don't know exactly what kind of training Chinese were doing except for their base building phase when they just simply run a lot. Here's the thing; as we ALL know, running a lot at relatively slow speed BUILDS BASE. What is that base? It is the ability to handle more race specific work, or faster work, or harder work, or races themselves, without risk of injuries or psychological staleness. Seko didn't just jump on and did that type of hard-hard-hard sandwitch training. He would do tons of "leg-building" months. Could he have run "fast" when he was doing that base phase where he would just jog a lot? No. Once he started doing lots of faster runs, would his mileage have come down? Yes. So what's the statistic show ya? "Less is better"? For the injury factor; you have to remember, his coach was always there. Yesterday, we did 800m time trial (me and my girl). I only ran first 400 because I can't keep up with her any more! Afterwards, her speed wasn't quite back yet so I told her to do 3X100 fast. 30m into the first one, she said her legs are cramping up. I stopped her. I may or may not have given her those 3X100m even but I'm there. I asked Nic Bideau one time how often he sees his runner's training (Mottram and Johnson and all). He said he'd be there ALL THE TIME when they do track workouts. He knows what he's doing and he knows why.
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 01:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by martinjames:
I just criticized Richard elsewhere for starting yet another thread about whatever he happened to read last week. So, to put my money where my mouth is, let me ask the Lydiardites (that word seems very odd) about this "FIRST" program and whether you've seen first-hand differences in results between those running regularly and those running 3x/week. Richard points to a new book "Run Less, Run Faster" by 3 exercise physiologists (Bill Pierce PhD, Scott Murr, & Ray Moss). Runner's World seems infatuated with this program and, as a relative beginner, it has a certain appeal. The FIRST people claim that, in Richard's words, "a very high majority of the experienced marathoners subjects either ran a PR or beat their most recent marathon performance" using the plan. Richard claims these runners were "experienced" and used to running 5-6 days/week and that average improvement was nearly 20 minutes. That, to me, sounds like a lot.
I haven't read the book, but I've seen some of the articles about it as well. In fact it came up at a seminar I attended earlier this year. The seminar itself was on basic training and injury prevention for runners in general, but since many of the runners were training for Boston, marathon training was the major focus. Anyway, the speaker who brought it up was a runner/exercise physiologist who had finished in the top 10% (or maybe it was the top 10, which would be even more impressive - I didn't quite hear which) in the New York City Marathon and who was also a former Olympian weightlifter. She said the program was "discovered by accident" by a trio who decided to take up triathlons, had to cut back on their running days to make time for swimming and biking, and found that their running times improved, rather than getting slower. In fact, even "FIRST" program aside, the whole seminar was definitely on the side of dropping the easy "recovery" runs in favor of cross training to use and strengthen different muscles, maintain flexibility, help with injury prevention, and increase speed by allowing more time for the running muscles to fully recover between workouts. You might say that someone whose main sport was weightlifting might not be the best person to advise about running. On the other hand, she is certainly a decent runner and maybe someone with a different backgound who is used to the idea not stressing the same muscles every day for maximun performance as a weightlifter, might be seeing something with fresher eyes, and not prejudiced by the attitude this is the way we've always done it. Certainly if you're overtraining, some rest days could be beneficial. But from what I've heard about the FIRST people's own training -again, haven't actually read the book - they were doing some pretty intensive workouts on the days off from running because those days were "on" for cycling and swimming, so there's more going on than just resting the running muscles. However, I don't know if the actual time spent doing aerobic activity was increased from when the three were just running. I've read a lot about specificity, but if you are doing sufficent (whatever that is) running to keep your running muscles worked and running speed up the times you are running, perhaps extra added hours of training by swimming and bicycling helped their cardiovascular system which helped their running? I don't know anyone personally who has tried the FIRST program, and I don't know a whole lot of triathletes, but it would be interesting to find out what those who have gone from being strictly runners to triathletes found it did to their running. You would expect the times to be slower when running is just part of a triathlon, but surely some triathletes out there must run a few races that are just running races?
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 03:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
Okay, I'd be a bit more civil this time. I think what a lot of people miss out is, as Tinman mentioned numerous times here as well, BALANCE. I honestly think majority of "joggers" train way too hard. My wife goes out and train with a marathon training group; she would give me their schedule; and I would tell her to cut this and cut that... If they do Yasso 800, I might tell her to just run 1 lap hard instead of 2; and take 3 laps for recovery...or cut down the numbers in half...something like that. And she constantly goes out and beat those who train "harder". Doesn't mean she doesn't train hard. She trains hard when she's supposed to; she trains easy when she's supposed. As for training "more days", there's this thing called "unnecessary necessity" in Zen teaching (my advantage of coming from different culture...); it's basically this: When you walk, all you need is a strip of, what, a half a foot width. The rest of the floor (or ground) you don't even touch; they are "unnecessary". So you remove that and basically you have a balance beem in gymnastics. How many of you can walk on it nice and smoothly. At worst, it probably gives you "psychological" comfort. Of course, scientists may ignore that because it's not "quantifiable". There's NO such thing as "junk mile". They ARE doing something. In fact, in his recent book, Toshihiko Seko preached the importance of easy jogging because you "spend most of training jogging". Personally, easy jogging in between has much more value than "pschological comfort" from my own personal experience. By the way, that training program is nothing new. I think Galloway's marathon program was very similar to that which he wrote 20 years ago.
No need to apologize. I wasn't advocating, but I did intend to play the devil's advocate (because Richard won't) to get your (collective) views -- which always interest me.
IP: Logged |
runawayjesse
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 03:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by willamona:
Jesse, That seems like a ton of info to give out just to say hi and ask a question.
Well the offering is still there. I just wanted to let you know you are not too slow for anyone to care. Just drop in on the local forum board. Use a screen name for awhile if you wish. You will see their is lots of free coaching right here in the area even for you!
Hope to see you around! [This message has been edited by runawayjesse (edited May-19-2007).]
IP: Logged |
willamona
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 04:42 PM
Sorry, It was tuskaloosarunner to say thanks to...not martinjames. (although I am sure martinjames deserved a thank you for something. LOL)
------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 05:15 PM
I won't go near the FIRST deal because I know nothing about it.
But without looking too hard I feel our mate Richard is setting us up a little by throwing up a Thread and then saying what do you think ?.
We then all jump in like a bunch of Hyena's and tear it apart !!!
Did this thread not start that way ??Well here goes !!!!!! I am going to have a crack at "Less work, Faster racing"
I played this game in the early mid 80's with one of my athletes as he was really "cut for time" everyday. More so at certain times of the year.
It took a while, but we came up with what suited. BUT !!!.
The whole deal was not really less it was BALANCE. We found though what we did was utilise the time Reg had really effectively. Some of the work at times was a little more "intense" than a lot of people (like Bill Baillie) felt should have been done. But I bounced it off Arthur who knew Reg and he said "Fine, but watch carefully, don't get too Anaerobic" .
I may have posted this before so many of you have seen this but I got Reg down to 50:10 for 10 miles when over the preceeding 10 weeks he had averaged around 50 miles a week.
This is where people jump in and say how did you do that and what was the schedule I would like to do that.
Sorry Team there was a far bigger picture. For instance 8 -9 months before he had been able to run 2 Waiatarua's a week (Because he had the time !) as part of his training for a month or so. Plus this guy had 25 plus years of VERY consistent running behind him. I feel that some of these progammes look good and the "research" says so BUT what about the Human factor and what happens over X years and what athletes did it produce.
The current Olympic Champion for Triathlon is Hamish Carter (Yes ! A kiwi) . His Coach is Chris Pilone. Chris was a "solid Marathoner" (2:18) and represented NZ at the World Cross Country.
Chris's background was classic Lydiard and Jelley. Chris would have run as many Waiatarua's in his career as anyone I can think of.
His key 'Consistent, balanced work' over a long period of time.
How did Chris know this. He would tell you he has made every mistake in the book and has learned from that. He did not need a 'research' programme. He was the research programme.
Oh Yes! Silver medallist in that same Triathlon. Another Kiwi Beven Docherty. If you look at Olympic Kayak racing through the Mid / late 80's and ask why NZ dominated those events and ask the the Gold Medalists what/who the Key to their training was and they will say a guy called Lydiard.
Currently we have another kayaker coming through. Ben Fouhy (Silver in Athens) His manager is an old student of mine and Mark has told me that wherever he goes in the world (He is NZ Triathlon manager at the Training camps in France) he carries a copy of the original "Run to the Top".
I asked why. Mark says 2 reasons
a. To remember where we came from and where we are going.
ie OUR CULTURE !!
b. The book carries the key ; Consistent, BALANCED work over a long period of time. Cheers Team: Apologies for the ramble. I am heading out the for for a nice hour or so run in the forest where I will be lucky if I see another Human being !! ------------------
Run easy, Run long
IP: Logged |
denton
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 05:28 PM
Kim,Unfortunately your description of NZ is like many other countries. You have some passionate people like robbie johnston, chris pilone, etc... who essentially coach as a hobby (although Chris is paid by Bay and the Millenium Institute). It's also come to the point where many don't seem to care or else there tends to be a lot of incompetent coaching going on....
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 06:15 PM
Kim:Don't forget to mention; both Carter AND Docherty were coached by Chris Pilone. And Pilone was coached by Barry Magee who was coached by Lydiard. I had a chance to visit Chirs at Lorraine's house in Boulder this past summer (though my first encouter with him was at the hospital because he was heavily injured in a bike accident). He told me that Carter had the best season when he trained a single-season program. I asked him how he shuffled the schedule. He simply said; "We doubled the conditioning!" While some Americans (not all) are desperately trying to get away from Lydiardism, mainly the volume of work, some people, like Chris Pilone school or a BUNCH of Japanese runners, still chase the Dream of Gold by sticking with the old Lydiardism.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 06:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by willamona:
Sorry, It was tuskaloosarunner to say thanks to...not martinjames. (although I am sure martinjames deserved a thank you for something. LOL)
umm, i doubt it but thank you for thanking me.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 07:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
Fair enough about civility. HOWEVER, to be blunt, I am frustrated with Richard. He calls into question Andy's expertise when the man runs 1:12 half the week his daughter's born. He eggs on Nobby about not coaching any "slow" runners. These are the people who have track records of getting improvements, who show love, dedication, and knowledge to the sport. I suppose that's what led me to my peevish tone. At the end of the day, we should be civil to Richard, but Richard's civility has also waned in spots.That said, I apologize about the tenor of my previous post.
tuscaloosarunner, Re-read what I wrote. I don't believe you will find a single criticism by me of anyone's coaching experiences or credentials. I don't believe I have even implied something negative about anyone's coaching credentials. On the other hand, re-read what other have written and I believe you will find it has been others who have done these things toward me. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 08:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
tuscaloosarunner,Re-read what I wrote. I don't believe you will find a single criticism by me of anyone's coaching experiences or credentials. I don't believe I have even implied something negative about anyone's coaching credentials. On the other hand, re-read what other have written and I believe you will find it has been others who have done these things toward me.
I did. I still feel this way. That's fine: agree to disagree...
IP: Logged |
fuzz
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 08:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by maryt:
I do NOT believe people would get the same results with 2.5 to 3 hour runs if they are going to be running 4-5 hours in a marathon, that's the whole issue. ... getting in at least one or two of those long runs - 20+ miles however long it takes -during the whole training period really lets you find out those things that it's nice to know - like if you don't take salt tablets with you for the times past the 3 1/2 hour point, you run will stop at a med tent. Nice to know those things beforehand so you can learn how to pevent them and not be surprised come marathon day thinking your 2 1/2 hour runs have prepared you being out on the road over 3 1/2 when they really haven't.
I agree that a first-timer should get in a 20-miler or two for the experience of it -- testing out the gels, sorting out shoes & socks, learning what it's like to run on dead legs, building confidence that the distance can be managed.Looking back, though, I wonder whether the 4+ hour training slogs did much for me from a physiological standpoint. The suggestion that 3-hour long runs might actually be better because they'd allow more quality rings true to me. My first several marathons included death marches despite meticulous adherence to the training schedules (Higdon's and others). Looking back, I don't know how I could've expected otherwise on training schedules that topped out at 40-some miles per week. I might very well have done better following a schedule that included shorter long runs accompanied by longer, better-quality mid-week workouts. I couldn't possibly have done any worse.
[This message has been edited by fuzz (edited May-19-2007).]
IP: Logged |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
posted May-19-2007 10:20 PM
Enjoying this thread. Lots of wisdom based on experience being shared. I enjoy that more than the intellectual approach, study after study, interpretation after interpretation. Give me a some real stories of success with any method, and I'm pumped to work harder at what I am doing. If I run into a plateaus, maybe your stories based on experience will give me some good ideas. Push me to experiment with new directions.I am currently an average club runner. Increasing volume to 60+ miles per week made me better, 70+ even better, 100 mpw, the best so far. If I would have tailored my training to the "fact" that I was a 4:14 marathoner (my 1st), and ran a training load that was so-called equal to the elites (i.e. if they run a long run in 2 hours, I should run no longer than two hours, if that means 13 miles, then my long run should be 13 miles), I would have stayed a 4:14 marathoner. Increasing my volume, and keeping the intensity mostly below 70-75% MHR (added some faster stuff after base periods) brought me down to 3:22 in two years. I had to do some 20-22 mile long runs close to 4 hours along the way, and now I get them done closer to 3 hours, sometimes a little faster. I think working at a lower HR intensity in my developing years (I have now been running 4 years) allowed me to build the volume failry safely. A few boo-boos, but nothing career-ending. I figure that's part of the journey when you are pushing your perceived limits. I think to tell someone who seems to be limited that they can't push their limits because of some interpretation of studies is a disservice to their spirit. I'm sure there are many stories of runners who seemed to be stuck at a certain performance level, and then when they cut some of the speed and added volume, and yes, time, they improved. Also, I'm sure there are many about runners who for once in their life needed to cut some volume and do some speed for awhile, and that is what did it. When I read the posts by coaches and how they train their runners, it seems like the ones who find success are the ones who can identify where a runner is and what they need at any given time. Their methods are fluid and creative. One method does not fit all all of the time, and what works now for an individual might not work next year. I think I'll stop, I'm getting too intellectual about it. I think I'll go read my PR's to my wife again. Like love letters. --Jimmy @@@@
jog log [This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited May-19-2007).]
IP: Logged |
 |
