posted May-21-2007 06:24 PM               

Are you familiar with the idea of an upper limit of adaptation? Rate & magnitude of adaptation?

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 07:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Brian,

Are you familiar with the idea of an upper limit of adaptation? Rate & magnitude of adaptation?

---

Ah ah ah, Richard speak clearly. Are you familiar with a guy named Doug? What if the moon was green and made out of mayonnaise? If you have something to say, skip the riddles and say it.

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 07:36 PM               

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 07:44 PM               

Now address what Rengle had said. How is less running going to develop all of the things you have mentioned?

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 08:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian McN:
Oh yes I will answer your question directly. Yes I have read about that.
Now address what Rengle had said. How is less running going to develop all of the things you have mentioned?

---

Brian,

There is an upper limit to how much any one of us can adapt. As you say, you won't know what that upper limit is until you first reach it and then exceed it. And only by training too much at some point will you ever figure out what your upper limit is.

But all of this doesn't change the fact that an upper limit does exist for each of us.

Training above your limit won't make you better, faster, or more fit. It does, however, increase your chances of slowing or stopping further improvements, overtraining, and injury.

Think about it this way. Let's say you have a muscle ache after your 17 mile run. You decide to take some Advil to help with the pain. Do you take the recommended 2 Advil or do you take 10 tablets all at once? 20 tablets all at once? The entire bottle? You probably already know that taking more than 2 Advil won't speed up your recovery, make the pain go away quicker, or anything beneficial at all. 2 advil is the max dose for max results. Taking more doesn't give faster or longer relief. There is no benefit to taking more than the max dose. On the other hand, taking more than the max dose can be dangerous and detrimental to your health. This is know in the medical community as dose-response.

It works the same way with other things, including running. There is a max dose that gives max results. More than this and you don't get any better but you do increase your chances of bad things happening.

At your max dose you have given your body all the stimulation that it can adapt too. Running more than your body can adapt to won't cause more adaptations. Won't cause more mitochondria to develop, won't make your heart bigger, won't make your muscles more powerful, etc. just like taking more than 2 advil won't give you extra fast relief or a faster recovery time.

So, while running less than what you can handle won't cause optimal adapation in any of those physiological factors, running more than is optimal won't cause even greater adapation in those factors. In fact, running more than is optimal is more likely to result in bad things happening than in additional positive adaptations.

If you think about this for a little while you will likely agree with it and see that it is commonly used in all running programs. Do we start beginners out the first week having them run 50 miles? No, of course not because we know that would be too much - it would be a level of training far in excess of their ability to adapt. Instead we start beginners out at a level they can handle. As they improve and adapt we increase their training load, slowly and surely.

So, you are likely to agree that the concept of dose-response is used every day by runners. Every reasonable training program has a plan for building up training volume over time to allow people time to adapt because these plans recognize that it takes time to adapt and that there is an upper limit to how much and how fast someone can adapt. The 10% rule is an example of the principle of dose-response in action. Don't increase training volume more than 10% in a week because experiences teaches us that most can't adapt to a greater weekly increase than that.

The only real area of debate on this topic, then, is where the upper limit is for adaptation. After many years of diligent training and increasing our training load each of us reaches the point beyond which we basically stop improving. At what point does someone reach the upper limit of how much they can train and still improve? That is the essence of the argument. Some predict the upper limit is reached at very high training volumes. Others predict it will be reached at lower training volumes.

Maryt is a good example of this. She believes she reached her upper limit at around 45 mpw. Others insist there is no way she could have reached her upper limit of adaptation at such a low weekly mileage. So, this is where the arguments start.

My belief on this topic is that everyone is different. Some reach their upper limit at very high training volumes while others reach their limits at much more modest volumes.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 09:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Brian,

There is an upper limit to how much any one of us can adapt. As you say, you won't know what that upper limit is until you first reach it and then exceed it. And only by training too much at some point will you ever figure out what your upper limit is.

But all of this doesn't change the fact that an upper limit does exist for each of us.

My belief on this topic is that everyone is different. Some reach their upper limit at very high training volumes while others reach their limits at much more modest volumes.

---

How do you KNOW this?

--Jimmy

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited May-21-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 09:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
How do you KNOW this?

--Jimmy

---

Jimmy,

It is based on a body of research and observational data, most of which is cited in the articles on my web site.

If you are interested in the research I recommend starting with the series Running Theory of Everything, in particular, part 3 of that series.

The most recent piece of evidence supporting the idea that there is a significant variation in optimal training volume is that elite females run less weekly mileage than their elite male counterparts (see the implications of the performance differences between elite male & female runners thread).

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 10:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by denton:

Kim... my domain story that goes down in the annals is when i went to the domain when i first arrived in akld....supposed to meet up with a bunch of guys who i had only emailed with.... met up with robbie, jason cameron and a handful of the other JAFA's but on my way ober i see this goofy lookng older guy in a loose pair of tights who is only coaching and not running....geez i say to myself...'put some track pants on you dweeby idiot instead of those baggy old tights'.....not more than 5mins later cameron says 'hey mark i'd like to introduce u to barry magee'.......needless to say u an probably guess who the older guy in the tights was...[/B]

---

Good one Denton. You can't always go on looks !!
As far as Jase Cameron is concerned, he did me a huge service about 3 years ago when I was running with some of my young guys. He joined us with another athlete who knew me but had never run with me.
As we climbed this long hill I started to puff and blow a little but did not slow down.
The athlete with Jase says "You feeling the pace old man!"
I replied "Well I am 55 years old I can puff and blow if I feel like it !!"
Jase turned and said "I had no idea you were that old. Man you are running really well !. "
He then turned on the other guy and said "If you are half as fit as Kim at his age you will be doing well"

I felt really good after that.. Ran a few workouts on those accolades !!

------------------
Run easy, Run long

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 10:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kim Stevenson:
I replied "Well I am 55 years old I can puff and blow if I feel like it !!"
Jase turned and said "I had no idea you were that old. Man you are running really well !. "
He then turned on the other guy and said "If you are half as fit as Kim at his age you will be doing well"

I felt really good after that.. Ran a few workouts on those accolades !!

---

Yeah, that's one of the advantages of being a bit older and not looking like the typical adult your age. When I was 40 I went on morning (before school) runs with the local high school xc coach and his guys. An easy morning warm-up for the kids, usually only 7:30 - 8:00 pace, but it made us 2 older guys feel good to be out there with 'em.

I've always been impressed with older runners. Years ago some of our local races from 10K to 50 miles would have runners like Clive Davies and maybe Frans Pauwels. Pretty impressive guys.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 12:36 AM            

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 06:33 AM               

The point I'm trying to make is one that Nobby already has. A less talented runner needs the volume more than anyone to develop physiologically or it just simply will not happen.
Lower volume running for someone with little to no talent will pigeon hole them into mediocre results. They will not improve to their potential because they are not developing the infrastructure necessary to run faster. If you are not born with a strong heart the good news is you can strengthen it, if you have few capillaries that branch out to the working muscles you can develop new ones, If you have a low mitochondria count you can increase it. There is only one way to do this and it's not through running less.
Of the people I have come in contact with that have said they can not handle the larger volume of running without injury most have the same thing in common. They have either increased their mileage too quickly or have mixed too much quality into their schedule before they have had a chance to digest the new workload. I can't recall ever getting hurt from a long run. It's always when I introduce quality into my schedule that gets me injured. That's why I periodize my training. I work the high volume then lower the volume and work on the "speed." I don't get injured because my body has strengthened my skeletal muscular system enough to take the abuse of a race or interval session.
Also, I don't think when my mileage increased over the last two years I came even close to a 10% increase per week. I barely noticed the change in volume.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 07:02 AM               

If a non talented runner can run less than an elite runner to reach their full potential then maybe they are the most talented runners of all.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 07:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian McN:
The point I'm trying to make is one that Nobby already has. A less talented runner needs the volume more than anyone to develop physiologically or it just simply will not happen.
Lower volume running for someone with little to no talent will pigeon hole them into mediocre results.

---

Brian,

As I said, the discussion really comes down to the upper limit of training. You and Nobby are advocating higher volumes, others believe more modest levels are right.

The way I solve this issue in my training program is to throw out my prediction as to how much volume someone should run and to, instead, work to find out the optimal training that works for each individual person. I have the runner track training load and performance over time as they slowly increase their training load. Eventually they will reach their upper limit and then pass it. At that point we know pretty definitively what that person's upper limit is. If it is 45 mpw then that is what it is. If it is 100 mpw then that's what it is.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-22-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 07:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Brian,

As I said, the discussion really comes down to the upper limit of training. You and Nobby are advocating higher volumes, others believe more modest levels are right.

The way I solve this issue in my training program is to throw out my [i[prediction[/i] as to how much volume someone should run and to, instead, work to find out the optimal training that works for each individual person. I have the runner track training load and performance over time as they slowly increase their training load. Eventually they will reach their upper limit and then pass it. At that point we know pretty definitively what that person's upper limit is. If it is 45 mpw then that is what it is. If it is 100 mpw then that's what it is.

---

Interesting.

Can you please give an actual case with one of your trainees detailing exactly what you did to determine upper limit, and what effects staying at or below this limit had on race times. Maybe include answers to these questions:

How much speedwork is involved in determining the 45 mpw upper limit?

Then in the training program, what % of the 45 miles is speedwork, and how much is easy/moderate aerobic running?

Over how many days would the 45 miles be spread? What would a sample week look like?

Using your system, once you've determined that a person's upper limit is 45 mpw, is that it for life? EG> In two years, can the upper limit change to 60 mpw?

Is their plateauing (I think the marathoning wabbit in Watership Down called it "when the training goes tharn")? How is plateauing identified?

Thank you, Richard.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 07:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Brian,

The way I solve this issue in my training program is to throw out my [i[prediction[/i] as to how much volume someone should run and to, instead, work to find out the optimal training that works for each individual person.

---

Jack Daniels sums this up nicely with his principle of diminishing returns. As you increase the level of stress in your training the relative benefit you get from that additional stress diminishes. At the same time, your risk of injury increases.

I would settle for an optimal level of training that will maximize benefit while minimizing the risk of injury. The elite athlete will risk injury in order to maximize his performance. Daniels does not try and define where the optimal level of training is.

I quote from your Running Theory of everything?

quote:

---

The higher mileage crowd generally prescribes higher mileage for everyone. Basically the belief is "run more to run better". This group believes that any and all runners will improve their performance when mileage is increased. If you are currently running 40 miles per week (mpw), then your performance will continue to improve as you increase to 50 mpw, then 60 mpw, then 70 mpw, etc. Based on the teachings of famed coach Arthur Lydiard the high mileage group often suggests about 100 miles per week as optimal for all runners, with some advocates suggesting weekly mileage as high as 150 mpw.

---

Who are the higher mileage crowd and where are their theories published? Lydiard does not suggest that high mileage is suitable for everyone.

[This message has been edited by bigapplepie (edited May-22-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 08:01 AM               

I'm not a coach so I can't give you an example of someone I personally worked with to find their optimal training load. But, all is not lost for you. I believe Maryt's experiences to be an example of finding optimal training load. Review what she has written about her career while keeping in mind the concept of optimal training load. In the elite category have a look at the analysis of Ron Hill's career performance/training in Lore of Running, 4th edition, pages 410-416. Noakes spends 7 pages in an indepth review of Hill's performances and training, giving a fine example of finding optimal training load. Finally, Pfitzinger promotes the same training load idea, so you might have a look at the article on his web site for his particular take on this topic.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 08:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
The way I solve this issue in my training program is to throw out my prediction as to how much volume someone should run and to, instead, work to find out the optimal training that works for each individual person. I have the runner track training load and performance over time as they slowly increase their training load.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
I'm not a coach so I can't give you an example of someone I personally worked with to find their optimal training load.

---

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 08:26 AM               

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 08:27 AM            

"A schedule such as this should be the ultimate aim for a person, less for younger athletes, prior to
starting a schedule designed to have you running against the watch for mileage; Monday; 1 hour, Tuesday; 1.5
hours, Wednesday; 1 hour, Thursday; 1.5 hours to 2 hours, Friday; 1 hour, Saturday; 2 hours or more,
Sunday; 1 to 1.5 hours. This running should be done very easily and the miles covered of no real
account. The " time" spent training is the important part.
Do not go straight into such a schedule, but work up to it according to your fitness and ability to train.
Once you are sure you can run for two hours without any problems, then start to the watch per mile as
follows: Run over your measured courses for one week, without any influencing factors such as a watch,
per mile pace, or another runner. Try to run evenly in effort and as strongly as your condition allows.
Start your watch at the start of the runs, so as to be able to take the overall time of each run at the
conclusion; this giving an estimate of your capability and condition at this stage of your training.
The time taken from the first week"s training should give you a fair indication of your capacity to train
and a basis on which to train further.
The following week, you should use these times for control and run the same course at the comparable
times by checking each mile time as you pass your mile markers. For example, if you took one hour to
run a ten mile course the trial week, then the next week you should set out to run six minute per mile,
allowing for hills and hollows. After a week or so, you will find that the previous times used for control
are becoming to slow for you as your oxygen uptake improves. So it will be necessary to increase the
average speed for distance by lowering the average mile time down to 5:55 per mile or thereabouts, In
this way, it is possible to keep running at your best aerobic effort rather than too fast or too slow and so
to gain the best results for the time spent in training.
I discovered years ago, through trial and error methods, that the best results in this respect were gained
by
running about 100 miles weekly at near my best aerobic efforts and that supplementary to this, by
running at an easier effort as many miles as I possibly could. I also found that by alternating the length
of the runs by running 10 miles one day and 20 the next, rather than by running 15 miles a day, I gained
better results.
This was due to the gaining of better muscular capillarization though the longer continued training
(efforts of two or more hours), this in turn allowed for better utilization of oxygen.
The total weekly mileage that you manage to do Will be governed by your climatic conditions and
available time for training. However, it is important to realize this point; that it is not the distance that
will stop you in training as much as the speeds. If you keep the running efforts to a level within your
capabilities, then you will quickly be able to manage a large mileage. It is better to run a long way
slowly rather than to curtail the mileage possible by running to fast.
When I say that your aim should be to run a weekly schedule such as the following, I mean it only as a
guide and that you should adjust it to suit your own daily program, fitness and age.
Monday 10 miles (15km) at 1/2 effort over undulating course
Tuesday 15 miles (25km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat
Wednesday 12 miles (20km) at 1/2 effort over hilly course
Thursday 18 miles (30km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat
Friday 10 miles (15km) at 3/4 effort over flat course
Saturday 22 miles (35km) at 1/4 effort over reasonably flat
Sunday 15 miles (25km) at 1/4 effort over any type terrain
It is just a matter of running what you feel capable of; the more the better.
It is also wise to jog easily every morning for at least minutes or longer. The longer the better."

I think if any hobby runner is running 8 to 10 hrs per week, as suggested early in the quote, then he/she is probably close to optimal training.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 09:16 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian McN:
The point I'm trying to make is one that Nobby already has. A less talented runner needs the volume more than anyone to develop physiologically or it just simply will not happen.

---

Brian,

This comment has really aroused my curiosity. On what evidence do you guys base this? How do you know less talented runners need the volume more?

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-22-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 09:17 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian McN:
Richard,

The point I'm trying to make is one that Nobby already has. A less talented runner needs the volume more than anyone to develop physiologically or it just simply will not happen.
Lower volume running for someone with little to no talent will pigeon hole them into mediocre results. They will not improve to their potential because they are not developing the infrastructure necessary to run faster. If you are not born with a strong heart the good news is you can strengthen it, if you have few capillaries that branch out to the working muscles you can develop new ones, If you have a low mitochondria count you can increase it. There is only one way to do this and it's not through running less.
Of the people I have come in contact with that have said they can not handle the larger volume of running without injury most have the same thing in common. They have either increased their mileage too quickly or have mixed too much quality into their schedule before they have had a chance to digest the new workload. I can't recall ever getting hurt from a long run. It's always when I introduce quality into my schedule that gets me injured. That's why I periodize my training. I work the high volume then lower the volume and work on the "speed." I don't get injured because my body has strengthened my skeletal muscular system enough to take the abuse of a race or interval session.
Also, I don't think when my mileage increased over the last two years I came even close to a 10% increase per week. I barely noticed the change in volume.

---

Brian:

You have said it better than I, or Lydiard, could have. And you have just explained principles behind the Lydiard training beautifully. Lydiard always said that the reason why he had his runners do 100MPW, when recruited American college runners didn't run that much, is because he never recruited them and because they are not naturally talented, that he had to "build them up from scratch" by running a lot.

I always thought it was interesting that, if you visit letsrun message board, there are tons of threads talking about how little Coe trained (whether it's realy true or not) and people are trying to justify not running much. But there NO thread, perhaps mentioned here and there but NONE started, about Steve Ovett running up to 150MPW. I'm not saying, by no mean, that Ovett was untalented; but here's the athlete who ran to the top by training very very hard--upto 150MPW while Coe trained 50MPW (which was dropped since the earlier days down to as low as 30MPW for some reason...). Everybody's busy "hoping" to be like Coe; but nobody is willing to work like Ovett. Interesting trend, isn't it?

Human body is amazing in how much stress it can handle. Who would have thought a woman can run a marathon!? (afterall, "doctors" used to say that, if a girl ran too much, her utelus could fall out!) Now they're running 100 miles or 24 hours... If there were as many PhD exercise physiologists in the 50s, I'm sure they'd be the first to say 4-minute-mile was impossible (human upper limit). Now some of them say we would reach sub-2 hour marathon in year such-and-such... Makes you wonder if they know anything ;o)

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 09:17 AM               

If there was such a thing as an optimal load for a given person, that person would need only train to that load and all would be perfect. That's not the case, training is cyclic and continuously variant.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 09:27 AM               

See tigger's post quoting Lydiard below yours for a fine example of the high mileage philosophy (or if you prefer we can call it the high training volume philosophy). See the responses to marty's posts for an example of how some high mileage proponents are reluctant to believe anyone could actual reach optimal training at relatively low mileages.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-22-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 09:43 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Human body is amazing in how much stress it can handle. Who would have thought a woman can run a marathon!? (afterall, "doctors" used to say that, if a girl ran too much, her utelus could fall out!) Now they're running 100 miles or 24 hours... If there were as many PhD exercise physiologists in the 50s, I'm sure they'd be the first to say 4-minute-mile was impossible (human upper limit). Now some of them say we would reach sub-2 hour marathon in year such-and-such... Makes you wonder if they know anything ;o)

---

The sub-2 marathon would be a tough one. The marathon times haven't dropped that drastically. I recall a discussion on it, one of the points was about the few people capable of running sub-hour half-marathons, so the task of doing two back to back would be daunting.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 09:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
bigappliepie,

See tigger's post quoting Lydiard below yours for a fine example of the high mileage philosophy (or if you prefer we can call it the high training volume philosophy).

---

IP: Logged