posted Jun-05-2007 02:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runfastcoach:
Rowing and running have very similar metabolic demands over time. Time and effort are the keys. If they are similar, the demands are similar!

Tinman

---

See the post above yours.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-05-2007 02:45 PM               

How much mileage and intensity your body can take in a certain period of time (/day, week, month, year...) I believe is determined in part by your anatomy (bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments) and by previous athletic history (ie: injuries, previous training).

I do believe that for the general person and without excess (ie: 100mile weeks for a 200m race), mileage will make you a faster runner. But every persons threshold for mileage, no matter how gradual the increase, is different. Some may be less "genetically gifted" in the sense that they can't stay injury free running high mileage but are still athletically gifted in that they can still race faster with less perceived effort that others who can sustain a higher weekly mileage but race slower. (a little wordy there...)

So it's up to you to gauge what your optimal mileage/intensity is based on experience (it's the only way!). Generally, you'd want to run the most mileage you can while staying COMPLETELY healthy. Elite or not. And that number's different for every person and does not dictate race performance.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-05-2007 05:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dragonsrouges:
How much mileage and intensity your body can take in a certain period of time (/day, week, month, year...) I believe is determined in part by your anatomy (bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments) and by previous athletic history (ie: injuries, previous training).

I do believe that for the general person and without excess (ie: 100mile weeks for a 200m race), mileage will make you a faster runner. But every persons threshold for mileage, no matter how gradual the increase, is different. Some may be less "genetically gifted" in the sense that they can't stay injury free running high mileage but are still athletically gifted in that they can still race faster with less perceived effort that others who can sustain a higher weekly mileage but race slower. (a little wordy there...)

So it's up to you to gauge what your optimal mileage/intensity is based on experience (it's the only way!). Generally, you'd want to run the most mileage you can while staying COMPLETELY healthy. Elite or not. And that number's different for every person and does not dictate race performance.

---

I don't think a blanket description of what constitutes 'optimal' is even possible without describing it as being 'optimal' for what. The 100 mile week / 200 meter is a good example because it implies differences in specification of training. I'd think 'optimal' would mean whatever is required to absolutely be the best you can be at something, whereas maybe someone else would describe as the optimal way to get to something, like the minimum training time to get to this 5k time goal...or maybe the easiest (least demanding in terms of effort) training to do it. Optimal is too vague on it's own.

Anyone saying there's an optimal number of miles a week a person can handle isn't really saying much because it doesn't convey the goal. Get to their fastest? Get fastest over 100 meters? Get fastest over 100 miles? Maybe there's gobs of distance runners out there that, with proper training, would stand out much better in global rankings if they targetted the mile as their race distance, and maybe their 'optimal' mileage or training or whatever has nothing to do with how well they can cover a marathon, yet that's what they train to run. Or maybe someone excels strictly in covering a lot of distance over a given period of time. What's the optimal weekly mileage for someone trying to cover as many miles in a week as they possibly can, and does it really matter how fast or slow they become over 5k as a result?

Optimal is a junk concept.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-05-2007 10:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runfastcoach:
Rowing and running have very similar metabolic demands over time. Time and effort are the keys. If they are similar, the demands are similar!

Tinman

---

LMAO

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted Jun-07-2007 02:21 PM            

I do two semi-long runs a week (50:00+) with two short runs of 30:00 and a LR (75:00-80:00). I working on building those this summer to 30:00, 90:00, 30:00, 90:00 120:00.

I've seen you write that any harder running (fartlek, hills) would be done inside the shorter runs as part of that type schedule. I've always done the oppisite and use the 30:00 runs as very easy jog recovery days. Just wondering if I understand you correctly and why you suggest this?

Thanks,
RH

IP: Logged

posted Jun-07-2007 03:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottonwood Trail:
Nobby,

I do two semi-long runs a week (50:00+) with two short runs of 30:00 and a LR (75:00-80:00). I working on building those this summer to 30:00, 90:00, 30:00, 90:00 120:00.

I've seen you write that any harder running (fartlek, hills) would be done inside the shorter runs as part of that type schedule. I've always done the oppisite and use the 30:00 runs as very easy jog recovery days. Just wondering if I understand you correctly and why you suggest this?

Thanks,
RH

---

Cottonwood:

I like your posts. Keep up.

I would go either or. I think basically we have 3 combinations:

1) 3 longs runs at easier pace with 3~4 shorter runs at faster effort
2) 3 long runs as your point workout (good effort) and 4 recovery shorter runs
3) 2 long runs plus 2 shorter faster runs with 3 recovery days.

I guess my answer would be: Whatever you feel most comfortable with. I definitely think long runs are important. You need to do them; and if you can do them close to your good aerobic effort; great. And if you're a tough guy and can do intermediate runs even harder, by all means. I would opt actually to jump to (3), if not (1), and make sure you have some variety of effort but 2, not necessarily 3, long runs. (2), I think, is more or less the initial stage when you try to get used to long runs. Nothing wrong with it but somehow, if you want performance improvement, you need to include some effort runs. Now, Squires used to do more or less long fartlek type of workout where his runners would go for a long run of 2 hours and they would include some surges. That actually would shoot more than one bird with one stone (if you can handle it); but then you should make sure easy runs are easy. Of course, I think those guys would use morning jog as their recovery runs anyways...

Lydiard, time and again, said the presented schedule is nothing but a guide. You need to understand the principles behind it. So what do you need? You need to do some long runs. You also need to include some effort runs. However you can get them all in; would be fine.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-07-2007 08:32 PM            

I got the idea to train with #2 from a guy who used to post here, KudzuRunner. He would do 3-4 30:00 jogs, 2 90:00 runs w/fartlek, hills, repeats and a 12-15 mile long run. Also, Benji Durdens marathon plan is similar and the things you've written.

I guess that #2 seemed like the best way for me mentally. To know that the day after a harder, longer run will be a very, easy, short 30:00 jog is nice.

Right now, all these are probably done between 8:30 and 10 minute miles. I run on trails and have no real idea the pace, just whatever I feel like that day. I record everything in my log as a 10:00 mile. Hopefully, by the end of the summer I'll be moving at a bit faster pace every day.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-07-2007 09:18 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Cottonwood:

I like your posts. Keep up.

I would go either or. I think basically we have 3 combinations:

1) 3 longs runs at easier pace with 3~4 shorter runs at faster effort
2) 3 long runs as your point workout (good effort) and 4 recovery shorter runs
3) 2 long runs plus 2 shorter faster runs with 3 recovery days.

I guess my answer would be: Whatever you feel most comfortable with. I definitely think long runs are important. You need to do them; and if you can do them close to your good aerobic effort; great. And if you're a tough guy and can do intermediate runs even harder, by all means. I would opt actually to jump to (3), if not (1), and make sure you have some variety of effort but 2, not necessarily 3, long runs. (2), I think, is more or less the initial stage when you try to get used to long runs. Nothing wrong with it but somehow, if you want performance improvement, you need to include some effort runs. Now, Squires used to do more or less long fartlek type of workout where his runners would go for a long run of 2 hours and they would include some surges. That actually would shoot more than one bird with one stone (if you can handle it); but then you should make sure easy runs are easy. Of course, I think those guys would use morning jog as their recovery runs anyways...

Lydiard, time and again, said the presented schedule is nothing but a guide. You need to understand the principles behind it. So what do you need? You need to do some long runs. You also need to include some effort runs. However you can get them all in; would be fine.

---

I agree with Nobby.
Many years aogo I ran a programme that was as follows
Sun: 120 to 150 mins
Mon: 45 to 50 mins semi fartlek/hills /trails
Tues: 70 to 85 mins steady but undulating course.
Wed : As for Mon
Thurs: As for Tues
Fri: 30 to 45 mins easy on a Golf Course
Sat: Club run (Up to 60 mins) or a Race.

I did this to "get consistent" as at times I was all over the place. Either too much long stuff or too many days off. Once I hit that 'balance of days I was right. It took 2 years og this sort of running to get me where I had the confidence to push it out.
The Key was the 'easier' days, they gave me good recovery,

Cheers : Kim

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-07-2007 09:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Cottonwood:

I like your posts. Keep up.

I would go either or. I think basically we have 3 combinations:

1) 3 longs runs at easier pace with 3~4 shorter runs at faster effort
2) 3 long runs as your point workout (good effort) and 4 recovery shorter runs
3) 2 long runs plus 2 shorter faster runs with 3 recovery days.

I guess my answer would be: Whatever you feel most comfortable with. I definitely think long runs are important. You need to do them; and if you can do them close to your good aerobic effort; great. And if you're a tough guy and can do intermediate runs even harder, by all means. I would opt actually to jump to (3), if not (1), and make sure you have some variety of effort but 2, not necessarily 3, long runs. (2), I think, is more or less the initial stage when you try to get used to long runs. Nothing wrong with it but somehow, if you want performance improvement, you need to include some effort runs. Now, Squires used to do more or less long fartlek type of workout where his runners would go for a long run of 2 hours and they would include some surges. That actually would shoot more than one bird with one stone (if you can handle it); but then you should make sure easy runs are easy. Of course, I think those guys would use morning jog as their recovery runs anyways...

Lydiard, time and again, said the presented schedule is nothing but a guide. You need to understand the principles behind it. So what do you need? You need to do some long runs. You also need to include some effort runs. However you can get them all in; would be fine.

---

I agree with Nobby.
Many years aogo I ran a programme that was as follows
Sun: 120 to 150 mins
Mon: 45 to 50 mins semi fartlek/hills /trails
Tues: 70 to 85 mins steady but undulating course.
Wed : As for Mon
Thurs: As for Tues
Fri: 30 to 45 mins easy on a Golf Course
Sat: Club run (Up to 60 mins) or a Race.

I did this to "get consistent" as at times I was all over the place. Either too much long stuff or too many days off. Once I hit that 'balance of days I was right. It took 2 years og this sort of running to get me where I had the confidence to push it out.
The Key was the 'easier' days, they gave me good recovery,

Cheers : Kim

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-07-2007 10:14 PM            

I can see me going to more of what you're both favoring later on. The thing is, I feel I need those short 30:00 jogs to recover and the idea of any faster stuff with a 60:00 run the next day seems a bit much for me. Maybe, at my fitness level, the time on my feet takes a lot out of me even at a slower pace.

As my fitness improves (I missed most of the last 5-6 months with various injuries) the way you did it will seem more doable. The other thing is I have no real racing plans. I just want to be in good shape and enjoy a good run in the woods. After I get my feet back under me, I'd like to do a few HM and 10Ks in the fall. Nothing major, just enjoy feeling like a runner again after so tough a time lately.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-08-2007 09:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cottonwood Trail:
Thanks again, Nobby.

I got the idea to train with #2 from a guy who used to post here, KudzuRunner. He would do 3-4 30:00 jogs, 2 90:00 runs w/fartlek, hills, repeats and a 12-15 mile long run. Also, Benji Durdens marathon plan is similar and the things you've written.

I guess that #2 seemed like the best way for me mentally. To know that the day after a harder, longer run will be a very, easy, short 30:00 jog is nice.

Right now, all these are probably done between 8:30 and 10 minute miles. I run on trails and have no real idea the pace, just whatever I feel like that day. I record everything in my log as a 10:00 mile. Hopefully, by the end of the summer I'll be moving at a bit faster pace every day.

---

Cottonwood,

I think what you are doing is just fine. You are following a plan similar to what Tinman advocates. Hit it hard with the 2 "big work outs" per week which may include tempo or critical velocity reps or just a faster pace above normal and the other days of running are easy. It has sure worked for me. I do a long run with some quality and sometimes it may be just a faster finish long run and then another mid week longer run with faster stuff. This is on low miles. If one is higher miles a separate normal long run at easy pace is also recommended. Keep in mind, he individualizes his programs.

http://www.therunzone.com/articles.html

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

IP: Logged

posted Jun-08-2007 10:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by oar:
Well, here is the view from the indoor rowing scene.
Since most people don't have the time to row 100 miles per week many follow a high intensity plan wherein the slowest row will be a 60 min at about marathon pace, all the other stuff much faster.
That plan is about 40 miles a week.

This works for many.

Absolutely nobody rows the equivalent of 9 min miles even on the longest rows. I would say I never row slower than current marathon pace and to that additional difficulties are added (stroke rate restriction).

One of the strongest 48 year old rowers had his lactate threshold and VO2max tested and the following recommendations were made:

Longest, slowest rows: HR 160.

At peak shape my pace on LSD rows (90 mins or more) usually had me at 160 at the end also and this did not feel hard.
At least half the row was at or above 150 with an estimated max HR of 180 (never actually seen but I am not really fond of max HR tests, I have seen 176).

I am reading on this board how people train with 9:30 miles and how this somehow translates into good race performances.

I find this hard to believe.

---

If you are running a 160 mile week at 6,000 feet, most of the miles
might be at 8:30 if you are an elite female Japanese marathoner.

Very interesting how the rowers train.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-08-2007 10:17 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
If you are running a 160 mile week at 6,000 feet, most of the miles
might be at 8:30 if you are an elite female Japanese marathoner.

Very interesting how the rowers train.

---

And who among us hasn't secretly wished they were an elite female Japanese marathoner?

IP: Logged

posted Jun-08-2007 10:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
And who among us hasn't secretly wished they were an elite female Japanese marathoner?

---

All the 2:15 guys posting here.

I met guys like Trent Briney ( 2:12 ) this winter, and they were incredibly
humble.

IP: Logged

posted Jun-30-2007 08:58 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Jun-30-2007 09:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
All the 2:15 guys posting here.

I met guys like Trent Briney ( 2:12 ) this winter, and they were incredibly
humble.

---

Watch out! It's a disease and you might catch it!

IP: Logged

posted Jun-30-2007 09:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Number 1 Adherent:

Watch out! It's a disease and you might catch it!

---

Whatever you say, tigger.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2007 12:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
On Arthur Lydiard's high mileage approach for everyone, Jason quotes David Costill, PhD, "I think Lydiard ruined many more athletes than he helped." That comment is likely to stir things up.

---

I didn't mean to revive this thread when we had other meaningless thread going 9 pages too long but I just wanted to get the record straight for the sake of Lydiard as well as Dr. Costill. It DOES mean something to me to defend the Old Man when someone accuses him for somethning that is not true, using some high profile individual's quote when he didn't even say it.

I just received a message from Dr. Costill with an apology, stating that he didn't see this Running Times article and his own quote in regards to Lydiard until recently and said, whatever his comment might have been, "not in the context of the interviewers discussion."

On the other hand, I hope this Krap guy loses credibility for what he wrote. It seems rather clear to me that he just wanted to bash high mileage training and "made up" some stories to justify it. We're getting comment from Shalene Franagan as well so, hate to say, more to come...

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2007 01:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
I didn't mean to revive this thread when we had other meaningless thread going 9 pages too long but I just wanted to get the record straight for the sake of Lydiard as well as Dr. Costill. It DOES mean something to me to defend the Old Man when someone accuses him for somethning that is not true, using some high profile individual's quote when he didn't even say it.

I just received a message from Dr. Costill with an apology, stating that he didn't see this Running Times article and his own quote in regards to Lydiard until recently and said, whatever his comment might have been, "not in the context of the interviewers discussion."

On the other hand, I hope this Krap guy loses credibility for what he wrote. It seems rather clear to me that he just wanted to bash high mileage training and "made up" some stories to justify it. We're getting comment from Shalene Franagan as well so, hate to say, more to come...

---

Thanks for getting the clarification from the horse's mouth Nobby. It sort of undermines the whole point of Richard's original post.

quote:

---

On Arthur Lydiard's high mileage approach for everyone, Jason quotes David Costill, PhD, "I think Lydiard ruined many more athletes than he helped." That comment is likely to stir things up.

---

I wonder if we can get Jason Karp to confirm that he took the thread out of context.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2007 01:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
It seems rather clear to me that he just wanted to bash high mileage training and "made up" some stories to justify it.

---

Of course, I'd have to prove it with facts, numbers or evidences or whatever they were... Maybe I'll conduct some research! ;o)

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2007 02:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Of course, I'd have to prove it with facts, numbers or evidences or whatever they were... Maybe I'll conduct some research! ;o)

---

Phew ! Good to see Dr Costill has 'rectified' that satatement.
When I saw this thread revived I thought Agent99 was on the job.
Good one Nobby. Prepared on this side of the Pacific.

I have a US High School Team coning into town tonight.
Wanting 'heaps" of running (as well as Touristy things !!).
I have an awesome cold ar present so it is going to interesting !!!!!

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2007 02:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Of course, I'd have to prove it with facts, numbers or evidences or whatever they were... Maybe I'll conduct some research! ;o)

---

Phew ! I thought Agent99 was on board again.
Great to see Dr Costill has contacted you Nobby.
Ready on this side of the Pacific !!!!!

I have a California High School Cross Country Team coming into town Tomorrow. Wanting "heaps" of running (and of course Touristy things). I have an awesome cold right now so it will be interesting !!!

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2007 02:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Of course, I'd have to prove it with facts, numbers or evidences or whatever they were... Maybe I'll conduct some research! ;o)

---

Phew ! I thought Agent99 was on board again.
Great to see Dr Costill has contacted you Nobby.
Ready on this side of the Pacific !!!!!

I have a California High School Cross Country Team coming into town Tomorrow. Wanting "heaps" of running (and of course Touristy things). I have an awesome cold right now so it will be interesting !!!

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2007 02:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kim Stevenson:
Phew ! I thought Agent99 was on board again.
Great to see Dr Costill has contacted you Nobby.
Ready on this side of the Pacific !!!!!

I have a California High School Cross Country Team coming into town Tomorrow. Wanting "heaps" of running (and of course Touristy things). I have an awesome cold right now so it will be interesting !!!

---

Whoops !! Sorry about that Team I thought I had lost everything !!

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-07-2007 04:25 PM               

Dr. Costill would never desparage Arthur Lydiard, knowingly, I believe.

About Karp, I believe he has moments when he means well. However, I'll suggest his opinions differ considerably from the tried and proven methods of Lydiard and coaches who have used high volume distance running as the foundation for more specific, faster or harder running.

I want to clarify one thing about my training philosophy. Much like Bowerman, I borrow from the best and then do what I can to improve the specifics. I am a firm believer in the endurance base (marathon base) that Lydiard promoted as the key to success. I may not advance runners as quickly as Arthur did, but I still support firmly his method of building aerobic endurance. Often I thank my lucky stars that my first coach was a Lydiard man.

Mr. Mick was a big believer in distance running as the foundation of faster racing. He had read articles by Lydiard in 1962 and found a method that suited him well. Mr. Mick said that even though he tweeked it to suit his situation, the basis of success was 4 or 5 runs of 15-17 miles each week. Rather than doing time trial 6 milers or 3 milers, as per the Lydiard schedule, Mr. Mick did repeat miles on grass at semi-strong but not too hard pace each Wednesday, all summer as he prepared for fall cross-country. And, during the winter, he did the same 15-17 mile runs, but instead of repeat miles he did fartlek - what I later called AF - aerobic fartlek. The key was doing it below the anaerobic level - or, if you will, at close to CV pace. Mr. Mick just said it was about his 10-mile race pace. He could run 10 miles in about 50 minutes, so that's not far off my CV pace.

About CV pace. If you think closely about it, it is not too much of a distant idea as Lydiard's time trials. I don't think people who read the Lydiard books grasp the point that Lydiard's time trials were not 100%, exhaustive efforts. They were supposed to be 7/8ths effort, or what I would call a strong but not too hard pace. Kim and Nobby can elucidate. But, if you relate the idea that TT per Lydiard, let's say over 6 miles or 10k, were strong but not hard, then you see how my CV intervals are really quite similar. I insist that CV reps are not hard, just semi-strong. Sure, you breath vigorously, but you never go anaerobic. It is intended to support the entire aerobic buildup which needs to be steady and consistent for weeks, months, and even years.

It is my sincere hope that people who talk about training realize that many of the core concepts built long ago are useful, still, today. There is NO SUBSTITUTE FOR BUILDING AEROBIC ENDURANCE. All anaerobic training is what MR. MICK called "icing on the cake."

Take care and have a great day!

Tinman
runfastcoach@gmail.com

IP: Logged