Cool Running :: The point of training.

> home > community > discussion forums > the competitive wire > the point of training. (Page 3)

| > rules | > faq | > e-mail to a friend | moderator: Currenscontendere

The point of training.

Topic is 5 pages:
1 2 3 4 5

> next newest topic | > next oldest topic

Author	Topic: The point of training.
fred urie unregistered	posted Jul-01-2002 06:24 PM A brisk 80 miles is probably superior. I just had a problem with a hundred miles being defined as high mileage. Gebrselassie is probably the greatest distance runner to ever live. IP: Logged
fred urie unregistered	posted Jul-01-2002 06:38 PM Another way of putting it is the systematic increase in functional overloads. The body responds to a reasonable physical overload by supercompensation. An unreasonable overload results in injury or burnout. Being able to interpret the physical response is the key. IP: Logged
jib unregistered	posted Jul-01-2002 06:44 PM quote: Originally posted by fred urie: A brisk 80 miles is probably superior. I just had a problem with a hundred miles being defined as high mileage. Gebrselassie is probably the greatest distance runner to ever live. why do you have such a problem as 100 miles being defined as high mileage - what else could it possibly be? Ok it might not be the highest any human being has ever done, but it still takes a huge time commitment from somebody to do that much. I'd be in awe of anyone who ran that much in a week whether they were elite or not, just as I respect anyone who has run a marathon whether they ran it in 2:30 or 4:30. But then I suppose that you don't consider the marathon to be a long distance event either. By the way - I respect your comments about furthering the limits of what we think is possible - "he who trains the same remains the same" But 100 miles is high mileage even by elite standards. IP: Logged
kiwi battler unregistered	posted Jul-01-2002 07:02 PM jib wrote why do you have such a problem as 100 miles being defined as high mileage - what else could it possibly be? High mileage is a relative term, for someone who has never run more than 50 a week, 100 will be high. Where as an ultra marathoner may well consider 100 a week to be moderate. IP: Logged
jib unregistered	posted Jul-01-2002 08:05 PM yes but we're not talking about ultra marathoning training here are we? If you are trying to do the type training coach b sets out in this topic then doing it at 100 miles a week wouldn't even be moderate mileage. In this or another topic Fred wrote that even his 47 year old girlfriend can do 100 miles a week. Now that's either insulting to those people who spend a lot of their time running that far a week - or insulting to his girlfriend if she actually does run that much a week. I'm sure that she would feel it's an acomplishment and that she has to work hard at it. How many 47 year olds can do that? IP: Logged
Goel unregistered	posted Jul-01-2002 10:06 PM quote: Originally posted by kiwi battler: jib wrote [b]why do you have such a problem as 100 miles being defined as high mileage - what else could it possibly be? High mileage is a relative term, for someone who has never run more than 50 a week, 100 will be high. Where as an ultra marathoner may well consider 100 a week to be moderate.[/B] Fred may call 100 miles a week "ultra-low" mileage if hel likes, but that still doesn't change the fact that perhaps less than a percent of runners ever get to the point of training at that level even for a few weeks, and even fewer are willing to make it part of their training routine. Similarly, I could call 8-feet basketball players "midgets" and refer to 400-lb sumo wrestlers as "skinny". -- "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have? Four, because calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it one" -- Abraham Lincoln IP: Logged
skylander unregistered	posted Jul-01-2002 10:39 PM Fred, I don't even know exactly what is wrong but I do know that my right hip/leg rarely is in the correct position. A lot of pounding and pressure makes pain branch up to my back. When I go to my physical therapist, he'll put my leg into place and give me stretches and exercises to help it stay on its own. Well, each time he'll say no exertion with my legs for 6weeks. It never works-usually pops out doing something pedestrian within 5-7days. So I've basically given up on fixing it. I keep my miles down and run hard in 6-8week cycles instead of 6 to 12month cycles. I am inconsistent and by necessity sporadic-when I start going good I'll get ultra motivated, pretending like my health probs won't arise again. With Coach B's "point of running" post and what I've recently learned about physiology I'll try to figure out what I can do to get the best races out of myself. However maybe one time after a decent respite-I'll try and start back running extra slow miles, build up and maybe I'll be able to stay even at 80miles for multiple weeks. I suppose it is best for someone who already has basic speed, experience, and good health to do the normal long, slower base-and 100miles is attainable for many. For the younger set, gradually get there and not too many weeks at that number without some time to "regenerate". Everyone should be careful when doing hills though. I have a feeling doing a brutal hill workout and not being ready for it started this whole mess. IP: Logged
ryan1 unregistered	posted Jul-01-2002 10:44 PM If you look at everyone who finishes a marathon, 100 miles is, indeed, high mileage. I doubt that more than 3% of people who finish a marathon run that much. If you look at all men who run under, let's say, 2:20 (or women under 2:30 maybe), 100 miles is toward the lower end. I would estimate that the vast majority of these people run over 100 miles/week. For this group, 140+ might be considered high mileage. It's really a matter of semantics. "High" and "low" are defined by the setting we are dealing with. An analogy: among the population at large, we would consider someone with an IQ of 120 to have a high IQ. Among Nobel Prize winners, an IQ of 120 is not high at all. IP: Logged
malmo Cool Runner	posted Jul-01-2002 11:28 PM quote: Originally posted by jib: why do you have such a problem as 100 miles being defined as high mileage - what else could it possibly be? A starting point. IP: Logged
kemibe Cool Runner	posted Jul-02-2002 08:45 AM quote: Originally posted by silverda: CoachB, I'm surprised that you didn't feel Kemibe's wrath on this thread. Never has he shown such restraint. Did you beat him up once? Anyway, thanks for the post. Refreshing to have someone in the forum say something other than "Run far!" CoachB is right, I didn't read this until now, but even if I had it wouldn't have taken a lot of "restraint" to not respond with a diatribe, because CoachB said nothing I would disagree with. So, the newly "refreshed" silverda is the meritorious recipient instead of my ever-present, wild-eyed, table-pounding "wrath" for implying I've previously said "run far!" and expounded on nothing else. I don't have time to post physiology manifestos, but if you honestly need evidence I am not some sort of standard-bearer for blindly advocating mileage, go to the Running Times site and look through the article archives. Fact remains, the single change MOST people could make that would benefit their racing MOST is boosting total mileage over time. That could mean aiming for 30 or 40 for one runner, 130 or 140 for another. That's always been my stance. IP: Logged
maryt Cool Runner	posted Jul-02-2002 08:57 AM kemibe Still, there must be an upper limit somewhere. Your own foray into higher than 140 mpw hasn't resulted in faster race times for you yet. Do you think you will see results from your own increased mileage in the fall, or you do think maybe you went a did go a little far on the high mileage side? Not wanting to argue one way or the other, just curious as to if you are planning changes in your own training based on your recent high mileage training experience, or if you think it's just a matter of taking time for the body to adjust to added stress to get benefits later. IP: Logged
jib unregistered	posted Jul-02-2002 10:56 AM of course it's all relative - I totally agree. But given that most people or certainly a lot of people consider 100 miles a week high mileage - I simply want to know why Fred has a problem with that figure being termed high mileage. Compared to what??? Just interested to hear his point of view. [This message has been edited by jib (edited Jul-02-2002).] IP: Logged
fred urie unregistered	posted Jul-02-2002 11:18 AM My point of view is that if you consider 100 miles a week to be high, then you will never go to 140. Non-elite runners can train at 6 minutes per mile. So it's a hour in the morning, and an hour at night. Barriers are mental. You will never reach your potential if you are wearing a straightjacket. IP: Logged
jib unregistered	posted Jul-02-2002 11:42 AM thanks for clearing that up Fred. Though I don't necessarily think that just piling on the mileage is the answer for everyone. But then we are all indivduals and different things work for different people - even the elites. the high mileage mentality can be just as much of a straight jacket if you are not prepared to try anything else. IP: Logged
kemibe Cool Runner	posted Jul-02-2002 11:45 AM quote: Originally posted by maryt: kemibe Still, there must be an upper limit somewhere. Your own foray into higher than 140 mpw hasn't resulted in faster race times for you yet. Do you think you will see results from your own increased mileage in the fall, or you do think maybe you went a did go a little far on the high mileage side? Not wanting to argue one way or the other, just curious as to if you are planning changes in your own training based on your recent high mileage training experience, or if you think it's just a matter of taking time for the body to adjust to added stress to get benefits later. Obviously there's an upper limit (different for everyone) based on time constraints, time for recovery, and the need to include some faster running (tempo runs, intervals, tune-up races, etc.). I avidly tried to find mine earlier this year. Clearly there's a lag period between a spate of "strict" volume training (sorry malmo) and top-quality racing. This, I think, is the result of a combination of the adjustment to added stress you mentioned and the addition of sharpening work. I would stress that people who seem to beat the high-mileage drum here don't think that's the entire answer - just one of many necessary components, especially for people who focus mainly on the marathon. If I were a miler or even a 5K/10K specialist I would mix things up differently. Those not interested in two paragraphs of personal BS can stop reading here, but I wanted to address Mary's question because I learned some lessons this year. I ran my fastest times for 5K, 10K, and the marathon shortly after I had gone over 140 miles in a week for the first time (in 2001). You're probably talking about the fact that I ran 4:00 slower at Boston this year than last. I do think that in the early part of this year I became monomanical about a multitude of miles (with apologies to Dr. Suess), and even though I am fortunate to be able to remain uninjured and physically healthy even at 160+ (so far), I didn't do the faster running I would have needed to PR at Boston. I actually figured I would run slower there this year than I did, all things considered, since my running was really in the tank through March. I assumed those miles would pay off more this fall than immediately, but I agree that I overdid things somewhat. After Boston I discovered that if nothing else I had become very resilient and bouced back quickly, adding some real speedwork. As I result, I really began to sharpen up in May and in the past month and a half I've run several 5K's (not my preferred distance) in the 15:25-15:35 range (close to my PR) in the midst of moderately high mileage weeks (120-ish, I think). So that proves that no training program can be one-dimensional (duh). IP: Logged
silverda unregistered	posted Jul-02-2002 12:11 PM Nice to hear from you, Kemibe. I think your high mileage is a sensible idea, given that you have a reasonable chance to compete in big races and perhaps take home some prize money now and then. I think you give advice others, more often than not, who are not in that category. Runners who have no real chance of ever running, say, a 2:30 marathon, in my view need to consider whether shuffling along for 40 miles to get from 60 to 100 is a good use of 6 hours that could be spent earning an extra few hundred dollars a week, volunteering at a local school, and/or spending time with loved ones who no doubt have come to see them as self-obsessed. The irony is that most of these runners would probably find that all the mileage they are piling on at a snail's pace is not doing as much for them as would a little variety in the kind of running they do. ------------------ profile IP: Logged
rengle Cool Runner	posted Jul-02-2002 12:41 PM But why choose 2:30 as the cutoff point? It's totally arbitrary. A 2:25 male marathoner is not going to earn a living from the sport or make a national team. So why is it more "justifiable" for him to invest those extra six hours a week in his training than it would be for someone wanting to break 2:50 or 3:30? There are really two topics addressed here. One is how to maximize your ability and the other is whether it's personally worthwhile for you to do so. If you're writing about the first topic (as Kemibe is doing) you don't need to address the second. IP: Logged
silverda unregistered	posted Jul-02-2002 12:55 PM quote: Originally posted by rengle: But why choose 2:30 as the cutoff point? It's totally arbitrary. It was arbitrary, indeed, which is why I wrote: "say 2:30", instead of just "2:30". My point is that the relatively slower 100+/week runners are very likely to be overemphasizing the length of their runs, hence their relatively slow times in spite of their top 1% training distances. IP: Logged
NoRacer Cool Runner	posted Jul-02-2002 01:09 PM quote: Originally posted by silverda: Runners who have no real chance of ever running, say, a 2:30 marathon, in my view need to consider whether shuffling along for 40 miles to get from 60 to 100 is a good use of 6 hours that could be spent earning an extra few hundred dollars a week, volunteering at a local school, and/or spending time with loved ones who no doubt have come to see them as self-obsessed. The irony is that most of these runners would probably find that all the mileage they are piling on at a snail's pace is not doing as much for them as would a little variety in the kind of running they do. WHAT U TRYIN' TA SAY, WILLIS! To be honest, what I do with my time is my own business and if I want to use it running 40 more miles over a 6 hour time span, that's still my own business. Personally, I am seeing better training performances by emulating the training done by elites and I'm hoping that over time that the training I'm doing, now, translates into a big jump in racing performance. Another thing is, how would I know what I'm capable of if I don't try? I don't like defeatist attitudes. I will never be of that ilk. IP: Logged
fred urie unregistered	posted Jul-02-2002 01:32 PM Juma Ikangaa ran up to 220 miles a week. This was the amount of training stimulus his body required to run a 2:08 marathon. IP: Logged
lioness1 Cool Runner	posted Jul-02-2002 02:01 PM quote: Originally posted by silverda: I think you give advice others, more often than not, who are not in that category. Runners who have no real chance of ever running, say, a 2:30 marathon, in my view need to consider whether shuffling along for 40 miles to get from 60 to 100 is a good use of 6 hours that could be spent earning an extra few hundred dollars a week, volunteering at a local school, and/or spending time with loved ones who no doubt have come to see them as self-obsessed. While I would never suggest that the above alternatives aren't worthwhile ways to spend time, I think people sometimes need to experiment with where their limits are. And if they don't make that discovery when they have the health to do so, maybe there will be a restlessness that will never be satisfied. For that matter, some have told me, an low mileage runner at 30something miles per week, that I'm obsessed etc. (and that it was "extreme" of me to run a marathon). The tutor or overtime employee etc. who is wishing s/he were running is not going to be that effective at what s/he is doing. There will always be trade-offs, and people seem to respect less those who want to develop abilities that are not so readily apparent to the rest of the world. But if you have the drive/need to find out how your body will respond to 100 or 120 or, God knows, 200 miles of running per week, sometimes you need to just follow that drive and live with the consequences, whatever they are. Eventually, the person who does this will either decide it's worth it and keep doing it--or decide that this isn't where s/he wants to be and will move on to other pursuits. In either case, I don't think the experience is wasted. It would be too bad to want to reach for more but not do so b/c of some fear of how others will judge your choice or what will happen to you, etc. etc. (Hmm. I'd better watch it--this could start applying to me...) IP: Logged
skylander unregistered	posted Jul-02-2002 04:10 PM I agree with silverda, I am looking for ways to race well off of one-a-days and running for 1hour a day. For me 60miles is doable, 100miles is dreamable. Some people have limited resources-I currently find myself in that position. I think kids/inexperienced runners also need to be aware of their situation. I also think a 10th or 11th grade male athlete that runs maxes out at 58 in the 400 should address that more than just at peaking time. If a male HS athlete wants to vault up in the 5K, 3200, and XC-being able to run a fast 1600 seems important to me. Many kids need to work on speed and strength throughout the year because they flat out can't sprint. I have seen many NCAA distance runners get into the back side of college and still have never flirted with breaking 2min, I think that limits them severely. IP: Logged
CJ-BLDR unregistered	posted Jul-02-2002 04:39 PM quote: Originally posted by skylander: If a male HS athlete wants to vault up in the 5K, 3200, and XC-being able to run a fast 1600 seems important to me. Many kids need to work on speed and strength throughout the year because they flat out can't sprint. I have seen many NCAA distance runners get into the back side of college and still have never flirted with breaking 2min, I think that limits them severely. ... and if you get lapped in the 5 and 10 ... who cares how fast you can sprint? My college roomie couldn't break 2:00 in an 800 to save his life ... but he ran low 8's for the 3K, low to mid 14 for 5k and sub 30:00 for a 10K. .... so what's your point? Silverda has essentially stated that if you haven't done it already, you probably aren't going to do it, so give up and spend some extra time flippin' burgers at Mickey D's. IP: Logged
Paul in Colorado unregistered	posted Jul-02-2002 04:54 PM Folllowing up on CJ's point, Ritzenheim, who at 19 has already run a 13:27 (?) 5000, claims to have a 400 PR of 54 seconds, although I think he might be kidding. IP: Logged
jib unregistered	posted Jul-02-2002 05:08 PM Just because you can run fast over the long distances doesn't mean you should neglect speed work. Chances are you'll come up against someone who can just hang on your shoulder and kick. By the same token doesn't mean that you should just give up on your running dreams if you don't have much flat speed. Just work on it. IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Time (US).	> next newest topic \| > next oldest topic Topic is 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Administrative Options: > Close Topic \| > Archive/Move \| > Delete Topic Hop to: