| Author |
Topic: The point of training. |
kemibe
Cool Runner |
 posted Jul-04-2002 12:52 AM
  
For a good compendium on how some of the greatest distance runners in history trained, check out the "How They Trained" links here.There are certainly a lot of fine track runners who don't top out at over 65-70 mpw, although most such examples are young (collegiate or early post-collegiate) and tend to increase as they mature toward their prime. Few marathoners of renown are consistently below 100 at peak, although Steve Jones reputedly ran 80-100, much of it quite fast. In any discussion of "miles per week," we're all dealing with a certain amount of over-generalizing. Few runners, great or not, maintain the same type of mileage year-round, but often their top month or so becomes the standard for rwhat's reported to the masses. Most marathoners following a Pfitzinger-type plan hold peak mileage for perhaps eight weeks before a goal race. If there's anything I would stress it's that running fewer miles faster doesn't accomplish the same thing as running more miles more slowly, but for many runners it is, by preference or limitations on time and tender tissue, a preferred (and often successful) approach. Someone who used to post here frequently, now a successful master and at one time a 48:00 10M runner, enjoyed running 55-60 miles a week - much of it very hard. I also imagine that many of the mileage totals being flagged here as "low" would not be low for the majority of this board's readers. But they are attainable. Several runners I am now quasi-advising have built up gradually from ~30 mpw to ~60-70 and have enjoyed great success, and it's a tactic that works well for a lot of people because it doesn't cannibalize a ton of time and the percentile gains incurred in most cases outstrip those that would occur by going from 70 to 100 or more.
IP: Logged |
CoachB
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-04-2002 03:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by malmo:
CoachB, you're full of it. VO2max doesn't mean anything.
malmo, I must say that I enjoy disagreeing with you ! If it wasn't so late here, and I didn't have to worry about waking up my son, I would have been laughing out loud. (LOL?). You took a quote of mine out of context of it's original message. I never claimed that VO2 max is the most important factor determining place, but it is a good place to start looking and working from. What I was trying to tell Tigger is that this one variable is HIGHLY dependant on time spent training (distance, mileage, kilometrege, whatever). I never claimed that VO2 max was the only variable predicting success. I actually belive that Lactate Threshold is a more accurate predictor. Carlos Lopes, one of your low (comparitively) VO2 maxers could run at an intensity equal to over 95% of his VO2 max and still not cross his lactate threshold. Many other elite athletes hit LT at 80-85%. VO2. I had a relativly high VO2 max (for someone with my PR's). However, I hit my LT at a much lower percentage than I should. Hence, I tend to go out too fast because it feels pretty comfortable and then blow up. Looking back at my training from college and immediately folloiwng, I see that the thing I needed most were more miles and I needed them at a pace that was just below my lactate threshold, comfortably hard. I spent my HS and college years having bought into the hard/easy syndrome. Go really damn hard on your hard days and shuffle through your easy days. As a matter of fact, take easy days off if you are tired. I'm not quite sure of the reference to EP being born in the 60's. It is certainly incorrect. In my research, I dug up articles from the 50's, some of which had citations from the 30's. If it was sarcasam, an attempt to compare EP to a bad acid trip, ok, that's funny. (even though I disagree with it). Also, I'm not too sure what the aversion to science is here malmo. After all, this is science done in search of your magic ordinal numbers. The original point of my post was to point out that there are many variables involved in the quest for that magic ordinal number, not one: be it mileage, Lactate Threshold, VO2 max, skin color, favorite color, or pet's name. Too many times on here, people will spout off the benefits of high mileage, possibly without having even tried it themselves. Why? because you and kemibe and thoner and 'pede say so. I happen to agree with much of what you say as well, sifu (as long as we are using the Kung Fu references). However, when peoples juices get flowing, and numbers start getting thrown around, even you, oh wise one, tend to get overly simplistic and put forth training distance as the only important variable. I have read the "Summer of Malmo" and think it is brilliant. No where in there does it say, run x number of miles. It says run more than you are running. It also talks about doing things like 200's and tempo runs. Why do those so often tend to go out the window in discussions here?
IP: Logged |
mike penman
unregistered |
posted Jul-04-2002 06:33 AM
kemibe - I'm reading your post at work, and had to suppress a celebratory 'whoop'! Quite the most sane, succinct post on this issue to date without bull****ting and bravado. Phew!
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-04-2002 08:02 AM
Mike, I agree with you totally.
IP: Logged |
skylander
unregistered |
posted Jul-04-2002 10:31 AM
I appreciate the research and posts Coach B has contributed. Since he directs kids, it seems knowing more than "run fast and run far" is important. The vast majority of coaches will guide kids, vulnerable, and/or inexperienced runners. It goes back to why Magic Johnson couldn't cut it as an NBA head coach-you need a hardened sense of empathy. I doubt anyone within shouting distance currently is approaching professional super-stardom and/or coaching someone at that level. So gettting the most out of developing runners seems like a good direction, even on the "competitive wire". Frankly, I would hope exercise science, specific sessions, tempo runs, fartleks, hill workouts, etc would be mentioned in the thread's most succinct post. However, it is hard to disagree with the breviloquence(mediation) kemibe displayed.
IP: Logged |
malmo
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-04-2002 10:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by CoachB:
malmo, I must say that I enjoy disagreeing with you !
CoachB. You're supposed to enjoy disagreeing with me. I'd have no respect for you if it were any other way. Late for BBQ. Will read and respond when I get a chance!!
IP: Logged |
fred urie
unregistered |
posted Jul-07-2002 12:23 PM
Jib,
Take that mileage up yet?
If you are running in the morning, and throw in a couple
of easy afternoon runs, that would start the climb.I went from about 85 in December to 155 in June several years
ago. That was probably drastic, but I didn't get injured.
IP: Logged |
jib
unregistered |
posted Jul-07-2002 04:06 PM
Actually yes I do plan to start uping my mileage starting from this week. But I've been sick and off for a while so I'll have to start fairly low - 55/60. I think I'll go up 5 miles a week for three weeks then a low week, then up again and just see how it feels. This will be my base stuff before I start serious racing after Christmas.
IP: Logged |
JoeO
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-10-2002 10:47 AM
I don't get too much into the physiological specifics of all this. I realize that informs the training methods, but I generally view the methods and the results they produce as being all I need to know. To me this debate always seems to fall into two camps: The low-mileage/high-intensity camp vs. the high-mileage/lower-to-medium intensity camp.I've actually had a few years following both philosophies. In college I did nothing but relatively low mileage high intensity workouts. I think the highest week I did was 80 miles, usually around 60-70. Two to three intense speed sessions a week usually on the track of intervals that would leave me gasping. Usually repeats of anywhere from 800 meters to 1 mile with long rest. The word "tempo" did not exist for us. What I got from this was a quick improvement followed by a gradual plateau of my performances. By my senior year I felt burned out and simply could not improve. And post college, after taking a year or two easy, I found I could not come back with the same methods. Oh I could reproduce the intensity of my college workouts, but not the workout times or race performances. After a couple of years of that, I pretty much gave up for the better part of a decade, running only sporadically. Since I started running seriously again a couple of years ago, I've gone much the opposite route. Especially in this past year I've done high mileage and lot more tempo work. Long tempo intervals with short rests. Each interval leaves me out-of breath, of course, but not gasping and dying. Very few intense sessions. When I first started doing these workouts, I remember thinking, "what is the point? These tempo miles are too easy. I can't be getting much benefit out of them." Then I started racing. The results have been startling. I quickly begin running very near my college PRs from 12 years ago. Haven't broken any of them yet but it's only been about 6 months. I still drop it down from time to time for a few weeks of low mileage/high-intensity. But overall, I am a convert to high mileage with lots of tempo miles.
IP: Logged |
CoachB
Cool Runner |
posted Jul-10-2002 01:28 PM
That sounds about right!One of the staples of our cross country program is 4x1 mile with 1 min rest. We use a 2 mile time trial a week before to set the pace. We go 30 sec per mile slower than our 2 mile pace (ie, 11:00 2 mile gives a 6:00 per mile pace for the workout.) This season I am also going to replace some of our early season 200 meter intervals with a "negative split run" where the kids will run out for a specified time at a decent pace and then come back 10-15% faster (out in 20, back in 17).
IP: Logged |
WI MTP
Cool Runner |
posted May-05-2006 04:12 PM
Every once in awhile I like to print once of these past threads off for bathroom reading. Less pages than that Engel thread, but some good thoughts.
IP: Logged |
CoachB
Cool Runner |
posted May-07-2006 11:32 PM
Wow. That was a pretty good thread! Sorry if I sounded like I was trying to be a know it all.Since my last post on that thread: Wife had son.
Took mileage up to 100 to see what it was all about
Ran faster than I had in a while.
Got injured
Came back with very low (20-30 mpw) but all of it at a pace just below AT.
Ran decently for a 5 mile race.
Got injured again All that was just in the 8 months following the conclusion of that thread. Currently, I'd be happy to be able to run 30 mpw without something crapping out on me because I am again....injured. I may alter my training practices quite a lot, but I do that because I am looking for the best way to skin a cat (I believe there are many). I'd rather experiment on myself than on my athletes. They only have a few years of this team stuff. I have my whole life to keep trying different things. I still believe in the physiological principles that I laid out in the beginning of this post.
IP: Logged |
laker
Cool Runner |
posted May-09-2006 04:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by WI MTP:
Every once in awhile I like to print once of these past threads off for bathroom reading. Less pages than that Engel thread, but some good thoughts.
That was a cool thread, got any others (anything but can efficient walking lead to efficient running).
IP: Logged |
 |
