Run-Down Forums Forum Index Run-Down Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Run-Down Forums Forum Index
Coaches Corner
Runners don't need coaching ...
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Run-Down Forums Forum Index -> Coaches Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PeterJ
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 02 Apr 2004
Posts: 59

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hurray, that means I can stop my weekly long very slow runs! Thumbs Up
I utterly hate them, it's painful for my muscles and joints, it always felt as 4 cylinder engine running on 3 - just out of the round!
It also hurts mentally, letting all the untalented jogger pass you and getting a pitiful smile, this always wrecked me ... Crying or Very sad

How much more fun are a 12 * 400 repeats, at least 10 times! Razz

Peter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PeterJ
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 02 Apr 2004
Posts: 59

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

... now back to serious:

Micah Ward wrote:
One of my theories for distance running is that training should be made up of a lot of runs that mimic the race pace and distance. Which means that training should stress tempos and fartleks rather than shorter intervals.
What say the rest of you?

I agree with your "mimic the race pace", the body must become accustomed to the pace and stress of the proposed speed. I am not sure about the length. In our 10 K training we normally run 1 K repeats, sometimes 400's. It is definetely not necessary to run the entire 10K in your 10K speed. I believe if you get tired, your body doesn't learn enough. 1K repeats with a recovering phase is much better.

Peter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It is definetely not necessary to run the entire 10K in your 10K speed.

Nor is it possible.

Dan
_________________
I get injured so you don't have to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
AM_Runner
All-Star
All-Star


Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 776
Location: NYC

PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

haha depends on what your last PR 10K is...

just kidding
_________________
The long run is what puts the tiger in the cat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Double
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 09 Apr 2004
Posts: 49
Location: Wisconsin

PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The vast majority of runners today could improve just by running long slow miles. Anyone new to the sport should just concentrate on learning to run and slowly extend the distance as they see fit. I cringe when people enter the sport and they already want to incorporate the various elements of speed training.

Improvements in racing are developed through a long and consistent approach. The bulk of this will be slower type mileage. Base mileage only will get most people to 90-95% of maximum in distances as short as 5,000 meters.

I am a strong believer strength/speed training, but it isn't always climbing onto a track. I set my marathon PR at 40 and only ran three interval workouts the 2-3 months prior to the race.

Heck, I have to go, but will leave with this. If you are making huge improvements in race times from a lot of speedwork, then there may be a chance you could make larger improvements by running more miles slowly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dan
Chief Pontificator
Chief Pontificator


Joined: 22 Mar 1999
Posts: 9334
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree that people new to the sport can and likely will improve just by training at low intensity, but I disagree that long, slow miles will get them anywhere near 95% of max potential. 60% would be more like it. Sure, you are capable of running at a high level off of largely LSD, but your idea of LSD and that of someone new to the sport is likely a polar opposite. I doubt you're sluffing along at a clip hardly fast enough to elevate the heart rate...

Dan
_________________
I get injured so you don't have to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Conway
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Posts: 3570
Location: Northen California

PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And lets be honest here ... Whether you are a sprinter, hurdler, or distance runner, one of the first things that needs to happen is that a base of strength needs to be developed ... Even sprinters need to have some sort of physical endurance base established to enable them to perform the other work necessary to become "fast" ...

So yes in the beginning a "distance" runner is going to have ot log some miles ... And that may be what they do for a season or more before they are ready to "move to the next level" ...

But sooner or later, no matter what the running event, you have to quicken the pace and work on some speed if you are ever going to "race" successfully ....
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am considering LSD as the same Lydiard did. All those miles his athletes ran, "were not just jogging around." I am sure my LSD is faster than most, but that is because I have slowly adapted to that level through years of training. When I started back in 1998, I was running 9-10 minute miles. Several years ago I was around 8:00. Currently I run 7 - 7:30 pace on easy days. The effort feels the same to me as when I started, with the exception that I run considerably farther on average now.

I suppose the 90-95% baseline is figured differently on each persons math, but my "in the head calculations" were based on stuff I had read about Tom Osler and Murray Halberg. Halberg for instance ran a 9:18 two mile off of base mileage. A 10% improvement would net a 55 second improvement of an 8:23 which he may have been capable of coming close to as he was I believe and Olympic medalist in the 5,000.

Rephrasing it differently, I believe everyone has an optimal time at certain distances. My best time in a 10 mile is 57 something back in 83'.
I know I can run 60 now with no speedwork because I've done it several times. I could get to 57 again using speedwork and probably do it on much less mileage, but that type of running is less appealing to me.

Does that sound more reasonable? I really do not believe I am a fringe example. In 1998 after a year of running I ran an all out 10k in 45:58. The past three years I have ran 36 for the 10k in December in Wisconsin at the same event. My legs haven't seen a track or speed session for months by then and if anything I run a higher proportion of my miles on trails then at 8:30-9 pace.
Back to top
graeme
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 04 Aug 2001
Posts: 451
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For a new runner, I definitely believe that the base mileage has to be built up first. You can't really do proper speed work unless you have the endurance to back it up anyways. I found that as I started doing more long slow runs I was able to develop my speed much more effectively because I could handle harder workouts, and recover better from them. And muscle recovery after all, is where you make your improvements. It seemed kind of weird to me at the time. It was like I was shifting my training into the longer distances, yet improving more at the shorter distances because I could benefit more from the speed training than I did in previous years.

If you think about it, even an elite level runner will begin a season with easy running, that's how periodization works. So it makes sense that a new runner would want to start that way as well, and since they probably have less fitness to begin with, that initial easy mileage stage should last a little longer.

I always see high school teams doing track practices and just hammering out speed work, and nobody improves, they just beat up their bodies. Without that base fitness you might as well just beat on your legs with a hammer because it's the same thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
AM_Runner
All-Star
All-Star


Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 776
Location: NYC

PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow what a great training thread... Definitely would like to keep this going.

I am kind of straddling here and maybe this is from personal experience I feel that Aerobic base does account for a very large percent of what you can do as a distance runner. Maybe not 95% but certainly quite a bit higher than 60%. 5K and up (even the mile) are very much aerobic events and that the best way to do this is through training at an easy pace for a long period of time so yeah LSD. many of Lydiards principles are misunderstood in that that was all he advocated (I am not saying thats what happened here just an observation) Remember he also advocated a lot of bounding and fartlek... Speed work can be incorporated into programs high on mileage as I am sure Deena and Meb have done - hey even Shorter said "Hills are speedwork in disguise"

Anyway whats real hard for a beginning runner is to understand that base building - without it you are severely limited in what you can accomplish (IMHO) So getting some speed type workouts in sometimes gives some confidence - especially if you can have a test type race that they have run before (local 5K kind of thing) sell them on the whole package then you can get some real serious building in

I did a lot of base bulilding when i coached Sprinters Hurdlers and jumpers and when it came time for them to do the real super hard workouts and when they had to go through things like rounds and finals of two jumping evets later - my guys were able to perform their best throughout competitions late in the season and I believe it was the building period that helped them significantly.

From my own distance experiences - Overall program distances increase with speedwork (but without some real long runs) good results but not great - long Runs plus speed work - excellent results...

In summary LSD = good - base period and aerobic fitness most inportant factor in Distance running - speed doesn't have to be intervals on the track, and yes I very much agree with specificity of training as I have said before...

yeah this post has rambled quite a bit hoepfully it is coherant enough for you to get through (my mind has been quite scattered lately I will try to explain at a later time but suffice it to say things are much better this week)
_________________
The long run is what puts the tiger in the cat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Double
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 09 Apr 2004
Posts: 49
Location: Wisconsin

PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The guest post was mine, I wasn't logged in. Anyway, if you can get out and run 80 miles or so a week you'll get real close to your potential. Just lumbering along that many miles a week over hill and dale will give you more than enough strength to race well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
graeme
Varsity
Varsity


Joined: 04 Aug 2001
Posts: 451
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, lots of things will make you "fast", but they won't all make you the "fastest" you can be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Double
Water Boy
Water Boy


Joined: 09 Apr 2004
Posts: 49
Location: Wisconsin

PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with you 100%. I am talking about the majority of road racers I see and what I see is when they are inspired to run faster they should consider honing the aerobic system through the mileage route. I just believe many runners will never be as fast as they could be because they neglect the basics.

My contention is this, most runners will never come close to their true potential because of lack of running miles. If a 20 mile a week runner came to me and wanted to run an all out 10k in 6 months, you can bet the vast majority of that training program would be based on putting in more miles period. I would see what they could accomplish aerobically first and when that appeared maxed, then more of the speed stuff. They would be fit enough to handle it and would have gained an appreciation of what they are then capable of.

Most 3-4 hour marathoners don't need speed, they need miles. I understand circumstances or goals don't always allow for people to do the miles others do, but rare is the person who will break 3 hours w/ no former background or 30-50 mile wonder programs. Sure, it can be done, but aren't those the exceptions?

I will never achieve my potential w/o speedwork. Others will never achieve their potential w/ speedwork. Back in the 70's a huge part of the running population hammered it and look at the success that was had. It just seems so much different to me today when talking about the average runner. I have no official data, but it appears there are plenty of runners, but when you look at the "race" results the 70's crowd was heads and shoulders above todays standards. This is what I am speaking to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Micah Ward
Olympic Medalist
Olympic Medalist


Joined: 08 May 2000
Posts: 2152
Location: Hot&humid, GA

PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Double, Are you saying that given a choice between quality or quantity that you would advise more quantity? Of course it may not be that simple. But let's take the hypothetical runner who wants to increase his 10K time. If he can currently do a 10 mile long run, do you advise him to increase that to 15 miles to cut down his 10K time? Or would it be better to keep the long run at 10 miles and add some workouts to develop more leg speed, such as 4 mile runs at the target race pace. Again, that is probably overly simplistic but at what point do you determine that the mileage being done is sufficient and now speed work needs to be done?
_________________
"Find the level of intolerance you can tolerate and stay there." David Horton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
AM_Runner
All-Star
All-Star


Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 776
Location: NYC

PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think one very important factor in a response would be what was the 10K time and what work had been done up to that point. Kind of hard to get there without that - If it was a beginning runner I would certainly build more miles at the expense of speed before dealing with a lot of the others, although I am sure I would not make it all the same pace...
_________________
The long run is what puts the tiger in the cat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Run-Down Forums Forum Index -> Coaches Corner All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group