Run-Down Forums

[Dan]

Here's another brain teaser along the lines of our popular sprint vs. distance debates: Mileage is generally regarded as a long term process, a journey so to speak, that has to be built up to and adapted to. I posit, and this is almost entirely from observation, that mileage is actually somewhat of a quick fix and it is speed that truly needs developing over time.

I don't recall ever seeing someone fade off from too much speed work (barring injuries, which are also part of the distance equation), but I'd peg mileage fade outs at as high as a third to a half. I've also seen a lot of people get rapid improvements from mileage increases than plateau just as quickly, much like a fad diet.

I already have a guess how the conversation will go, just figured I'd share a thought or two...

Dan

[training2run]

Dear Dan: I'd love to get into this hot and heavy, if I could figure out what you said .

It seemed interesting and (of course) provocative as I read it, but when finished, all that really came out of my brain was "huh ?"

When I went over it again, I noticed you said "Mileage is generally regarded as a long term process, a journey so to speak" (That's my take.)

This is followed by ". I posit...that mileage is actually somewhat of a quick fix "

How do you reconcile these two "seemingly" opposed statements?

Oh, I get it - the first is a general statement and the second is your proposition. Hum.

Speed work is not, as you know, my area of expertise. That I leave in your ballpark - and hope I can come to you when I need help in that regards. However, haven't I "heard" that runners can burn-out or become overly tired from too much speed work. Mad Dog Mike
www.training2run.com

[Distance_Guru]

By now everyone here knows my stance on mileage vs speed.

Many of the runners that I've seen running in speed based systems are often underconditioned all together. Many of them setting PR's in the 400 and shorter distances which is fine except these aren't 400 runners they're 800/1500 runners that crash and burn in the second half of their races because they don't have the aerobic fitness or anaerobic conditioning (LT) that comes with milage systems. Or 3000 and longer runners that can't maintain the pace they need to be competitive. Which is one of the reasons I get irritated with people saying that speed based systems help you with your kick. If you can't get to the final 200 meters with gas in the tank I don't care how much speed you have you will not have a kick. Also athletes from speed based systems are generally more frustrated by injuries (which happen in our sport regaurdless of which type of system you use) because your aerobic base errods less quickly than foot speed and is easier to maintain using non running rehab training methods (swimming, biking ect). And therefore often have longer or harder comebacks.

I veiw speed based systems as gimics. And listening to the people using them is like watching an infomercial for one of those miracle diets that have you eat whatever you want and still loose wieght. Just do three speed workouts and three easy runs a week and watch the seconds slip away. Well it dosen't work that way. Most of the speed based systems I've seen substitute running really fast for running a lot. I've also had to come in and clean up the mess of disappointed athletes with cofidence problems left behind by coaches making such promises with speed based systems. The best way to train distance runners is just like the best way to loose wieght. It's no secret, eat less exercise more and you loose wieght, run a lot run hard and you'll run faster.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Distance_Guru]

Why I get sucked into these threads time after time seems to defy logic...

On the otherhand if someone is going to give me a soap box, I guess I just have to stand on it and hope I can get through to someone.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Dan]

I would argue that any distance runner living on his or her 400m credentials and unable to finish strong in a distance race isn't really a distance runner! They're a prime example of someone who was suckered into the wrong event by what I call the "move up crowd."

With a speed-based system, you can always increase the volume while maintaining the intensity. With a mileage-based system, it's virtually impossible to increase the intensity without reducing the volume due to de-trained muscles.

Dan

[Distance_Guru]

[Dan]

When you speak of increasing intensity during a XC season, what exactly are you referring to?

Dan

[Distance_Guru]

The speed of the mileage being run. Another way of putting it is the number and duration of "hard" aerobic runs, anaerobic conditioning (LT), aerobic capacity (VO2 max) and yes even speed workouts (gasp!). I don't do a lot of lactate tolerance runs during cross country season, they generally take to much time to recover from, for their training value this time of year.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Dan]

What I meant is what do you consider intensity? Based on our previous discussions, I would guess it is more the toughening type than the speed development type.

Dan

[training2run]

Dear DG: I can hardly believe it, but I find that I am actually agreeing with Dan, on one point at least.

However, Dan will probably inform me that the only reason we're in agreement, is because I misunderstood what he was saying.

[Dan]

[Distance_Guru]

Dan I'm not sure that I follow you. Toughening type vs Speed development type? I don't do any workout that doesn't have a purpose, whether it's improveing the athletes aerobic conditioning with steady aerobic runs, increasing an athletes lactate threshold with tempo or fartlek training, increasing their effiecentcy while running at aerobic capacity with VO2 max training runs. Improving strength and running economy with hill running or increasing speed with fast short intervals with plenty of recovery. So I'm not sure I know how to catagorize toughness vs Speed. All of the workouts we do are for the specific purpose of making the athlete faster over the race distance. And almost all are geared towards training a specific physiological system.

We do have a few workouts every year that work on an athletes "toughness" Once a Runner 400's are my favorite workout for this purpose. But also the athletes themselves do plenty of toughening workouts, getting competitive in their aerobic runs.

Mike, I think that in your case you might be right about having to sacrifice distance for intensity in your case. But there is a pretty big difference between a college athlete training for either 6000 or 10,000 meter race and you training for a 100,000 meter race. The training demands and requirements are very different, both mentally and physically.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Dan]

What I mean by toughness training vs. speed training is:

Toughness Training: Anything geared toward pace development, i.e. aerobic or endurance work, including intervals with short rest.

Speed Training: Actual speed development. Obviously dependent on the race distance you are training for, but 800's for example, will never develop anything other than pace.

As I've said a number of times, my philosophy is this -- the goal of racing is to run the specified distance the fastest, not to see who can hold a pace the longest. The ability to not fade is essential, but it borders on trivial if the speed component is not in place to comfortably handle that pace, cover surges, and kick.

Dan

[Distance_Guru]

Using those definitions my systems quaility is mainly toughness training. We focus on taking a goal race pace, and over the coarse of a season training in such a manner that the athlete can run that pace for the duration of the race by the end of the season.

Here is an example of how this system works at it's most basic level. Start with a goal. A goal that I always like to have is quailifying as a team for the national championships. Looking over the results from the last few reigional championship races (the quailifying race for nationals) I figured out with the make up of our team the places we would need each of our runners to run for us to score 120 points (which I determined to be a score that we were both capable of and will almost without fail get you into the top 5 teams, which go to nationals). Then looking at the times from the last two regional championships held on this coarse I came up with times that if run would get our athletes the places that we desire. Now in training over the coarse of the season we will gear our training to get the girls comfortable running that pace and faster. Obviously if they are showing signs that they can run faster than the predetermined time then the target time will get faster and their training times will also become faster.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Dan]

That's a very wise way to plan a season -- starting from nationals and working backward.

Your region sends 5 teams to nationals? Man, that must be nice. Ours only sent 1 women's team (placed 3rd at nats) and 2 men's teams (placed 7th and 13th), with the women's runaway individual champ and 3 men in the top 10! Talk about no respect...

Dan