login
Why is running slow better? (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2009-06-26 11:55 AM in reply to: #2245475 |
Not a Coach  11473     Media, PA |  Subject: RE: Why is running slow better?bryancd - 2009-06-26 12:52 PM Another good, albeit old, conversation on HR training.  I have nothing to add...except. Most posts pro or con one methedology over another seem to allow that they are al effectivel as long as you get out there and run, but a few posters then turn around and attack HR training showing a clear bias. I think we all are better served, and the beginner community in general, if we stick to the idea that no one protocol is superior than another and the bottom line is that training more results in longer term better results. Hey! I thought I said that! (well, over the course of several posts at least instead of nicely compacted into one. ) |
| 2009-06-26 11:55 AM in reply to: #2244290 |
| Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? RW2: Here's what I do, and it's been working for me. I try to run approximatelt 80% of my runs at a comfortable pace -- not Slow, but comfortable. And 20% at Tempo -- which for me is 10 or 20 seconds below Race Pace. By running Slow, that in my mind would constitute a Recovery Run and the only purpose of a Recovery Run is to get blood flowing through the legs to promote Recovery ...And if you are doing triathlons, your Active Recovery is best done on the bike or in a pool. So based off your initial post (all HR and different running ideologies and methods aside) perhaps running at a comfortable pace 80% and Tempo roughly 20% would work for you. However there Is something very important and everyone is seeminly missing to point it out: If you don't concentrate on the Bike, you most-likely will Run terrible on Race Day regardless of your running fitness. Last year in May I ran a 1:31 half marathon... two months later I did a HIM and ran that 1/2 mary in 2:10+ ... And I went at a very EZ RPE on the bike at my HIM. KEEP IT SIMPLE: Try and run atleast 3 X per week. Two comfortably placed Medium-Long Runs and one Short Tempo Run. But remember that most of the miles and most of your time in a Triathlon is spent on the Bike. And the better your bike, the fresher you legs will feel coming off for the Run. This is based off my experience so far. Edited by Dream Chaser 2009-06-26 12:02 PM |
| 2009-06-26 12:08 PM in reply to: #2244290 |
Member 360 Denver, CO | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? I believe it is simplistic and misinformation to tell people that you can not improve on a 2x a week run schedule. I did it last year - running consistently a 10 mile run and a 13 to 18 mile run each week. I'm sure it is not an optimum schedule, I'm sure where I started out and ended up make a difference in calculating an optimum plan, etc. But these simplistic responses that say you can not improve with a 2x a week run schedule are simply untrue. And sure - you can say that my N=1 when I look at just myself but I'm not the only one who has seen improvements (see this thread). May I hit a plateau, sure, is this optimum, probably not, is my current speed, base, and other training factors a factor, probably. But the responses that say running 2x a week will not increase the runner's ability are simply untrue. |
| 2009-06-26 12:12 PM in reply to: #2245437 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Ken in AZ - 2009-06-26 12:42 PM I am not chiming in on the HR theories presented here, but I have a good friend who is a multiple All American and been to Worlds who swims/bikes/runs twice a week in each sport. I would stack his run against most anyone in his age group. So, kind of disagree with the fact that twice a week won't help... I am sure that if you can handle it, more frequency is better. No doubt! Not gonna debate that because the athlete in question has YEARS of base probably and can get away with it! But he also isn't really improving, he's simply maintaining what he already HAS. Same reason I can ride less than 2,000 miles a year and still post bike splits in the top 10% of almost every tri I do. There are times when I only get to ride once a week (quite often). But I also have years of cycling background and road and mountain bike racing experience. So it is not at all hard for me to train little just to keep things sharp. I'm not improving in my cycling though ........ This topic is in relation to people with little training experience asking the "why" to a run training approach and has morphed into the usual "which is better" discussion. If you look at my posts and others that have been doing this a while, we are all saying the same thing - there is NO right answer. No single method is more effective than any other. Certain ones just have more "baggage" associated with them. But just keep it simple and put in the work and you will improve. |
| 2009-06-26 12:15 PM in reply to: #2245437 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Ken in AZ - 2009-06-26 11:42 AM but I have a good friend who is a multiple All American and been to Worlds who swims/bikes/runs twice a week in each sport. I would stack his run against most anyone in his age group. So, kind of disagree with the fact that twice a week won't help... I am sure that if you can handle it, more frequency is better. This is a fun thread to read, though. For me, I had to find a method that I respond to, which will make me fitter AND healthier, and not burn me out. I cooked myself (or had a coach who did so) a few years back and have not raced in 3 years... hoping to get back into the swing this year... ken That proves nothing more than the fact that for your friend doing minimal training might be enough stimulus for him to maintain his fitness and serves him well to perform; that doesn't mean his training is optimal and neither the results he obtains. Again, one has to consider all the athlete needs, goals, background, etc etc etc. BTW - becoming a tri All American or going to worlds doesn't justify your firend's approach either (or disprove it for that matter) because depending who you ask gaining AA or going to worlds might or might not be that difficult. Of course, this is on the eye of the beholder and it is not meant to disrespect you or your friend's accomplishments at all; just commenting on it because everytime someone quotes an athlete's times/achievements (whether an AGer who has made it to Kona or a Pro) it is usually used to validate something and while the argument is valid it might be ommiting important info or the example is simply not applicable to most here. (Again, the above is not meant in a disrespectful way) But this go back to the OP question and can be use to debate whether approaching training in one specific way is the 'better' way or should be considered for everyone. IMO, it is not, each case might require different workloads. For instance and to use a Pro's info and how this can be misleading; we (our coaching group) have a pro that has a family (2 young kids), works full time (40 + hrs x week) and on average 'only' trains 10-12 hrs x week yet he recently placed 4th @ Eagleman OA (has done the same in previous years @ Tman) against 1st tier pros. Without knowing the full story one could make the wrong assumption that 10-12 hrs of training x week can be enough to make you very competitive, or with relatively limited running (when compare to 1st tier pros) one could be super fast, but this ignores the fact he ran in college (he has years of training unders his belt) and he is a genetic freak. In the end he works with what he has and he is lucky to have good genes but the his training is not optimal by any stretch, he just try to makes the most out of the time he has available, some weeks he manages to train much more but not often. Anyway, I am sorry a coach didn't know how to manage your work load but you are doing the right thing by finding what works for you and your goals, hopefully you are back to racing and enjoying soon! |
| 2009-06-26 12:19 PM in reply to: #2245535 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? csibona - 2009-06-26 1:08 PM I believe it is simplistic and misinformation to tell people that you can not improve on a 2x a week run schedule. I did it last year - running consistently a 10 mile run and a 13 to 18 mile run each week. I'm sure it is not an optimum schedule, I'm sure where I started out and ended up make a difference in calculating an optimum plan, etc. But these simplistic responses that say you can not improve with a 2x a week run schedule are simply untrue. And sure - you can say that my N=1 when I look at just myself but I'm not the only one who has seen improvements (see this thread). May I hit a plateau, sure, is this optimum, probably not, is my current speed, base, and other training factors a factor, probably. But the responses that say running 2x a week will not increase the runner's ability are simply untrue. It's not "cannot". It's that it is limiting and higher risk (especially for newer runners). Frankly, this is true with running 3x as well. As you noted, it also has a lot to do with what you've done before (I'd be interested in knowing that as well as what kind of improvements you saw last year--you may be attributing your success to the wrong factor). If you are fortunate enough to do it long enough without getting injured, eventually it will add up for you too. |
| 2009-06-26 12:25 PM in reply to: #2245134 |
| Extreme Veteran 454 OKC | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Call it what you will but if I'm getting faster by running twice a week, what's the point of trying to force another run in there when I could be biking/swimming/doing other fitness/having a life intead? I'm getting faster!
None. There's absolutely no point in changing your training routine if you're making satisfactory progress.
Most of the "you have to run X miles per week or X times per week" talk stems from what elite runners have to do. They might be at 85% of their capability off of 35 miles per week, 95% off of 60 mpw... and have to go up to 100mpw to realize that last few percent. That situation doesn't apply to the VAST majority of age group triathletes. Most of us can see continuous improvement for a very long time over just a few runs per week.
|
| 2009-06-26 12:47 PM in reply to: #2245573 |
Member 360 Denver, CO | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? JohnnyKay - 2009-06-26 11:19 AM csibona - 2009-06-26 1:08 PM I believe it is simplistic and misinformation to tell people that you can not improve on a 2x a week run schedule. I did it last year - running consistently a 10 mile run and a 13 to 18 mile run each week. I'm sure it is not an optimum schedule, I'm sure where I started out and ended up make a difference in calculating an optimum plan, etc. But these simplistic responses that say you can not improve with a 2x a week run schedule are simply untrue. And sure - you can say that my N=1 when I look at just myself but I'm not the only one who has seen improvements (see this thread). May I hit a plateau, sure, is this optimum, probably not, is my current speed, base, and other training factors a factor, probably. But the responses that say running 2x a week will not increase the runner's ability are simply untrue. It's not "cannot". It's that it is limiting and higher risk (especially for newer runners). Frankly, this is true with running 3x as well. As you noted, it also has a lot to do with what you've done before (I'd be interested in knowing that as well as what kind of improvements you saw last year--you may be attributing your success to the wrong factor). If you are fortunate enough to do it long enough without getting injured, eventually it will add up for you too. Well, OK the exact quote is: Daremo: If you are only running twice a week??? Then running slow isn't better or worse than anything else, because you are barely going to make any headway to begin with. Noelle1230: This theory doesn't seem to apply to me. [...] JohnnyKay: Yes, it does. You may have applied it poorly. So, not "no progress" but "barely going to make any headway to begin with" which you confirm. Last year 3/26 6.1 miles avg pace 10:41 avg heart rate 159 later in year 8/31 6.1 miles avg pace 9:35 avg heart rate 160 This year 6/15 7.3 miles avg pace 9:09 avg heart rate 148 post HIM training (8/31) - building up toward the HIM usually an 82 mile bike ride and a fast 30 mile, plus some other rides sprinkled in there. Last year I was consistently running 2x a week a 10 mi plus 13-18 mi each week - this year not so much on the distance. This year I have two olys instead of a sprint, oly and HIM (2008). There are many factors - that's exactly what I'm saying - that you can improve on 2x a week (say a minute/mile if you're slow like me)... To say you will "barely" make any "headway" on 2x a week is not accurate. |
| 2009-06-26 1:10 PM in reply to: #2245687 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? I'm not going to argue with you about how to define "barely going to make any headway". Like I said, it not only matters what you did last year, but the year before, and the year before, and etc. Edited by JohnnyKay 2009-06-26 1:10 PM |
| 2009-06-26 1:11 PM in reply to: #2244290 |
| Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? I'm devloping a slow twitch from reading this thread |
| 2009-06-26 2:08 PM in reply to: #2244290 |
Pro 3906  Libertyville, IL | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? I think a variable that has to be considered here is where are you in % of age group when we are talking about improvement? Improvement in itself is a relative term. What distances are we talking? How big is the time to whack away at relative to top age group. I think you will find in the early days that doing more or faster will get you improvement so long as you stay healthy and consistent. However, I think many reach a point where volume and frequency matters to shave the 30 seconds off an 18 min 5k, to get under 1:30 on a HM, 3 hours under a mary etc. Once you get to that territory I think you will find there are many more getting by on more smarter vs less faster. I am sure there are exceptions and if it works for ya, great. But something to consider when you do plataeu. Personally I have seen the merits of adding miles, many of them easier miles vs hammering each and every run. Cripes, I didnt even sniff speed work other than goofing off on frisky days and races the first two years or so. Dunno, just my opinion. |
| 2009-06-26 2:09 PM in reply to: #2244290 |
Extreme Veteran 542 Pauls Valley, OK | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? I will try to answer the OP question without spurring a debate. Why is running slow better important? 1. I had a coach that explained speedwork (LT and VO2 training) is like shooting a cannon. If you shoot your cannon from a large base, like a battleship, you have a chance of hitting your target. If you shoot your cannon from a small base, a canoe, then you are only going to sink yourself - a.k.a. injury. The way you build your base is long slow miles. Those long slow miles are important for injury prevention. 2. I once saw a model that tried to explain the relationship between AT, LT, VO2 max, and aerobic conditioning and how it relates to race performance. (I think Jorge posted the link) Maybe he could post it again to show the importance of the long slow run and how it relates to reaching your potential. In horticulture we have Liebig's law of the minimum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig's_law_of_the_minimum . I believe running is no different. Many variables go into determining whether or not you run fast (whatever your own personal definition of that is) : aerobic conditioning, AT, LT, VO2 max, running economy, etc.... In order to increase your yield, you need to find your weakness and work on that a little extra. I have been in and out of the triathlon world since 1986. I've studied sport science and exercise physiology in college. I've seen alot of training trends come and go and come again. I believe the key is finding what works for you and your goals. How do you find what works for you? Years of experience, personal research, trial and error, field and lab tests............ Until you have these "run lots, some fast, some slow" Running slow is still part of the equation. 3. As far as feeling like you are running too slow for your specific HR. I felt the same when I first started using an HR monitor. I thought no way am I getting any kind of workout running 10:00 to 11:00 miles. But I stuck with it. After about 3-4 months I was running sub 8:00 miles at the same HR. Edited by ray6foot7 2009-06-26 2:11 PM |
| 2009-06-26 2:12 PM in reply to: #2245990 |
Elite 3315 Miami | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? 3. As far as feeling like you are running too slow for your specific HR. I felt the same when I first started using an HR monitor. I thought no way am I getting any kind of workout running 10:00 to 11:00 miles. But I stuck with it. After about 3-4 months I was running sub 8:00 miles at the same HR. this i like to hear. |
| 2009-06-26 2:53 PM in reply to: #2244290 |
New user 70 | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Not to belabor a point, but just to clarify -- I was not bragging on my friend, nor saying his way is "better," just pointing out that it is indeed possible to progress on 2x a week/sport. Not looking for a flame war... Also, (and this is just my humble opinion of course) if 3 workouts a week/sport cause you to be overtrained, and 2 workouts a week/sport fit better into your personal schedule (and you enjoy/recover from those workouts) -- wouldn't that make more sense? Again, not trying to be 'right' or 'wrong,' just throwing it out there.... similar to another thread, I know tons of guys who train their guts out week after week and can do that, and for me personally, there is a fine line of overtraining, and if I cross it, I run into trouble... I do like the views expressed on here that each coach is different, and if you check out 5 different coaches, you may get 5 different ways of doing things. I have had coaches that were a good fit, and some than haven't -- I do think it is based on lifestyle, genetics, etc. I believe that's why many say coaching is part science and art. |
| 2009-06-26 2:59 PM in reply to: #2246100 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Ken in AZ - 2009-06-26 3:53 PM Not to belabor a point, but just to clarify -- I was not bragging on my friend, nor saying his way is "better," just pointing out that it is indeed possible to progress on 2x a week/sport. Not looking for a flame war... Also, (and this is just my humble opinion of course) if 3 workouts a week/sport cause you to be overtrained, and 2 workouts a week/sport fit better into your personal schedule (and you enjoy/recover from those workouts) -- wouldn't that make more sense? Again, not trying to be 'right' or 'wrong,' just throwing it out there.... similar to another thread, I know tons of guys who train their guts out week after week and can do that, and for me personally, there is a fine line of overtraining, and if I cross it, I run into trouble... I do like the views expressed on here that each coach is different, and if you check out 5 different coaches, you may get 5 different ways of doing things. I have had coaches that were a good fit, and some than haven't -- I do think it is based on lifestyle, genetics, etc. I believe that's why many say coaching is part science and art. I don't think anybody will argue that if your training is producing results that you are all-around happy with, that you should change anything. |
| 2009-06-26 3:13 PM in reply to: #2244527 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? I'll just go back to my first post: Daremo - 2009-06-26 8:30 AM HR, pace, effort ......... it all doesn't matter. They are simply a marker. For newer - or even experienced - runners just go by these simple tests: If you can easily talk when you run, then you are going easy. If it is challenging but not impossible to talk, you are going moderate. If talking is the last thing you want to do because you are too busy trying to get oxygen in, you are going hard. It is not necessary to over-complicate it. As everyone else said, running the majority slow allows you to come back and do it again the next day (or later that same day). Good runners run ......... lots. Good cyclist ride ........... lots. Good swimmers swim .......... lots. Good triathletes swim, bike, run ........ lots. Average triathletes spend their hours over-analyzing minutia and looking for the magic pill to make them faster, then b-tch and complain about it when they AREN'T getting faster when they haven't really done anything about it and their overall training load is the same. Typical .......... Edited by Daremo 2009-06-26 3:15 PM |
| 2009-06-26 4:10 PM in reply to: #2246155 |
New user 70 | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? ...have a great weekend everyone! Edited by Ken in AZ 2009-06-26 4:14 PM |
| 2009-06-26 4:25 PM in reply to: #2246100 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Ken in AZ - 2009-06-26 3:53 PM Not to belabor a point, but just to clarify -- I was not bragging on my friend, nor saying his way is "better," just pointing out that it is indeed possible to progress on 2x a week/sport. Not looking for a flame war... Also, (and this is just my humble opinion of course) if 3 workouts a week/sport cause you to be overtrained, and 2 workouts a week/sport fit better into your personal schedule (and you enjoy/recover from those workouts) -- wouldn't that make more sense? Again, not trying to be 'right' or 'wrong,' just throwing it out there.... similar to another thread, I know tons of guys who train their guts out week after week and can do that, and for me personally, there is a fine line of overtraining, and if I cross it, I run into trouble... I do like the views expressed on here that each coach is different, and if you check out 5 different coaches, you may get 5 different ways of doing things. I have had coaches that were a good fit, and some than haven't -- I do think it is based on lifestyle, genetics, etc. I believe that's why many say coaching is part science and art. Just to belabor this (sorry, couldn't go back and edit my post anymore), your story about your friend is incomplete if you want to show your he has progressed on 2 runs per week. How long has he been running at all? Always 2 times per week? Etc. Even that doesn't say much because his potential ability may reach well beyond where he is at currently. It would be very hard to get "overtrained" on 3x/wk (assuming you built to that gradually). It may be that 3x/wk doesn't fit in with the rest of your life. And that's OK. We all have external constraints and do this stuff for fun. Everyone has different background and genetics that help support a certain training load. We all have to work within ours (plus whatever 'external' constraints we create through the 'rest of life'). You may get "different ways of doing things" as a result of all those differences. But the underlying principles remain fairly constant across the population. And if you stick to the basics (again, within your own constraints) which Daremo outlined (and, yes, maybe he's getting a bit agitated that people are missing the forest for the trees), you will be successful (or as successful as your other constraints allow). |
| 2009-06-26 4:41 PM in reply to: #2246155 |
Master 1404 Saratoga Springs, Utah | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Daremo - 2009-06-26 2:13 PM I'll just go back to my first post: Daremo - 2009-06-26 8:30 AM HR, pace, effort ......... it all doesn't matter. They are simply a marker. For newer - or even experienced - runners just go by these simple tests: If you can easily talk when you run, then you are going easy. If it is challenging but not impossible to talk, you are going moderate. If talking is the last thing you want to do because you are too busy trying to get oxygen in, you are going hard. It is not necessary to over-complicate it. As everyone else said, running the majority slow allows you to come back and do it again the next day (or later that same day). Good runners run ......... lots. Good cyclist ride ........... lots. Good swimmers swim .......... lots. Good triathletes swim, bike, run ........ lots. Average triathletes spend their hours over-analyzing minutia and looking for the magic pill to make them faster, then b-tch and complain about it when they AREN'T getting faster when they haven't really done anything about it and their overall training load is the same. Typical .......... x 2. If I only ran 2-3 times a week I could count on one thing for sure, my times getting slower. You want to be a faster runner you have to put in the time. I know that I do not run as much as I should but I am not going to complain about being slow cause I just have not done the work to get there. |
| 2009-06-26 4:46 PM in reply to: #2245687 |
Expert 1394 Wilmington, NC | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? I would be interested in knowing if you built up to running one 10miler and one 13-18miler on just 2 runs/week and if that is the case, how long did the progression take? |
| 2009-06-26 4:51 PM in reply to: #2244290 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? /hijack on/ Not a comment directed at anyone but I find it quite amusing when those with relative inexperience question the validity of a statement made by those with obvious authority and experience because they "heard something once" that may, or may not have been to the contrary. Kind of like how people don't believe what their doctor's tell them. And it isn't just related to this thread. /hijack off/ |
| 2009-06-26 5:10 PM in reply to: #2245535 |
Expert 2555 Colorado Springs, Colorado | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? csibona - 2009-06-26 11:08 AM I believe it is simplistic and misinformation to tell people that you can not improve on a 2x a week run schedule. I did it last year - running consistently a 10 mile run and a 13 to 18 mile run each week. I'm sure it is not an optimum schedule, I'm sure where I started out and ended up make a difference in calculating an optimum plan, etc. But these simplistic responses that say you can not improve with a 2x a week run schedule are simply untrue. And sure - you can say that my N=1 when I look at just myself but I'm not the only one who has seen improvements (see this thread). May I hit a plateau, sure, is this optimum, probably not, is my current speed, base, and other training factors a factor, probably. But the responses that say running 2x a week will not increase the runner's ability are simply untrue. Comparing two runs a week that total about 25 miles to what most people do is not exactly equal. Your improvement likely came as a result of the overall volume you were running on a consistent basis. If the vast majority even ran 25 miles/week their running would greatly improve regardless of how many days they took to do it. I think what Daremo meant by not improving on two runs per week was pointed toward people who would total less than 10 miles/week. A new runner will see some improvement on only 10 miles/week, but that will plateau in a couple of months. People doing such little volume can go at just about any speed as their typical runs are very short to begin with. Back to the OP. Go ahead and run at whatever pace feels comfortable. All this running slow or fast, RPE, HR stuff isn't that important until you can start running 15-20 miles/week consistently. From your log it doesn't look like you're there yet. Just go out and run more. I include my "warmup" in my mileage since I never really warmup. I just start out going a little slower and pick it up as I go. FWIW, I do almost all my training runs at a slower pace and have found that when I push my weekly mileage to 40+ on a consistent basis my racing gets much faster. However, I race quite a bit so that's really what I use for speedwork. This year my weekly mileage is down and my race times have gotten slower. It was much easier last year to average 50 miles/week when I was only running. Now that I'm trying to fit in the swim and bike, plus a family life, the running volume had to come down. |
| 2009-06-27 9:20 AM in reply to: #2246350 |
Member 360 Denver, CO | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? qrkid - 2009-06-26 3:46 PM Well, OK the exact quote is: Daremo: If you are only running twice a week??? Then running slow isn't better or worse than anything else, because you are barely going to make any headway to begin with. Noelle1230: This theory doesn't seem to apply to me. [...] JohnnyKay: Yes, it does. You may have applied it poorly. So, not "no progress" but "barely going to make any headway to begin with" which you confirm. Last year 3/26 6.1 miles avg pace 10:41 avg heart rate 159 later in year 8/31 6.1 miles avg pace 9:35 avg heart rate 160 This year 6/15 7.3 miles avg pace 9:09 avg heart rate 148 post HIM training (8/31) - building up toward the HIM usually an 82 mile bike ride and a fast 30 mile, plus some other rides sprinkled in there. Last year I was consistently running 2x a week a 10 mi plus 13-18 mi each week - this year not so much on the distance. This year I have two olys instead of a sprint, oly and HIM (2008). There are many factors - that's exactly what I'm saying - that you can improve on 2x a week (say a minute/mile if you're slow like me)... To say you will "barely" make any "headway" on 2x a week is not accurate. I would be interested in knowing if you built up to running one 10miler and one 13-18miler on just 2 runs/week and if that is the case, how long did the progression take? In 2006 and 2007 I trained for olys and in 2008 I trained for a HIM. My training in 2007 consisted of mostly 6 and 8 mi runs probably 2 or 3 times a week. I continued to run in the off season with roughly the same schedule. In 2008 starting in March I started increasing my distances I see a 9 miler then 10 miler. In April I added a 13 miler and in early May I was training with a 10 miler once a week plus a 15 miler later in the week. I pretty much kept the 10 miler and 13-18 miler (each once a week) through August when I completed a HIM. |
| 2009-06-27 9:29 AM in reply to: #2246390 |
Member 360 Denver, CO | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? Donskiman - 2009-06-26 4:10 PM csibona - 2009-06-26 11:08 AM I believe it is simplistic and misinformation to tell people that you can not improve on a 2x a week run schedule. I did it last year - running consistently a 10 mile run and a 13 to 18 mile run each week. I'm sure it is not an optimum schedule, I'm sure where I started out and ended up make a difference in calculating an optimum plan, etc. But these simplistic responses that say you can not improve with a 2x a week run schedule are simply untrue. And sure - you can say that my N=1 when I look at just myself but I'm not the only one who has seen improvements (see this thread). May I hit a plateau, sure, is this optimum, probably not, is my current speed, base, and other training factors a factor, probably. But the responses that say running 2x a week will not increase the runner's ability are simply untrue. Comparing two runs a week that total about 25 miles to what most people do is not exactly equal. Your improvement likely came as a result of the overall volume you were running on a consistent basis. If the vast majority even ran 25 miles/week their running would greatly improve regardless of how many days they took to do it. I think what Daremo meant by not improving on two runs per week was pointed toward people who would total less than 10 miles/week. A new runner will see some improvement on only 10 miles/week, but that will plateau in a couple of months. People doing such little volume can go at just about any speed as their typical runs are very short to begin with. Back to the OP. Go ahead and run at whatever pace feels comfortable. All this running slow or fast, RPE, HR stuff isn't that important until you can start running 15-20 miles/week consistently. From your log it doesn't look like you're there yet. Just go out and run more. I include my "warmup" in my mileage since I never really warmup. I just start out going a little slower and pick it up as I go. FWIW, I do almost all my training runs at a slower pace and have found that when I push my weekly mileage to 40+ on a consistent basis my racing gets much faster. However, I race quite a bit so that's really what I use for speedwork. This year my weekly mileage is down and my race times have gotten slower. It was much easier last year to average 50 miles/week when I was only running. Now that I'm trying to fit in the swim and bike, plus a family life, the running volume had to come down. I agree. And I'm not proposing that my schedule is optimal for me or for others. I would imagine that increasing my volume made me a "better" runner and consistency is an important factor. I probably could be a better runner running 6 days a week (which I have done in the past and I think I was a better runner) than running 2x a week. I don't know what Daremo meant when he said what the said but if he wants to clarify he can (actually I think he did - if you want to be a better runner run more). My point is that he also said that it was unlikely to make headway running twice a week - and that isn't my experience and isn't the experience of others in this thread. But to get better I certainly increased my volume and that is something that almost all of us can agree on. |
| 2009-06-28 6:44 PM in reply to: #2244290 |
| 82 | Subject: RE: Why is running slow better? I'm a lousy runner and am going to try the principles put forth on this thread. Sure makes sense, just listening and thinking it through, and it's kind of a relief, because I feel like I'm on the verge of injury after every run. I've got 3 months until my first HIM. I still haven't completed a 13 mile run yet and am pretty much limping after every run. Luckily the soreness doesn't last into the next day, at least to any significant degree, so I don't think I've done any damage yet. I don't think I'll actually monitor my heart right of the bat, but will just sort of go by feeling (ability to talk, etc.). I think I really needed this information. Thanks to all the contributors. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK