General Discussion Triathlon Talk » "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner" Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 3
 
 
2009-01-08 8:05 PM
in reply to: #1895753

User image

Expert
987
500100100100100252525
Durham, North Carolina
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
Scout7 - 2009-01-08 4:38 PM

Never read Pfitzinger.

Let me guess, the advice is something along the lines of:

Run lots, the more the better.  Most of it should be easy, but some of it should be harder.

 I am the Amazing Carnac.

Wait a minute .... isn't this the exact advice you were giving me a couple of months back??

Maybe I'm getting the avatar's confused or something and it was someone else telling me that ... but basically saying that to get better at running, just run more ...

... or something along those lines ... that sounds like what Pfitzinger is saying ...

 



2009-01-08 8:12 PM
in reply to: #1896365

User image

New Haven, CT
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
klowman - 2009-01-08 9:05 PM
Scout7 - 2009-01-08 4:38 PM

Never read Pfitzinger.

Let me guess, the advice is something along the lines of:

Run lots, the more the better.  Most of it should be easy, but some of it should be harder.

 I am the Amazing Carnac.

Wait a minute .... isn't this the exact advice you were giving me a couple of months back??

Maybe I'm getting the avatar's confused or something and it was someone else telling me that ... but basically saying that to get better at running, just run more ...

... or something along those lines ... that sounds like what Pfitzinger is saying ...

He's being sarcastic.  To get faster running, the CW is that you run lots.  There are lots of programs to run 3x week to run faster but the tried and true method is lots of running.  Scout7 is just saying that anyone who sells books saying "run lots" is not exactly saying anything special (at least I think that is what he is saying).

Scout7- welcome back you were on hiatus for a while. 

2009-01-08 11:18 PM
in reply to: #1896380

User image

Expert
987
500100100100100252525
Durham, North Carolina
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
jsklarz - 2009-01-08 9:12 PM
klowman - 2009-01-08 9:05 PM
Scout7 - 2009-01-08 4:38 PM

Never read Pfitzinger.

Let me guess, the advice is something along the lines of:

Run lots, the more the better.  Most of it should be easy, but some of it should be harder.

 I am the Amazing Carnac.

Wait a minute .... isn't this the exact advice you were giving me a couple of months back??

Maybe I'm getting the avatar's confused or something and it was someone else telling me that ... but basically saying that to get better at running, just run more ...

... or something along those lines ... that sounds like what Pfitzinger is saying ...

He's being sarcastic.  To get faster running, the CW is that you run lots.  There are lots of programs to run 3x week to run faster but the tried and true method is lots of running.  Scout7 is just saying that anyone who sells books saying "run lots" is not exactly saying anything special (at least I think that is what he is saying).

Scout7- welcome back you were on hiatus for a while. 

Ah, gotcha... it took me a while to realize that red font meant sarcasm here on BT.com, and now when I see red I know what is going on ... but now I see that Scout7 was being sarcastic as well.And as a side note, just to confirm what all these folks are saying ... I did start trying to run more ... ran about every day and went from 6 - 10 mpw running to about 20-25 mpw ... I've since backed off a little and have changed my workout routine a little ... but ... by simply increasing my time and distance running ... in about 3-5 weeks my speed was getting better ... without really eventrying or thinking about it.One day a few weeks back I decided to set the treadmill at a faster pace to test it how it felt ... and I ran just fine ... not as long though ... but about 1 minue to 1:30 mintes faster per mile.I was avg'ing 12 to 12:30 min/mile pace .. could easily got 4-5 miles, and 6-7 miles my long run ... now I'm running around a 11:06 to 11:30 min/mile pace ... easily for 2.5 to 3.5 miles ... and 4-5 miles long ... can still slog out a 7 miler ... but at around a 11:45 mon/mile pace ...... so my speed/pace did indeed pick up simply from running more mileage per week ... I didn't do any Intervals, Sprints, Fartleks or anything .... (although I do sometimes Fart while on the treadmill ... only mention this cause outside running it's no problem ...but quite embarrassing doing so in the YMCA).

Edited by klowman 2009-01-08 11:20 PM
2009-01-09 7:21 AM
in reply to: #1896149

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
Daremo - 2009-01-08 7:24 PM

No, their plans are pretty well balanced.  Always some sort of intensity in the week between tempo, strides and later intervals.  Day of harder stuff, then a recovery or lighter day, then medium and such.  Not the MAF approach.

Very scientific.  Not really your thing.

I don't even wear a watch anymore.

I said "mostly easy".  Which sounds similar to what you're saying.  If you run hard twice a week, and you're running 6 or more times, I'd say that 2/3 is NOT hard, which would be most.

Science...pfft.

2009-01-09 7:29 AM
in reply to: #1896929

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
Scout7 - 2009-01-09 7:21 AM
Daremo - 2009-01-08 7:24 PM

No, their plans are pretty well balanced.  Always some sort of intensity in the week between tempo, strides and later intervals.  Day of harder stuff, then a recovery or lighter day, then medium and such.  Not the MAF approach.

Very scientific.  Not really your thing.

I don't even wear a watch anymore.

I said "mostly easy".  Which sounds similar to what you're saying.  If you run hard twice a week, and you're running 6 or more times, I'd say that 2/3 is NOT hard, which would be most.

Science...pfft.

So what exactly are you saying? That following Pfitzinger plan is useless? That his approach (or any other for that matter) to the run progression is inaccurate or a waste of time?

Just trying to understand your critique…

2009-01-09 7:35 AM
in reply to: #1896946

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
JorgeM - 2009-01-09 8:29 AM
Scout7 - 2009-01-09 7:21 AM
Daremo - 2009-01-08 7:24 PM

No, their plans are pretty well balanced.  Always some sort of intensity in the week between tempo, strides and later intervals.  Day of harder stuff, then a recovery or lighter day, then medium and such.  Not the MAF approach.

Very scientific.  Not really your thing.

I don't even wear a watch anymore.

I said "mostly easy".  Which sounds similar to what you're saying.  If you run hard twice a week, and you're running 6 or more times, I'd say that 2/3 is NOT hard, which would be most.

Science...pfft.

So what exactly are you saying? That following Pfitzinger plan is useless? That his approach (or any other for that matter) to the run progression is inaccurate or a waste of time?

Just trying to understand your critique…

Not at all.

My point is that, at the core, running is simple.  Run lots, as much as you can, the bulk at an easier level, with some harder stuff thrown in.

Daniels, Pfitz, Lydiard, Hadd, Tinman, Maffetone, Dreyer, Noakes, Glover....  They all say the same thing at the core: you wanna get better, run a lot.  But to run a lot, you gotta run easier most of the time.  To race better, you got run harder some of the time.

My initial post was to the idea that somehow Pfitzinger has better plans than anyone else.  I disagree.  You can get better following most any plan, so long as you're consistent, you put in lots of easy miles, and you add in some intensity.  The exact mix is up to whatever plan you follow.



2009-01-09 9:01 AM
in reply to: #1894836

User image

Master
2571
20005002525
Tiger's Den
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"

I haven't had time to read the other responses, but my coach has me do a long of 15 before a half. And those 15 are not all ez miles. Normally she has me do 5 mile ez warm up, 5 miles at goal pace, and then 5 miles ez cool down. And then normally right before taper she has me do a 12 mile track workout that goes something like this....

2 miles ez warm up

2 X 1 mile at marathon pace, 400 ez

2 X 1000 at half marathon pace with 400 ez recoveries

2 X 800 at 10K  pace, 400 ez recovery

2 X 400 at 5K pace with the last 100 at all out effort, 400 ez recoveries

balance cool down ez pace on or off track.

2009-01-09 10:03 AM
in reply to: #1894836

User image

Cycling Guru
15134
50005000500010025
Fulton, MD
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"

Certainly not better than any other good coaches plans.

But a lot of people seem to respond really well to their plans, and with the more analytical approach they take to training it seems to suit the typical Type A anal triathlete.

My first BQ was using one of their plans and really staying focused on it.  My second one was after just futzing around and trying to run lots and then doing my damndest to try and keep up with you up to mile 20.  So both work .......

2009-01-09 10:10 AM
in reply to: #1897309

User image

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
Daremo - 2009-01-09 10:03 AM

Certainly not better than any other good coaches plans.

But a lot of people seem to respond really well to their plans, and with the more analytical approach they take to training it seems to suit the typical Type A anal triathlete.

My first BQ was using one of their plans and really staying focused on it.  My second one was after just futzing around and trying to run lots and then doing my damndest to try and keep up with you up to mile 20.  So both work .......

But was the success with the futzing around a product of your experience and success with P-D plans? What about your marathons before you tried P-D?

Innocent

Yeah P-D's not revolutionary, not rocket science, it's an application of basic training principles. But unlike Scout, who was born knowing all this stuff, us mere mortals can sometimes benefit from some structure and details to build on "Run lots, the more the better.  Most of it should be easy, but some of it should be harder."

2009-01-09 10:21 AM
in reply to: #1897327

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
the bear - 2009-01-09 11:10 AM
Daremo - 2009-01-09 10:03 AM

Certainly not better than any other good coaches plans.

But a lot of people seem to respond really well to their plans, and with the more analytical approach they take to training it seems to suit the typical Type A anal triathlete.

My first BQ was using one of their plans and really staying focused on it.  My second one was after just futzing around and trying to run lots and then doing my damndest to try and keep up with you up to mile 20.  So both work .......

But was the success with the futzing around a product of your experience and success with P-D plans? What about your marathons before you tried P-D?

Innocent

Yeah P-D's not revolutionary, not rocket science, it's an application of basic training principles. But unlike Scout, who was born knowing all this stuff, us mere mortals can sometimes benefit from some structure and details to build on "Run lots, the more the better.  Most of it should be easy, but some of it should be harder."

HA!

Honestly, I spend waaaay too much time researching this stuff.  Or at least I did.  I have read a number of books on the subject of running, training, and planning.  I read RT, I talk to other people (like here).

The one thing I found after all that research is that people (especially Type A anal-retentive triathletes) like to make things much harder than they actually are.  Like you said, it's running, not rocket science.

Yes, having a plan is useful, and often necessary.  And most people have no interest in creating one themselves.  I see pros and cons to this approach.  I have nothing whatsoever against Pfitzinger.  It is interesting to note, however, that his actual training was not like what he prescribes in his book.  It was much looser, less structured.

2009-01-09 10:30 AM
in reply to: #1897357

User image

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"

Scout7 - 2009-01-09 10:21 AM  It is interesting to note, however, that his actual training was not like what he prescribes in his book.  It was much looser, less structured.

Do as I say, not as I do!

I would say, generally speaking, runners who buy books and seek out plans are looking for that structure. Wouldn't sell a whole lot of books that didn't provide what the masses want.



Edited by the bear 2009-01-09 10:31 AM


2009-01-09 10:37 AM
in reply to: #1897357

User image

Cycling Guru
15134
50005000500010025
Fulton, MD
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"

Scout7 - 2009-01-09 11:21 AM   It is interesting to note, however, that his actual training was not like what he prescribes in his book.  It was much looser, less structured.

Up to a point.  If you believe what he wrote about in his experience the year he won the oly trials, he started to devlop his method and applied a much more regimented approach and was able to peak right on form and do well compared to his contemporaries.  Before he was just running lots (150+ per week).  He actually performed better on a lower amount with more structured training.

But yeah, he ran lots ........ and lots and lots and lots ........

2009-01-09 10:44 AM
in reply to: #1897372

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
the bear - 2009-01-09 11:30 AM

Scout7 - 2009-01-09 10:21 AM  It is interesting to note, however, that his actual training was not like what he prescribes in his book.  It was much looser, less structured.

Do as I say, not as I do!

I would say, generally speaking, runners who buy books and seek out plans are looking for that structure. Wouldn't sell a whole lot of books that didn't provide what the masses want.

I know that.  And it's the main reason why I haven't bought Advanced Marathoning, or Daniels' Running Formula.

Beyond all that, I think Glover has great plans, but nobody ever recommends "The Competitive Runner's Handbook".  Why not?  It's because, for whatever reason, his book isn't as popular.

2009-01-09 10:46 AM
in reply to: #1897388

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
Daremo - 2009-01-09 11:37 AM

Scout7 - 2009-01-09 11:21 AM   It is interesting to note, however, that his actual training was not like what he prescribes in his book.  It was much looser, less structured.

Up to a point.  If you believe what he wrote about in his experience the year he won the oly trials, he started to devlop his method and applied a much more regimented approach and was able to peak right on form and do well compared to his contemporaries.  Before he was just running lots (150+ per week).  He actually performed better on a lower amount with more structured training.

But yeah, he ran lots ........ and lots and lots and lots ........

But even with more structured training, he wasn't going on a day-to-day schedule.  He had cycles, and weekly mileage goals, but wasn't plotting it out as detailed as he does in the book.  I know the stuff they have posted on RT basically say that the schedule is an example, and to be flexible with when you do what, and how much, but I think many people miss that note.

2009-01-09 10:54 AM
in reply to: #1896954

User image

Coach
10487
50005000100100100100252525
Boston, MA
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
Scout7 - 2009-01-09 7:35 AM

Not at all.

My point is that, at the core, running is simple.  Run lots, as much as you can, the bulk at an easier level, with some harder stuff thrown in.

Daniels, Pfitz, Lydiard, Hadd, Tinman, Maffetone, Dreyer, Noakes, Glover....  They all say the same thing at the core: you wanna get better, run a lot.  But to run a lot, you gotta run easier most of the time.  To race better, you got run harder some of the time.

My initial post was to the idea that somehow Pfitzinger has better plans than anyone else.  I disagree.  You can get better following most any plan, so long as you're consistent, you put in lots of easy miles, and you add in some intensity.  The exact mix is up to whatever plan you follow.

I agree with the main point of your post, and I miss the part that it was suggested that PD has better plans that I would disagree as well. What I inferred from the tone of your initial was the idea that this is not difficult at all and sounded over simplistic; hell we have said it many times to just run sometimes easy others long, others hard and repeat so I am with you, however this been a site catered for beginners I believe the over simplification *sometimes* can be more confusing for them.

As you posted, you have listened, read and learned from great coaches, each has his/her own way to set up the structure but the training concepts in general are the same. Some will do more volume, others more intensity, other periodirize different, etc but work and consistency makes the athlete.

My point is that sometimes it is good for the beginner to get structured training, to read the ideas of one coach/author, to listen to suggestions from experienced athletes and somewhere along the ride he/she will begin to understand why work and consistency is a must and what kind of structure or style my fit his/her needs, goals and schedule best.

I sometimes run wit a watch others I don’t, sometimes I track pace, others I don’t, but I have developed my RPE through running and running and running. Many beginners lack experience, have one speed, one intensity and until you get them of the comfort zone, until you explain and teach them to push or slow down, etc. it is when they developed their own experience and learn how to listen to their body. While I have my preferences when it comes with training my athletes have flexibility to train with whatever method they prefer or have (HRM, pace, RPE) but we discuss often why listing one’s body is vital.

The geeky stuff like power file or pace/GPS files are for *me*, that allows *me* to dig deeper into what the athlete did as unfortunately I can’t be with them in every session or at all. Most athletes just want to know how long to run and how fast to go, so I just suggest the sessions based on that but having them used a data collecting device + their feedback allows *me* to learn in detail how hard they pushed or not and how fast they recover, how much they can handle and it I allows me to make better training suggestions for their plans. They don’t need to do anything with the data but just send it to me (or I’ll teach them and explain if they choose to).

In you case you have the luxury and advantage that you have gained the experience through the years that you know how to train, what to do and when to do it to perform well, yet I am willing to bet that any of the coaches you mentioned would help you find another level of performance yet they would be using the same principles you already know. That’s the art of coaching…

 

2009-01-09 2:50 PM
in reply to: #1894836

User image

Expert
1244
100010010025
New York
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
Oof. This is all very interesting and informative.

Like the subject post says, I'm not exactly a "beginner" but I'm also not even close to "advanced"--er, with or without quotations. However, I am a runner and (thank you Daremo) I'm also an anal retentive Type A triathlete (um, is there any other kind???). So I like not having to use my less-qualified brain to come up with workouts. I really really really like having a training program that says "today you will run x miles at y pace and you'll like it, dammit." This, as a perfect example, is the only way I'm doing bike workouts over the winter, thankyouverymuchJorge. I'm motivated, yet feel somewhat aimless without a bit of expert guidance.

That said, I actually agree with some of Scout's comments...I also don't like super duper structure, I don't enjoy gadgets and the idea of HR monitors and such. (Don't even like wearing a watch, but if you're going for speed, you need one of those). If I could, I'd run naked, but I live in Jersey and it's too cold. Anyway I tend to judge how my training success simply by how far, how long and how hard I'm going (well, RPE on that last one, anyway). Pretty unscientific.

I HAD increased my pace significantly, for me, over the course of my last half mary training by doing totally unregimented, unscientific interval training (down to a jaw-dropping 8:13 min/mile for the race). Perhaps had I followed a program, I would have done better, but I went with the "run more and run faster" mentality. It worked, but I'm guessing I could benefit from some more in depth knowledge about it.

It looks like I need someone to kick me in the tush and tell me to do interval training and how to do it and when to do it and how far to do it. Which means I need to follow a more advanced training schedule for a half mary. I'll most likely end up tweaking the ideas to fit my own training style, but as a non-"beginner" un-"advanced" runner, some guidelines beyond "run more and run faster" (I know, I *KNOW*) is useful!

So, I'm gonna go ahead and check out said P-D book from the liberry.

ETA: Thanks for all the advice. Tres useful!

Edited by swishyskirt 2009-01-09 2:52 PM


2009-01-09 2:56 PM
in reply to: #1898243

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2009-01-09 2:59 PM
in reply to: #1898243

Runner
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"

Get Glover's book, and read This as well.

My point is not that structure and following a plan are bad.  My point was simply that P-D's plans work because they follow the basic tenets that all good plans and coaches follow.

And for the record, I don't think you need intervals.  I think you're better served doing some tempo work, and upping your mileage.

2009-01-09 3:34 PM
in reply to: #1898273

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
Scout7 - 2009-01-09 2:59 PM

And for the record, I don't think you need intervals.  I think you're better served doing some tempo work, and upping your mileage.

Which is the advice he gives to nearly everyone. As do I.

2009-01-09 3:36 PM
in reply to: #1898399

Runner
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
the bear - 2009-01-09 4:34 PM
Scout7 - 2009-01-09 2:59 PM

And for the record, I don't think you need intervals.  I think you're better served doing some tempo work, and upping your mileage.

Which is the advice he gives to nearly everyone. As do I.

We should write a book or something.

"How to Train" by the bear and scout.  Then everyone can refer to us as B-S.



Edited by Scout7 2009-01-09 3:36 PM
2009-01-09 3:37 PM
in reply to: #1898405

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
Scout7 - 2009-01-09 3:36 PM
the bear - 2009-01-09 4:34 PM
Scout7 - 2009-01-09 2:59 PM

And for the record, I don't think you need intervals.  I think you're better served doing some tempo work, and upping your mileage.

Which is the advice he gives to nearly everyone. As do I.

We should write a book or something.

It would be rather thin.



2009-01-09 3:37 PM
in reply to: #1898405

Cycling Guru
15134
50005000500010025
Fulton, MD
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"

It would be too short.

Page 1.  Run lots, run how you feel that day.

Page 2.  Ride lots, ride varied terrain.

Sound more like a pamphlet to me.

2009-01-09 3:38 PM
in reply to: #1898405

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2009-01-09 3:39 PM
in reply to: #1898412

Cycling Guru
15134
50005000500010025
Fulton, MD
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
wgraves7582 - 2009-01-09 4:38 PM

Can you guys give me a plan for a marathon that does not include running lots

Yeah, I think it goes by the name F.I.R.S.T. or something like that.

Sealed

2009-01-09 3:39 PM
in reply to: #1898412

Runner
Subject: RE: "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner"
wgraves7582 - 2009-01-09 4:38 PM

Can you guys give me a plan for a marathon that does not include running lots

I have one, actually.

It includes armed men, though.

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » "Beginner" question from...well, not a "beginner" Rss Feed  
 
 
of 3