login
Running: Speed first or distance first
-
No new posts
|
 2011-01-13 9:16 PM |
Extreme Veteran 368  |  Subject: Running: Speed first or distance firstSo i'm working on my HIM training, and was just wondering. I currently run a pretty consistent 10:00 mile, would it be better to build an endurance base first, or a speed base first? Basically, which would be easier, to train from the beginning at the faster pace, working up to the endurance (8-9:00), or should I train from the beginning at the 10:00 pace, and once I get a consistent long run, then work on increasing my speed, or train at the 10:00 pace and do 1 speedwork session a week? |
| 2011-01-13 9:26 PM in reply to: #3298613 |
Expert 790 | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first Judging from your logs I'm going to assume that you are just starting your HIM training. I'm far from an expert, but I would suggest that you work on a running base first, then worry about speed. I'm a firm believer that you need to run further slower before you can run faster. The fastest way to injure yourself is to run too fast too early. Best of luck with your training. Edited by Houstonrider 2011-01-13 9:27 PM |
| 2011-01-13 9:27 PM in reply to: #3298613 |
Veteran 1097  Elizabethtown, KY | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first Getting faster is a result of conditioning your body to running. You do that by . . . running . . . a lot Mostly slow Sometimes fast In other words - focus on the mileage, not the speed. Keep most of the runs easy to avoid injury, and maybe work in some speed training, but generally only after you have a reasonable base. |
| 2011-01-13 9:55 PM in reply to: #3298613 |
| Member 195 Akron, OH | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first This was a major struggle for me from age 16 until 40. I always wanted to go faster first, then build endurance. I could not see how running 10 minute miles, mile after mile would ever get me to a 7 or 8 minute mile. I could only see myself becoming a back of the pack guy, trained to finish the distance, slowly. The result was injuries, a dread of running, etc. In fact my favorite thing to tell people was "I like to swim, love to bike, and only run when chased!". It only took 24 years for me to give the other approach a try. It works much better I must admit. Long slow distance will build you up and make you faster. I ran 10 min miles to get to a 7:40/mi 5k in 4 mos and ran a half Mary in 8:29/mi average in 9 mos, from really zero running. The best part by far however, is a day like yesterday, 24 degrees in NE Ohio, gortex shoes, cold weather gear, go out alone for 7.5 mi at 9.5-10 min/mi, by myself, and ENJOYED it. I'm a runner now at 42. Who'd a thunk it? Edited by dscottmd 2011-01-13 9:58 PM |
| 2011-01-13 10:57 PM in reply to: #3298613 |
Master 2372 | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first Cavemann - 2011-01-13 9:16 PM So i'm working on my HIM training, and was just wondering. I currently run a pretty consistent 10:00 mile, would it be better to build an endurance base first, or a speed base first? Basically, which would be easier, to train from the beginning at the faster pace, working up to the endurance (8-9:00), or should I train from the beginning at the 10:00 pace, and once I get a consistent long run, then work on increasing my speed, or train at the 10:00 pace and do 1 speedwork session a week? Assuming you are past high school age (in which large volume is not recommended and developing speed is better), endurance base is a much more efficient way to get faster. Have a look at the first graph here to see how important the aerobic part of running is to pretty much any length run this forum is interested in. I'd even suggest that until you get to 20-25mpw consistently that speedwork is a waste. Another good thread - Why Speedwork is Overrated. Edited by sand101 2011-01-13 11:09 PM |
| 2011-01-14 12:01 AM in reply to: #3298613 |
| Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first the popular saying here is run lots, mostly easy, sometimes hard. |
| 2011-01-14 12:41 AM in reply to: #3298613 |
Master 2563 University Park, MD | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first Coming from a background (long ago) in middle-distance running, I naturally react against the frequent mantra here that you should run slow to become fast. If you want to get really fast, then you gotta do a bunch of fast running. But for most of us here what's more important is to allow our bodies to keep going, so that we can train consistently without getting injured all the time. And there seems to be a pretty good consensus that doing a lot of steady running (preferably with reasonable form, and decent footwear) is a good way to protect against injury. Running 8 minute miles rather than 10 minute miles probably isn't going to make a whole lot of difference to the stresses on your body ... except that when you're running closer to your limits, your rather more likely to lose form and put unusual stresses on your system. With that in mind, combining steady running with a regular program of stretching/strengthening/core/balance work probably also helps to protect against injury. |
| 2011-01-14 1:09 AM in reply to: #3298783 |
Champion 7233 | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first colinphillips - 2011-01-13 11:41 PM Coming from a background (long ago) in middle-distance running, I naturally react against the frequent mantra here that you should run slow to become fast. If you want to get really fast, then you gotta do a bunch of fast running. But for most of us here what's more important is to allow our bodies to keep going, so that we can train consistently without getting injured all the time. And there seems to be a pretty good consensus that doing a lot of steady running (preferably with reasonable form, and decent footwear) is a good way to protect against injury. Running 8 minute miles rather than 10 minute miles probably isn't going to make a whole lot of difference to the stresses on your body ... except that when you're running closer to your limits, your rather more likely to lose form and put unusual stresses on your system. With that in mind, combining steady running with a regular program of stretching/strengthening/core/balance work probably also helps to protect against injury. Not to completely jump on you here, but you do know that those guys running really fast, run a LOT, and most of it is not hard for any of the race distances we'd be talking about here (5k through marathon). for someone running the 400 or 800, or mile, there is a lot more speed involved, but even the 800 and milers are running more volume than most of of BT as a whole. Lastly, since this seems to get lost on people a lot. Its not run slow. speed has nothing to do with it. Its run EASY. or rather, easy enough that it does not effect tomorrow workout, and the next day. To the OP, you need to run more. adding in harder effort running where you are right now is not a bright idea, and will likely result in you getting hurt/experiencing setbacks that will slow you down even more. slowly, and smartly, build your mileage up. for the HIM you need to worry about volume more than speed for a while yet, and then get in the bike training to support that run once race day rolls around. |
| 2011-01-14 2:07 AM in reply to: #3298613 |
| Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first There's a saying that has rang true to me since the first time I read it Speedwork is the icing and I don't even have the cake yet. |
| 2011-01-14 5:52 AM in reply to: #3298613 |
Expert 1066 Raleigh | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first "fast follows fit"Gordo |
| 2011-01-14 6:18 AM in reply to: #3298613 |
Veteran 195 NAF Atsugi Japan,Medford OR. | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first Both......your week should include a long run (usually on the weekend) gradually increasing your distance each week by small percentages......some 400-800 meter repeats to get your body used to running hard when fatigue sets in, and fartlek type training in that you alternate between fast and not so fast. |
| 2011-01-14 7:04 AM in reply to: #3298877 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first thecatch83 - 2011-01-14 7:18 AM Both......your week should include a long run (usually on the weekend) gradually increasing your distance each week by small percentages......some 400-800 meter repeats to get your body used to running hard when fatigue sets in, and fartlek type training in that you alternate between fast and not so fast. Make those repeats 100-200 m, and I would agree with you. Also, I don't think the focus should be on running hard. The focus should be on running smoothly, controlled, and feeling fluid. Train, don't strain. |
| 2011-01-14 7:24 AM in reply to: #3298613 |
Master 2158 | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first I agree, I like the icing on the cake idea! As was stated, it isn't run slow, it is run easy.... Now, defining easy can be the hard part. If you do a 5K test, you can punch your numbers into the calculator at attackpoint. This would give you a good idea of the paces you should be capable of for different kinds of runs. However, remember that the majority of your runs will be at easier paces. I think the above referenced article on "Why Speedwork is Overated" touches on the idea of how much of your volume should be speed. It takes time to realize what easy is. I know this sounds strange, but easy isn't always that easy. I think the best description I heard was in the movie "spirit of the marathon." I think it was something like "you should be able to hum a song, if you can sing it, you are running too slow" So, bottom line, get the base in, then add some speedwork. Doesn't have to be much at first. Once you get fit, you can always play with the intensity/volume to make things work. |
| 2011-01-14 7:37 AM in reply to: #3298787 |
Master 2563 University Park, MD | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first newbz - 2011-01-14 2:09 AM Not to completely jump on you here, but you do know that those guys running really fast, run a LOT, and most of it is not hard for any of the race distances we'd be talking about here (5k through marathon). for someone running the 400 or 800, or mile, there is a lot more speed involved, but even the 800 and milers are running more volume than most of of BT as a whole. Like I said, or perhaps didn't say directly enough, for most of us here at BT the rules that apply to the speedy teens or twenty-somethings don't automatically apply to us. Our biggest concern in running is to be able to keep training without getting injured, and so the most appropriate training is probably not the same as the type of training that yields the fastest gains. This is why I agree with the general advice on this thread. But I disagree with the notion that because those at the peak of the sport have high overall volume, then the volume must be essential to their speed (here I'm thinking about folks running a mile to 5 miles, not marathoners, for whom speed is less critical). The current fashion is for everybody to do a whole lot of volume, so it's difficult to sort tease apart volume and intensity, but a decades ago when high volume was less in vogue, there were a lot of people running quite quickly on mileage that would seem surprisingly low today. I'm not sure that they got injured any more than their counterparts do today (I really don't know enough about current data). Most of my experience came from running and coaching middle distance in the UK in the 80s, when that was the mecca for those distances (I wasn't so good myself). But this is, of course irrelevant to most of us here, if we don't have the young body that is needed to handle that kind of approach. From a purely cardiovascular standpoint, swimming, biking, and running shouldn't be all that different. If they are, then I'd be very interested to hear more about it. And yet the training advice that we see here is so very different. There's a current swim thread here on BT where everybody is saying that you'll only get fast by swimming hard. And in discussions of bike training it's standard to read that threshold intervals should be a staple part of our diet. Sure, the pros put in many more hours on the bike, but in that case we're told that one can take out the volume in favor of the threshold stuff. But the running advice is completely different. The reason for this is presumably not cardiovascular, but musculoskeletal. The stresses of running are such that what works for the CV system might be more than the chassis can handle. If that's the main reason why run training advice is different, then the importance of the easy stuff would vary from person to person, depending on the strength of the chassis. Alas, for most of us here the chassis just isn't that robust, and so we have to take things steady. (That's why I'm not running right now. I got carried away and tried to ramp up too quickly, forgetting that I wasn't the young gun of long ago. Made rapid speed gains, but rapidly got injured, too.) Anybody know of cardiovascular reasons why run training advice should be different from what we read about swimming and biking? I'd be curious to know. |
| 2011-01-14 7:40 AM in reply to: #3298613 |
Veteran 720 Aurora, Illinois | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first I'm going have to go against what most people have said here and say speed is more important right now while you build up to HM training. Assuming your healthy and can run several miles at a comfortable pace, you should be working in 2 - 3 days worth of speed work a week. Once your body becomes accostumed to the speed, you should be able to add volume, at faster speeds!. When you think about volume- again, assuming your healthy and have sufficient nutriion, you should be able to run 10 miles at that 10min/mi pace. Why? because your not pushing yourself faster and your body is self protecting itself from overload. The more you do stress your body to the limit by doing speed intervals in short time frames (400 m sprints, etc), your body will become accostumed to those higher intensities, while still being able to go the distance. |
| 2011-01-14 7:58 AM in reply to: #3298977 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first colinphillips - 2011-01-14 8:37 AM But the running advice is completely different. The reason for this is presumably not cardiovascular, but musculoskeletal. The stresses of running are such that what works for the CV system might be more than the chassis can handle. If that's the main reason why run training advice is different, then the importance of the easy stuff would vary from person to person, depending on the strength of the chassis. Alas, for most of us here the chassis just isn't that robust, and so we have to take things steady. (That's why I'm not running right now. I got carried away and tried to ramp up too quickly, forgetting that I wasn't the young gun of long ago. Made rapid speed gains, but rapidly got injured, too.) Anybody know of cardiovascular reasons why run training advice should be different from what we read about swimming and biking? I'd be curious to know. There are none that I'm aware of. You are correct that the main reason is more about the frame rather than the engine. Here's the deal: Ultimately, you would want to do all of your training at a higher level of effort. In a perfect world, you could do that. However, we don't live in a perfect world, so we make compromises. The compromise is that we have to trade off volume for effort sometimes. I think the problem with this discussion is that people equate "easy" and "hard" with "slow" and "fast". They are not equivalent, not at all. Anyone who has run through inclement weather up a long steep hill understands this point. Since we can't run all the time at higher effort levels, we have to run more at easy effort levels. No one can say what those levels should be; they are both highly individualized and moving targets. The point here is that you need to decide what the right training is for you. If you do well with a different mix, then go for it. But ultimately the thing people need to do to improve is to run more. Whatever you do with that mix is entirely up to you, and will probably change year to year. |
| 2011-01-14 7:59 AM in reply to: #3298989 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first tzcoaching - 2011-01-14 8:40 AM I'm going have to go against what most people have said here and say speed is more important right now while you build up to HM training. Assuming your healthy and can run several miles at a comfortable pace, you should be working in 2 - 3 days worth of speed work a week. Once your body becomes accostumed to the speed, you should be able to add volume, at faster speeds!. When you think about volume- again, assuming your healthy and have sufficient nutriion, you should be able to run 10 miles at that 10min/mi pace. Why? because your not pushing yourself faster and your body is self protecting itself from overload. The more you do stress your body to the limit by doing speed intervals in short time frames (400 m sprints, etc), your body will become accostumed to those higher intensities, while still being able to go the distance. Define speed work as you mean it in your statement. What is appropriate volume? What is healthy? What are "faster speeds"? |
| 2011-01-14 9:05 AM in reply to: #3298613 |
Expert 2555 Colorado Springs, Colorado | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first I'm just a regular person, not particularly gifted. The higher the volume of easy running (endurance work), the faster I've been able to race. Most of my training isn't any faster now than it was 3-4 years ago, but my race performances have steadily improved. I'm now running a faster pace in half marathons than I used to run in 5Ks just a few years ago. In the past several months I've had a few solid PRs despite only running that fast in training maybe only 1% of the time. Running high volume consistently in not sexy, and even though almost all the running is at easy paces, it's hard work. Going out to run when you don't really feel like it can be mentally draining, especially on days when the weather isn't very nice. It's also not a fast process, but rather something that can take many months to several years for solid results to come. If you're looking for fast results then perhaps speed first may be the way to go - along with the knowledge it may lead to injuries that can often sideline a person for an entire season. If you're looking for results that you can keep building for many years, work on the endurance stuff. |
| 2011-01-14 9:15 AM in reply to: #3298613 |
Regular 83 Frisco, TX | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first Do you live anywhere near a running store? We have a few here in the Dallas area and I'm assuming most metropolitan areas have them. Look for a running coach or HM running class. Sounds funny - "Do I really need a coach to show me how to run?". Well, yes. Having a coach to assess your individual needs and set you up on an appropriate running program will teach you quite a bit. Most programs I've been through involve a base building phase where you build up your weekly mileage based mostly on long, easy runs with MAYBE some tempo runs. 200/400 repeats, etc. should really only be tackled once you have a good solid base under you. If I were training for an open HM, my weekly mileage would be around 25-30 miles per week before I thought about even adding a tempo run during the week. Wouldn't even consider adding track work (200/400 repeats, etc.) until I had a good solid 6 months at that total volume with weekly long run of 13-15 miles. Also check out http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm for a very good calculator to show you at what pace you should be running on your different runs. |
| 2011-01-14 9:16 AM in reply to: #3298977 |
Master 4118 Toronto Bronze member | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first colinphillips - 2011-01-14 8:37 AM newbz - 2011-01-14 2:09 AM Not to completely jump on you here, but you do know that those guys running really fast, run a LOT, and most of it is not hard for any of the race distances we'd be talking about here (5k through marathon). for someone running the 400 or 800, or mile, there is a lot more speed involved, but even the 800 and milers are running more volume than most of of BT as a whole. Like I said, or perhaps didn't say directly enough, for most of us here at BT the rules that apply to the speedy teens or twenty-somethings don't automatically apply to us. Our biggest concern in running is to be able to keep training without getting injured, and so the most appropriate training is probably not the same as the type of training that yields the fastest gains. This is why I agree with the general advice on this thread. But I disagree with the notion that because those at the peak of the sport have high overall volume, then the volume must be essential to their speed (here I'm thinking about folks running a mile to 5 miles, not marathoners, for whom speed is less critical). The current fashion is for everybody to do a whole lot of volume, so it's difficult to sort tease apart volume and intensity, but a decades ago when high volume was less in vogue, there were a lot of people running quite quickly on mileage that would seem surprisingly low today. I'm not sure that they got injured any more than their counterparts do today (I really don't know enough about current data). Most of my experience came from running and coaching middle distance in the UK in the 80s, when that was the mecca for those distances (I wasn't so good myself). But this is, of course irrelevant to most of us here, if we don't have the young body that is needed to handle that kind of approach. From a purely cardiovascular standpoint, swimming, biking, and running shouldn't be all that different. If they are, then I'd be very interested to hear more about it. And yet the training advice that we see here is so very different. There's a current swim thread here on BT where everybody is saying that you'll only get fast by swimming hard. And in discussions of bike training it's standard to read that threshold intervals should be a staple part of our diet. Sure, the pros put in many more hours on the bike, but in that case we're told that one can take out the volume in favor of the threshold stuff. But the running advice is completely different. The reason for this is presumably not cardiovascular, but musculoskeletal. The stresses of running are such that what works for the CV system might be more than the chassis can handle. If that's the main reason why run training advice is different, then the importance of the easy stuff would vary from person to person, depending on the strength of the chassis. Alas, for most of us here the chassis just isn't that robust, and so we have to take things steady. (That's why I'm not running right now. I got carried away and tried to ramp up too quickly, forgetting that I wasn't the young gun of long ago. Made rapid speed gains, but rapidly got injured, too.) Anybody know of cardiovascular reasons why run training advice should be different from what we read about swimming and biking? I'd be curious to know. Well, running is weight-bearing activity while cycling and swimming are not. |
| 2011-01-14 9:50 AM in reply to: #3298977 |
Champion 7233 | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first colinphillips - 2011-01-14 6:37 AM newbz - 2011-01-14 2:09 AM Not to completely jump on you here, but you do know that those guys running really fast, run a LOT, and most of it is not hard for any of the race distances we'd be talking about here (5k through marathon). for someone running the 400 or 800, or mile, there is a lot more speed involved, but even the 800 and milers are running more volume than most of of BT as a whole. Like I said, or perhaps didn't say directly enough, for most of us here at BT the rules that apply to the speedy teens or twenty-somethings don't automatically apply to us. Our biggest concern in running is to be able to keep training without getting injured, and so the most appropriate training is probably not the same as the type of training that yields the fastest gains. This is why I agree with the general advice on this thread. But I disagree with the notion that because those at the peak of the sport have high overall volume, then the volume must be essential to their speed (here I'm thinking about folks running a mile to 5 miles, not marathoners, for whom speed is less critical). The current fashion is for everybody to do a whole lot of volume, so it's difficult to sort tease apart volume and intensity, but a decades ago when high volume was less in vogue, there were a lot of people running quite quickly on mileage that would seem surprisingly low today. I'm not sure that they got injured any more than their counterparts do today (I really don't know enough about current data). Most of my experience came from running and coaching middle distance in the UK in the 80s, when that was the mecca for those distances (I wasn't so good myself). But this is, of course irrelevant to most of us here, if we don't have the young body that is needed to handle that kind of approach. From a purely cardiovascular standpoint, swimming, biking, and running shouldn't be all that different. If they are, then I'd be very interested to hear more about it. And yet the training advice that we see here is so very different. There's a current swim thread here on BT where everybody is saying that you'll only get fast by swimming hard. And in discussions of bike training it's standard to read that threshold intervals should be a staple part of our diet. Sure, the pros put in many more hours on the bike, but in that case we're told that one can take out the volume in favor of the threshold stuff. But the running advice is completely different. The reason for this is presumably not cardiovascular, but musculoskeletal. The stresses of running are such that what works for the CV system might be more than the chassis can handle. If that's the main reason why run training advice is different, then the importance of the easy stuff would vary from person to person, depending on the strength of the chassis. Alas, for most of us here the chassis just isn't that robust, and so we have to take things steady. (That's why I'm not running right now. I got carried away and tried to ramp up too quickly, forgetting that I wasn't the young gun of long ago. Made rapid speed gains, but rapidly got injured, too.) Anybody know of cardiovascular reasons why run training advice should be different from what we read about swimming and biking? I'd be curious to know. There is a huge key dif here that seems to escape a lot of people. Those elites/high level runners that can race so fast on little mileage, almost ALL of them had some some point a pretty high mileage background in there somewhere. No, its not needed all the time. you can get away with a lot less down the road when you've put in some higher mileage times. And if you want ot use history as examples, when the US distance runners started moving away from higher mileage overall, we started getting spanked in distance events. Now that it's coming back in, we are slowly moving back up. As far as the dif between running vs swimming/cycling, the reason you see so much of a difference in training is due to the style of the activity. One is going to cause impact, the other two will not. The other reason you see more poeple saying you can replace some of the volume with threshold work on the bike, is this is a triathlete website, and its winter time. Would they be as fast as if they did the volume too, no, but then again losing a min over 40k is not an issue for most folks, becuase that means they can now swim and run too. And please don't get me wrong, i 100% believe that speedwork/faster running/name it what you will, is important to race at your peak, and not just one short quick one a week for the shorter races like 5k. Yes you can keep getting faster for a LONG time of volume alone, but most people will never run enough to see that, and the faster stuff helps when you run out of time to do more. That said, i don't think the OP is close to that point yet. |
| 2011-01-14 10:30 AM in reply to: #3298613 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first Cavemann - 2011-01-13 9:16 PM So i'm working on my HIM training, and was just wondering. I currently run a pretty consistent 10:00 mile, would it be better to build an endurance base first, or a speed base first? Basically, which would be easier, to train from the beginning at the faster pace, working up to the endurance (8-9:00), or should I train from the beginning at the 10:00 pace, and once I get a consistent long run, then work on increasing my speed, or train at the 10:00 pace and do 1 speedwork session a week? There is nothing wrong with mixing your training load as long as you do so within your own limitations. In fact, by doing so and changing the mix (volume + intensity) based on current fitness level, goals and time availability for training/recovery, AGers will most likely yield the greatest fitness gains following this approach. Anytime you stress your body enough to force it to adapt but, not so much it can’t recover, you are increasing your fitness. Anytime your training effort exceeds ~3 min in duration regardless of intensity, you are improving your aerobic capacity. Bottom line, use the adequate of training load based on your current fitness, goals, etc. Sometimes do easy, other moderate, others more intense training, others add some strides. Some days go short, other mid distance and others long. Run on flat terrain, run hills, run on trails, do drills, etc. Follow the 3 Rs: run, recover, and repeat! Edited by JorgeM 2011-01-14 11:00 AM |
| 2011-01-14 10:40 AM in reply to: #3298613 |
Champion 10668 Tacoma, Washington | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first Much like colinphilips, I get conflicted with this one. But as Scout pointed out, it's not "slow", it's "easy". Like Colin, I "learned to run" in jr high and high school doing the 400/800, and occasionally jumped into the 2 mile on a lark. Then cross country hit, and long distance bit me... I learned to run fast before I ran long, and so I was still "fast" when I started racing longer. It's just that "easy" happened to be pretty "fast". But I was also young. If I were just starting out now, I'm sure the training I did back then would land me in the orthopedist's office in a month. Or less. |
| 2011-01-14 10:46 AM in reply to: #3299441 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first Wow, terrific post, Jorge. |
| 2011-01-14 12:03 PM in reply to: #3298613 |
| Extreme Veteran 368 | Subject: RE: Running: Speed first or distance first Thanks everyone for all the information. I would have to say that the biggest take-away from this, is the different between training at a slow pace, and easy training. I can easily do an 8:00 mile.....I can easily do a 10:00 mile for 5-6 miles. with easy training, and a 1:2:3 approach for my 3 weekly runs, that gives me some ideas and some flexibility for the type of work I can do that will help to build a more solid base. Just thinking about it, the base (foundation), just like in a building, is the most important part. Without a solid foundation to build upon, you have nothing. Once you have a foundation, the sky's the limit for the possibilities for what you build on top of it. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK