login
What I think I've lerned
-
No new posts
|
 2010-05-02 2:09 PM |
Expert  1066   Raleigh |  Subject: What I think I've lernedIt's all about the run. Am I wrong? Admittedly, I'm only a few races into this adventure, but from what I see at local races, to what C. Alexnder has done in Kona over the past 2 years, it seems to be about the run. If you want to compete, you simply must be fast on the run. Ofcourse, the bike is important, because it's the largest portion of any race, and you have to somewhat compete in the swim, but the run is where it's at. with that being said, my run pace at Lactate threshold is 7:05. Supposedly, I should be able to run at this pace for an hour if properly motivated. I don't see that happening unless I'm being chased by a tiger. In fact, I have a hard time maintaining this pace for very long at all.I know that you will in fact race the way you practice. So if I continue to run 8 to 8:30 pace miles in training i will race at those paces. However, even on tempo runs I have hard time maintaining paces that are at or near my LT threshold. I simply can't push myself hard enough. Whats the solution to my problem? A coach? More training time? More interval training? More distance training? Any input is appreciated. |
 2010-05-02 2:28 PM in reply to: #2831483 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2010-05-02 2:33 PM in reply to: #2831483 |
Pro 5169  Burbs | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned I disagree... I think it's more about the bike. It's the longest portion (of any tri) as you pointed out, but I think you are forgetting this: you can't have a good run without a good bike. If the bike fitness isn't there, the run is going to suck, regardless of an athlete's stand alone running abilities. My $0.02. As to your running, I've found that for myself -- the more I run, the faster I get. I went from a 4:45 marathon to a 3:50 marathon within a few years by solely running more (very very few speedworkouts0. Again, YMMV. |
| 2010-05-02 2:36 PM in reply to: #2831520 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2010-05-02 2:38 PM in reply to: #2831483 |
Expert 2555  Colorado Springs, Colorado | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned Where did you get your LT pace from? If that's not a pace you can hold for the necessary time, it likely is incorrect. Getting better/faster at running will involve substantially more training than you are currently doing. Your run training essentially will have to double or triple for you to have significant improvement. That will help you improve as a runner. Additionally, as a triathlete, being able to run well off the bike involves be able to bike well enough so as not to fatigue the legs a great deal. More than likely you will also need to bike substantially more than you currently do. For most, making solid improvements takes a lot of work over a long period of time. Progress is measured in year to year improvements, not a matter of a few weeks or months. This involves a commitment to train consistently all year. Many people want to improve, far less want to do what it takes. Don't be one of those people. |
| 2010-05-02 2:39 PM in reply to: #2831527 |
| Pro 5169 Burbs | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned Sharyn5 - 2010-05-02 3:36 PM trishie - 2010-05-02 3:33 PM I disagree... I think it's more about the bike. It's the longest portion (of any tri) as you pointed out, but I think you are forgetting this: you can't have a good run without a good bike. If the bike fitness isn't there, the run is going to suck, regardless of an athlete's stand alone running abilities. My $0.02. As to your running, I've found that for myself -- the more I run, the faster I get. I went from a 4:45 marathon to a 3:50 marathon within a few years by solely running more (very very few speedworkouts0. Again, YMMV. No quick fixes...darn. ha No, seriously...your advice helps someone like me, who is still building, and frankly, it can just get discouraging to keep trying every week to get faster, and there are days when things just don't come together. Hang in there ! You won't get faster each week, but after putting in the volume you WILL notice PRs in your races. Some runs will be awesome, some will be okay, and some will just plain suck. But by getting out there and getting in the miles you are becoming a better runner. |
| 2010-05-02 2:58 PM in reply to: #2831537 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2010-05-02 3:06 PM in reply to: #2831555 |
| Expert 2555 Colorado Springs, Colorado | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned Sharyn5 - 2010-05-02 1:58 PM trishie - 2010-05-02 3:39 PM Sharyn5 - 2010-05-02 3:36 PM trishie - 2010-05-02 3:33 PM I disagree... I think it's more about the bike. It's the longest portion (of any tri) as you pointed out, but I think you are forgetting this: you can't have a good run without a good bike. If the bike fitness isn't there, the run is going to suck, regardless of an athlete's stand alone running abilities. My $0.02. As to your running, I've found that for myself -- the more I run, the faster I get. I went from a 4:45 marathon to a 3:50 marathon within a few years by solely running more (very very few speedworkouts0. Again, YMMV. No quick fixes...darn. ha No, seriously...your advice helps someone like me, who is still building, and frankly, it can just get discouraging to keep trying every week to get faster, and there are days when things just don't come together. Hang in there ! You won't get faster each week, but after putting in the volume you WILL notice PRs in your races. Some runs will be awesome, some will be okay, and some will just plain suck. But by getting out there and getting in the miles you are becoming a better runner. This might sound crazy, but I so NEEDED to hear this today. Have been feeling discouraged, and really, this helps. I guess in my mind, I think I should see this massive progress week after week, but it's the entire volume that counts. Thank you for this! What are you doing to measure your progress? Typically this is done through the use of a specific field test performed about every 6 weeks, or in races. Basic training runs are not a good tool for measuring progress unless all you're tracking is increasing distances. |
| 2010-05-02 3:16 PM in reply to: #2831562 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2010-05-02 3:27 PM in reply to: #2831483 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back Gold member | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned Sharyn, A little tough love here, but how long have you been back running? According to your logs, two months. How much friggin progress do you really expect after two months and, what, 50 miles of running? On thing training should be teaching us is patience, and that progress comes slowly with lots of hard work. |
| 2010-05-02 3:51 PM in reply to: #2831483 |
| Expert 950 Ann Arbor | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned I agree that if you want to kill a race, you need to kill the run, the place where most of the other racers gas. I also agree that in order to set yourself up for a good run, you need to have a solid bike. I would never consider myself an awesome runner, even though when I examine my race results I find that my run ranking is the best of my disciplines and it is higher than people who finished faster than me. My thought process is that the people who beat me focus too much on getting faster quicker than actually running. They can't see the forest for the trees. They log too many speed workouts resulting in pointless injuries and a loss of enjoyment. My advice: Slow down and enjoy your run. I have given up any speed or tempo runs until I am consistently at 20+mpw. I run at a pace slower than most would recommend. I actually surprised myself yesterday at my first duathlon when I had a great 2nd 5k which was the 16th best overall time. When I run slow I: have a reduced chance of being injured have a smaller need for recovery time more energy for the rest of my training can run longer can run more often |
| 2010-05-02 4:13 PM in reply to: #2831532 |
| Expert 1066 Raleigh | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned Donskiman - 2010-05-02 2:38 PM Where did you get your LT pace from? If that's not a pace you can hold for the necessary time, it likely is incorrect. Getting better/faster at running will involve substantially more training than you are currently doing. Your run training essentially will have to double or triple for you to have significant improvement. That will help you improve as a runner. Additionally, as a triathlete, being able to run well off the bike involves be able to bike well enough so as not to fatigue the legs a great deal. More than likely you will also need to bike substantially more than you currently do. For most, making solid improvements takes a lot of work over a long period of time. Progress is measured in year to year improvements, not a matter of a few weeks or months. This involves a commitment to train consistently all year. Many people want to improve, far less want to do what it takes. Don't be one of those people. LT pace cme from lab test. I typically find i run faster off the bike than if I just go for a run. Good responses here folks, but they've led to another run specific question. I't appears that there are quite different opinions on this site about how to improve on the run. I've read, run less but run faster, and then other folks suggest run slower but log more miles. What is the proper approach? Does this vary person to person, or is there solid science here. The folks who did my lab test say intervals are the only proven way to get faster. What say you? |
| 2010-05-02 4:16 PM in reply to: #2831483 |
| Melon Presser 52116 | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned x2 on Donskiman and trishie. And just to be a smartazz ... (smart T.I.T.S.?) some of whether it's the bike or the run (and this has been debated ad nauseam not so much on this forum, but another, somewhat more technical tri forum, and it comes down to ... wait for it ... like Don and Trishie said, both, lots of, over time) ... sorry, I digress, some of whether it's the bike or the run depends on the individual and the course. Mirinda Carfrae wins triathlons on the run. I placed in a competitive tri in a very competitive area in a competitive (and expanded!) AG with NINE-MINUTE MILE RUNS. It absolutely happened on the bike--turns out I'm very good on extremely technical bike courses. Had it come down to straight speed, power, or endurance on the bike, though ... it's actually my weakest leg. |
| 2010-05-02 4:18 PM in reply to: #2831648 |
| Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned titeloops - 2010-05-02 6:13 PM I't appears that there are quite different opinions on this site about how to improve on the run. I've read, run less but run faster For someone just getting into running, any of the FIRST or Run Less, Run Faster approaches are a terrible idea. and then other folks suggest run slower but log more miles. If you want to improve with running, you want to build volume through consistency and frequency. Once are you are able to consistently run 5+ times per week for a few months, then you would be in a better place to consider adjusting running intensity. Shane |
| 2010-05-02 4:44 PM in reply to: #2831580 |
| Expert 2555 Colorado Springs, Colorado | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned Sharyn5 - 2010-05-02 2:16 PM Donskiman - 2010-05-02 4:06 PM Sharyn5 - 2010-05-02 1:58 PM trishie - 2010-05-02 3:39 PM Sharyn5 - 2010-05-02 3:36 PM trishie - 2010-05-02 3:33 PM I disagree... I think it's more about the bike. It's the longest portion (of any tri) as you pointed out, but I think you are forgetting this: you can't have a good run without a good bike. If the bike fitness isn't there, the run is going to suck, regardless of an athlete's stand alone running abilities. My $0.02. As to your running, I've found that for myself -- the more I run, the faster I get. I went from a 4:45 marathon to a 3:50 marathon within a few years by solely running more (very very few speedworkouts0. Again, YMMV. No quick fixes...darn. ha No, seriously...your advice helps someone like me, who is still building, and frankly, it can just get discouraging to keep trying every week to get faster, and there are days when things just don't come together. Hang in there ! You won't get faster each week, but after putting in the volume you WILL notice PRs in your races. Some runs will be awesome, some will be okay, and some will just plain suck. But by getting out there and getting in the miles you are becoming a better runner. This might sound crazy, but I so NEEDED to hear this today. Have been feeling discouraged, and really, this helps. I guess in my mind, I think I should see this massive progress week after week, but it's the entire volume that counts. Thank you for this! What are you doing to measure your progress? Typically this is done through the use of a specific field test performed about every 6 weeks, or in races. Basic training runs are not a good tool for measuring progress unless all you're tracking is increasing distances. I just plug the distance I've run.....treadmill, more accurate...but when outdoors, I just time my run, and then log it here (in my log). I figure out the minutes per mile through the log here. Just to get a quasi gauge of where I am, and so on. It might not be sophisticated, but it helps me at least see from week to week, where I'm going. So, you're saying I should be measuring progress only in distance? (increasing week to week...month...what exactly?) No. What I'm saying is that measuring the speed performance week to week of basic training runs is not a good way to measure progress. Basic training runs are not supposed to be performed at maximum effort in every run. A more useful tool is to do something like a 2 mile run at maximum effort on a track once every 6 weeks. This is an example of the field test I mentioned. I don't use this kind of test since I race almost every other week and I use those instead. However, when using races terrain must be considered. It's not a fair comparison to use a 5K time from a flat course and one from a very hilly course. I do it because I can measure year to year progress on the same courses. I've done many local races numerous times. For a person without this kind of racing history the field test on a track would be more helpful. For the most part, the speed of my trainings runs has almost no similarity to the speed of my races. I do the bulk of my training runs at 8:30-9:30 pace. My last 5K was at 6:40 and I never ran anywhere near that fast in any training runs. |
| 2010-05-02 4:59 PM in reply to: #2831648 |
| Expert 2555 Colorado Springs, Colorado | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned titeloops - 2010-05-02 3:13 PM Donskiman - 2010-05-02 2:38 PM Where did you get your LT pace from? If that's not a pace you can hold for the necessary time, it likely is incorrect. Getting better/faster at running will involve substantially more training than you are currently doing. Your run training essentially will have to double or triple for you to have significant improvement. That will help you improve as a runner. Additionally, as a triathlete, being able to run well off the bike involves be able to bike well enough so as not to fatigue the legs a great deal. More than likely you will also need to bike substantially more than you currently do. For most, making solid improvements takes a lot of work over a long period of time. Progress is measured in year to year improvements, not a matter of a few weeks or months. This involves a commitment to train consistently all year. Many people want to improve, far less want to do what it takes. Don't be one of those people. LT pace cme from lab test. I typically find i run faster off the bike than if I just go for a run. Good responses here folks, but they've led to another run specific question. I't appears that there are quite different opinions on this site about how to improve on the run. I've read, run less but run faster, and then other folks suggest run slower but log more miles. What is the proper approach? Does this vary person to person, or is there solid science here. The folks who did my lab test say intervals are the only proven way to get faster. What say you? Those lab test results are very suspect if that's not something you are actually capable of performing. With very few exceptions, the run less/run faster method is not very successful for people who have no significant running experience. Very young people with excellent overall fitness may be able to get away with it. IMO, for most others it's more of a recipe for injury or quick burnout. If you take a look at the vast majority of fast runners you will find that most train by running high volumes coupled with a small percentage of faster running. Many of the top runners at every distance from a mile up to a marathon utilize training volumes in the 80-100+ miles/week range. There have been instances of top 800 meter runners training up to 120+ miles/week for a race that lasts less than 2 minutes. If there was any truth to the run less/run faster method don't you think these guys would be doing it? A real world BT example of what adding more volume of slower running will do for race performances can be seen in what Newbz has accomplished in the past 6 months. There are many other success stories as well. Edited by Donskiman 2010-05-02 5:02 PM |
| 2010-05-02 5:22 PM in reply to: #2831589 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2010-05-02 7:21 PM in reply to: #2831483 |
| Champion 10668 Tacoma, Washington | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned Back in the '80's, a balding young man took the tri world by storm, topping the likes of Mark Allen et al, and at a particular Oly race, he'd absolutely KILLED on the bike, and had enough of a lead that no one could catch him. His speach at the awards ceremony went like this: If you'd all learn to ride, you wouldn't have to run so fast. That was Mike Pigg. Like others have said, though, you can have LOTS of run fitness, but if you're redlined on the bike you won't have anything left to give when it becomes a footrace. About the only time I can say it truly IS all about the run is an ITU race, and I'd say very few people on this forum have done one of those. |
| 2010-05-02 7:21 PM in reply to: #2831653 |
| Expert 1066 Raleigh | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned gsmacleod - 2010-05-02 4:18 PM titeloops - 2010-05-02 6:13 PM I't appears that there are quite different opinions on this site about how to improve on the run. I've read, run less but run faster For someone just getting into running, any of the FIRST or Run Less, Run Faster approaches are a terrible idea. and then other folks suggest run slower but log more miles. If you want to improve with running, you want to build volume through consistency and frequency. Once are you are able to consistently run 5+ times per week for a few months, then you would be in a better place to consider adjusting running intensity. Shane Whats your opinion on trying to do both? Adding volume with a few intervals mixed in once or twice per week? Also, whats an average weekly run average for full IM training? Not just to finish, but finish strong? Edited by titeloops 2010-05-02 7:23 PM |
| 2010-05-02 7:22 PM in reply to: #2831483 |
| Expert 1116 Thornton, CO | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned Although this is specifically about the IM distance, I believe it holds true for all tris... "The inaugural Ironman Wisconsin, held in 2002, featured a novelty. A couple of elite Kenyan runners did the race. I’m talking about sub-2:15 marathoners. The story was that some coach had recruited these guys as a sort of experiment. Anyway, not only did the poor guinea pigs get crushed on the swim and the bike, but they also ran terribly. This unique example demonstrates that the first key to running strong in an Ironman is not pure running ability but strength on the bike." from: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/triathlon/how-to-nail-the-ironman-marathon.aspx It goes on to say do the minimum for the run and focus on the biking. It really doesn't matter how fast you can run a 5k, 10k, HM, or mary if you get off the bike without anything left in the tank. I don't advocate the "minimum" for running, but neglecting efficiency in the water and on the bike will leave you hung out to dry. |
| 2010-05-02 7:27 PM in reply to: #2831920 |
| Expert 1116 Thornton, CO | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned titeloops - 2010-05-02 6:21 PM gsmacleod - 2010-05-02 4:18 PM titeloops - 2010-05-02 6:13 PM I't appears that there are quite different opinions on this site about how to improve on the run. I've read, run less but run faster For someone just getting into running, any of the FIRST or Run Less, Run Faster approaches are a terrible idea. and then other folks suggest run slower but log more miles. If you want to improve with running, you want to build volume through consistency and frequency. Once are you are able to consistently run 5+ times per week for a few months, then you would be in a better place to consider adjusting running intensity. Shane Whats your opinion on trying to do both? Adding volume with a few intervals mixed in once or twice per week? Also, whats an average weekly run average for full IM training? Not just to finish, but finish strong? without a solid running base you're taking a higher risk of injury with intervals. Yes, they do make you faster, but it's a risk vs reward situation. If your body isn't ready for the stress increase that comes from intervals you'll likely either A) Take too long to recover from the intervals and waste days each week. B) Build the fatigue levels you're training at and have less efficient training sessions everyday until you're burnt out. |
| 2010-05-02 7:31 PM in reply to: #2831930 |
| Expert 1066 Raleigh | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned zionvier - 2010-05-02 7:27 PM titeloops - 2010-05-02 6:21 PM gsmacleod - 2010-05-02 4:18 PM titeloops - 2010-05-02 6:13 PM I't appears that there are quite different opinions on this site about how to improve on the run. I've read, run less but run faster For someone just getting into running, any of the FIRST or Run Less, Run Faster approaches are a terrible idea. and then other folks suggest run slower but log more miles. If you want to improve with running, you want to build volume through consistency and frequency. Once are you are able to consistently run 5+ times per week for a few months, then you would be in a better place to consider adjusting running intensity. Shane Whats your opinion on trying to do both? Adding volume with a few intervals mixed in once or twice per week? Also, whats an average weekly run average for full IM training? Not just to finish, but finish strong? without a solid running base you're taking a higher risk of injury with intervals. Yes, they do make you faster, but it's a risk vs reward situation. If your body isn't ready for the stress increase that comes from intervals you'll likely either A) Take too long to recover from the intervals and waste days each week. B) Build the fatigue levels you're training at and have less efficient training sessions everyday until you're burnt out. This leads to another question. What is a "solid base"? I've completed hald mary in sub 2 hours, been running for years/ My run volume is down now to fit in time for swim and bike. But how do I know if I hve a solid base. I do deal with a few chronic joint issue's, but overall pretty fit. |
| 2010-05-02 7:31 PM in reply to: #2831703 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2010-05-02 7:34 PM in reply to: #2831939 |
| Expert 1066 Raleigh | Subject: RE: What I think I've lerned PennState - 2010-05-02 7:31 PM Donskiman - 2010-05-02 5:59 PM x2 well said!titeloops - 2010-05-02 3:13 PM Donskiman - 2010-05-02 2:38 PM Where did you get your LT pace from? If that's not a pace you can hold for the necessary time, it likely is incorrect. Getting better/faster at running will involve substantially more training than you are currently doing. Your run training essentially will have to double or triple for you to have significant improvement. That will help you improve as a runner. Additionally, as a triathlete, being able to run well off the bike involves be able to bike well enough so as not to fatigue the legs a great deal. More than likely you will also need to bike substantially more than you currently do. For most, making solid improvements takes a lot of work over a long period of time. Progress is measured in year to year improvements, not a matter of a few weeks or months. This involves a commitment to train consistently all year. Many people want to improve, far less want to do what it takes. Don't be one of those people. LT pace cme from lab test. I typically find i run faster off the bike than if I just go for a run. Good responses here folks, but they've led to another run specific question. I't appears that there are quite different opinions on this site about how to improve on the run. I've read, run less but run faster, and then other folks suggest run slower but log more miles. What is the proper approach? Does this vary person to person, or is there solid science here. The folks who did my lab test say intervals are the only proven way to get faster. What say you? Those lab test results are very suspect if that's not something you are actually capable of performing. With very few exceptions, the run less/run faster method is not very successful for people who have no significant running experience. Very young people with excellent overall fitness may be able to get away with it. IMO, for most others it's more of a recipe for injury or quick burnout. If you take a look at the vast majority of fast runners you will find that most train by running high volumes coupled with a small percentage of faster running. Many of the top runners at every distance from a mile up to a marathon utilize training volumes in the 80-100+ miles/week range. There have been instances of top 800 meter runners training up to 120+ miles/week for a race that lasts less than 2 minutes. If there was any truth to the run less/run faster method don't you think these guys would be doing it? A real world BT example of what adding more volume of slower running will do for race performances can be seen in what Newbz has accomplished in the past 6 months. There are many other success stories as well. 1 more question? When you folks say increase run volume, what HR zone would you suggest for the majority of the mileage? |
| 2010-05-02 7:37 PM in reply to: #2831483 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK