Run less, run faster?? (Page 2)

Wow!!  Great comments and definitely a lot of food for thought. 

The reason I am considering the Run less, run faster plan, is because I am planning a HIM in July than a marathon in October.  I would really like to keep up my tri training after the HIM for a couple of olympics in August and Sept, and thought this plan would be a good way to do it.  The marathon is definitely my fall A race, but I don't want to suck at the olys either!

Running for running's sake is great to keep you in shape.  Running without a plan/goal/focus will not necessarily get you faster.  You could go out and run 4 miles a day for a year and you would be over 1,400 miles.  Does that mean you will be fast?  Does that mean you can run a marathon?  No and no.

There is NO substitute for running.  Running is a pounding sport and you cannot develop good running economy, you cannot build up the specific physiological adaptations, and you cannot perform at the levels most want to attain by running less but more intense.

Especially for a newer runner it is a recipe for disaster.

The main reason my latest 5k and 5 miler times are slower than last year??  Because I went from 60 - 70 miles a week at the beginning of the year on 6 - 8 runs down to 20 - 30 miles a week on 3 - 4 runs.  Did I finish an IM and another marathon in between?  Sure ....... BECAUSE I had those 200+ mile months.

But everyone can make their own judgments on what they to achieve.  As a coach (not that it has a lot of merit on here) I would never prescribe this sort of plan for any athlete under my tutelage.

Rick,

In reading all these posts, I just have to wonder how a Triathlete is supposed to add in so much run time.  I followed the FIRST program when I did a 1/2 Marathon in Sept., and for me, running 3x a week was a lot - it still is.  I hit my target for the race and was happy with my peformance.

Anyway, my point is that I think most Triathletes need/want to improve in all three disciplines.  If that's the case, can you offer some suggestions on how one accomplishes that goal.  If we break up our overall volume to concentrate on specific areas (i.e. ride more for 4-6 weeks, then run more for 4-6 weeks, etc) will you actually see a net benefit?  I don't know if after my bike focus is done and I then focus on running or swimming, that by the time I get back to focused biking again I would have dropped down to previous bike levels.

To wrap up my convulted post - if you are not uber strong in one discipline, how do you really improve in a specific area while still balancing out the other disciplines so you don't fall off in those areas?  Does this make sense?

How do people get "uber strong" in one discipline?  Usually, they come from a background where they focused on it for a long time. 

So the answer is that if you foucus on something, many of the gains you make will be long-lasting.  Witness the poster a few back who noted his great half marathon on 35mpw training.  Don't think the 100mpw he did in the past helped some?

In triathlon training, you have to make compromises.  Everyone has to choose where those compromises come.

Running a marathon means different things to different people, I would imagine almost any healthy person can run a marathon with relatively low mileage.  Would it hurt, certainly.  Would they have their optimum performance, certainly not.  I can not imagine running a marathon on anything less than 70 miles a week peak mileage, unless it was just to complete one - then again that doesn't sound like much fun either. 

The three key workouts Long run, Tempo runs, and Intervals (VO2max) are core to pretty much any good running program.  Those alone would almost constitute 40 miles of running per week (20miles, 10 miles, and 9 miles (2 miles warm up, 5 miles of intervals, 2 miles warm down). 

There are some people who can't handle high mileage without getting injured and they might do better with the days between doing cross training than running - not how I would do it, but might be the best prescription for some.

As an added note, Daremo you definitely have already acquired a kot of knowledge and have shown that through your words and the fact that you are hitting the courses and learning a lot.  I am sure the horses in your growing stable will do well if they take your advise.

This approach can certainly work for the right athlete and under the right circumstances. There are athletes which just can’t handle consecutive days of training no matter how slow and easy the load is. There are athletes that unless they are pushing the load hard every day the results are average. Doe the run less, run faster might work? Yes, for the right person however the run faster will be just subjective to the individual specific fitness.

A person running 11 min/mile with minimum training might drop their pace to 10 or even 9 min/mile by braking up the load on only 3 runs per week, but certainly that same person will benefit from any training due to their seemingly low run fitness so yes the run less approach works but again at some degree and for the right athlete. A guy used to run 50mpw running5-6x week will most likely experience a drop in performance by running less and trying to add up the 50 mpw on those 3 weeks.

Now using a Pro athlete as an example is not the best way to validate this approach because most pros have one thing in common something most pros don’t have, a huge fitness base. Hence they can get away by modifying their training load based on their specific need and doing less volume, more intensity might yield better results for THEM.

Remember every athlete has to address specific weaknesses and limiters and produce the right training load (volume + intensity) to produce the specific adaptations to help him/her improve their performance.  It is usually better to do more running at lower intensities at least as a start to allow your body to adapt to the stress and trauma induced on muscles/soft tissue by running. That doesn’t mean you should limit training to one specific intensity but certainly the bouts of intensity should short at first and build up gradually as your legs adapt.

For those athletes with very specific needs then doing a bit less with more load might be an option but remember there is NO one size fits all approach or magic workouts. You have to find the right mix for your physiology, fitness and time constraints.

I agree with the comments that there are no absolutes.

Whilst I do not think there are junk miles, if all you do is run long and slow then you train to run long and slow.  There needs to be some interval/pace work in there.

Some people do better at keeping things at high intensity and shorter and stay injury free.

You defnitely need to be listening to your body.....

at the end of the day you can find data to support all different run training models - pick the one that works for you.

I run long & slow, short & slow & medium & slow.  My "slow" has gone from 11+ m/m to 9 m/m in 3 months of concentrating on my running.  I occasionally run fast, but that is more for my ego than for training.  I do it so I can say that I can run a mile in less than 8 minutes, which is encouraging for a 210 pounder.

Sure, makes perfect sense.  "Train your limiter, race your strength" is the best thing I can say.  If you know you are weak runner, then you need to run more and with a proper build/program.  If you are weak in the bike you need to ride more, and same with the swim.

When generating any sort of plan you have to look at the time that you have available, the facilities you have available, your strengths and weaknesses in past events (or in general if they have not raced much) and the race and performance levels you want to achieve.  Those are the first things I ask an athlete when talking to them.  From there we work out a program that will enhance their deficits and maintain or improve their strengths.  There has to be sacrifices in most people's plan because of life in general.

If someone can only fit in 6 or 7 workouts a week and is not as strong in one discipline than I would do more of a focus early in the plan in the "general" training to work on that limiter.  But it will come at the expense of one of the other disciplines.

To use myself as an example, it does not take much time at all to get my cycling strength up from crap to front of the pack ...... we're talking a few weeks of focused effort.  So that is usually the first thing in my training that gets shelved if there are time constraints or life issues.  The swim is my weakest discipline, but unfortunately because of life, the most I can fit in is 3 maybe 4 sessions a week.  That has gotten me through 2 IM's though, just not as fast as I wanted.  The easiest thing to do is to run ....... throw on the shoes, go out whatever do you are near, or even after a nice ride to get some more miles and help the legs recover from the ride.

The FIRST program is designed as a "here you go, I'll get you fit enough to run this marathon thing, and you're going to hurt doing it" to me.  It is NOT conducive to long time gains or running enjoyment.  It is whip your azz into shape in the fastest way possible and injuries be damned.  To me it is just not a responsible way to tell a prospective runner to train.  The load is too much too soon and no real opportunity to use running as recovery.  In most programs, the mid-week 8 - 15 general aerobic milers is what makes or breaks you ....... not the long run (all programs have them), not speed work (most good ones do not introduce intervals until the 2nd or 3rd phase), not the tempo work.

Plenty of people have been successful with it, which is why you hear so many proponents.  But I would bet my bottom dollar that if those same people did a Pfitzinger plan for the same marathon that not only would they be far better prepared physically, but mentally ....... and would not be as subjected to possible injury from too high levels of intensity with no running recovery.

I don't mean to sound snarky here, but that doesn't sound like 'following the plan'.

I did FIRST for my first half marathon. I beat my predicted time by about 7 minutes. Also ran the final 5k of the race faster than I have run a stand alone 5K. And remained uninjured. Did cross-train pretty heavily. My highest mileage week was 27. 

There are other factors, of course: trained on hills, raced on flat. Had a pretty good base of fitness with lots of sssllllow running in the spring and summer preceeding the fall race though never a lot of running mileage. I am in my late forties and though not a complete beginner am relatively new to racing of any kind, and am not very fast. 

So, it worked for me.

So, now we have decided that the "Run less, run faster" plan works best when you add additional runs to it?

I PRed in my las marathon (my 14th) by running three days per week, but substituting a mid-length (8-10 mile) goal-pace run for intervals, along with my LSD and tempo workouts. Plenty of cross training. No scientific basis for this, it's just what I felt like doing.

I used F.I.R.S.T. for Philly marathon this past Nov. It was my third Marathon and I set a PR by  22:11. Of course, I improved by 14:44 from race 1 to race 2 without F.I.R.S.T.

I did like running less often per week but the five 20 milers were kinda rough.

This statement is often repeated I don't think it is an accurate characterization. Granted I am a sample of N=1. I have only been able to consistently run for the last three months. In that time period I have gone below 9 minute miles 3 times during training runs. One brick run that was a slight downhill for a fair amount of it, with a quick uphill, and twice on a run by my house which is a 5k, 1.5 miles uphill, 1.5 miles downhill, you can run the downhill easy and still break 9 minutes miles for the overall run.  My HR Data for 1 year is as follows

 Included in the HR data are the races of 2 10 milers, 2 olympic tris,  4 sprint tris, a 10k and a 5 miler.

My Training runs are between 9:30-10:30 depending on feel, based on HR. I have never done a track session or intervals. I may not be the fastest in the world but my last race (Sat) (5miler starting with a hill) was a 7:06 pace (143 out of 1883) on 3 months of consistant running.. I will adjust my training paces to 9-9:30 pace based on race result.. but I have to say training slow does not mean you race slow..

As to the original poster, I doubt that the book was mostly responsible for that women qualifying for the Boston Marathon.

Matt Cazalas
Technical Writer

Network Cables