How can I get faster? (Page 13)

Marc
If I ever do go to Montreal, I will look for you.



Salty,
Although we all know that there truly are many variables, I don't think we will ever know where that line is for many/most people. I do know that as cardiologist, I am supposed to advise 6 sessions of 1/2 hour of 'moderate' (aerobic) exercise weekly, to promote a healthy lifestyle and help lower cardiac risk factors. Being active is good, and so, 3 hrs/week doing aerobic exercise is like a floor number to me. But that's not the threshold we're talking about. Although being able to jog/run for 6 sessions of 1/2 hr daily with one day off per week is a very good start.

If one were to build to eventually be able to run every day for an hour and take one day off, then 6 hrs/week seems like a very solid number as a next step, for a runner training to compete. I would define anyone who is physically very active as being the equivalent of a recreational athlete-even if they did not do any races.

Competitive athletes-runners in particuliar, are usually adults though, and have lots of time constraints. Most of us are not usually looking to achieve our true maximal genetic potential, but rather figure out a training schedule that fits in with life and will allow us to improve. I think we all (LB and Mike included) do believe that volume is good for running if one wants to achieve real improvement in race times. They seem to focus on the alternate modalities but both believe in distance as one of the key ingredients, because I've seen them both write such in other threads. Coach R's time based training week, used as an example earlier in the thread, had running 6 days with some reps and one overdistance 'longer' run. The total time was on the order of 4-6 hrs/week. That schedule had something like 30 minutes/alt w 45 minutes every other day with one day off and one LR day of 60 minutes-building to 75 minutes. It was a 'running more-mostly easy, sometimes hard' approach that we all would agree with for someone starting off. Daily runing with some reps in there as the hard, and running most every day. I think that's probably the minimum needed when one wants to try to become reasonably competitive, but I'm sure some can do reasonably well on even less than that, based just on genetics.

Lately, there has been a focus by a few people, to just not respond to the question 'how can I get better at running?' with a blanket 'run more' answer. I'm OK with that, but running more is certainly one easy way to do it. With the reality of diminishing returns, though, I still think we never know if it's better to add volume or intensity if two runners are doing equal volume. That's because they likely will respond to training variably. One may get better gains with distance/volume and the other with intensity/speed/strength. This is due to genetic differences certainly and probably much more to it that just that. But we all also agree that multipace training has a real role. So how best to do it? I think the best way to begin to add intensity is to add tempo type running.

Learning various paces can help people learn a lot and when people make that commitment to really working harder, then the questions come out about what is LT and what are strides and how many intervals should I do and when. It's all a learning process.




LB
It's about genetics and work, age and time available... But, genetics is critically important since that sets your upper limit. You can train, if you have the time, to try to achieve it...but you'd better start early if you want a shot at elite as it's far less likely to occur if you start late. And if you don't do the work, there is absolutely no way you will get close to that maximum potential. You can improve, but not maximally. I'm sure you know that.



Perhaps we can learn from Ryan Hall... But if I can only get in 6 or 8 training sessions/week, our training schedules will not compare too well. They (elite runners) have big volume with lots of different paces because they usually do doubles most days, except a single on the LR day. He gets in 15 sessions/week-double what I or most people can do.

Even Ryan Hall advocates a 'base' of 30-40 mpw.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=...

So you may be right, just run more.



Ben
I'm glad you brought this up for clarity, but 130, 170, 200? I still don't know where that threshold is for anyone. We all have to experiment and learn and add volume/intensity and do it all again. No?




Yaz
This is a very, very important comment for everyone to understand. Faster run training, or high-intensity running carries increased risk. No doubt. Again, it's really critical to this conversation because as many here know, injury can put you on the sidelines for a long time and consistency is a key ingredient to success.

OTOH, you also know that anaerobic running is part of marathon training, and those 3xone mile repeats for sharpening (@v02max) have a role in the overall schedule, but it is just a small part. As are the drills, overspeed training, neuromuscular entrainment etc., again, a small part, but a part.

And as a football player, you did need that 5K speed to chase your teammate down into the endzone and give him a congratulatory head butt, right? Or is that just what the guys these days do-ha.




I still feel one cannot force economy, but also believe stretching, overspeed, reps/strides all do help with economy. As does volume. I think strides/reps are the safest and most do these as 30 sec or so ramping up to a quick, light pace with a fast turnover. Just the beginning of neuromuscular entrainment and the quicker pace probably helps with running form. Not quite a Billat type 1minute on/off v02max type workout, but reps do approach this. And as one 'floats' and begins again attempting to get close to vo2 max, during the Billat workout, there is a prolonged benefit as the muscles/enzymes cannot shut off that fast, so you get some 'free' prolonged training benefit during the float recovery. That training is likely a mix of economy and speed training...but I'm just not sure, though...



Ha-Salty! You, and many people commenting on this thread have very respectable resumes...not mediocre runners. Most of us are looking to improve, though. Keeping this discussion civil helps keep the focus on the important points. Let's not be 'lets run'. And I do think that personal experience matters. I'd bet many people who voiced opinions and gave a little self history, may not have otherwise, if this really degenerated. I'm glad that you, and they, did and I have learned from you all, so thanks.



Now, I'd love to hear about this and what insights you took from any discussions with those guys.
I'll go get us a beer...

well said!
and this is about the 'recipe' for most people-with some slight variations for each of us

and I do hope you find some magic to get back to a level you want-but to be honest, when you have done what you have already, many people just don't have the desire to work as hard as they had in the past

I have met many people who are quite accomplished and being competitive isn't the same to them as trying to be the 'best'

Marc
If you come to Quassy, I'll buy YOU the beer. It's in my backyard and after doing the double last year, I'm just gonna race the 1/2.
PM me if you need a place to stay.
Dale

Ha--desire is always there; love to train hard and race hard. It's like a moth to a flame. Maybe I have never grown up in that sense LOL. Not bringing a lot of genetic gifts to the table, so there wasn't/isn't an option there. The issue now is that the hard work doesn't really seem to pay off much, much harder to stay consistently healthy so I can train consistently, and I think my mind/body has simply forgotten something about how to properly execute a race. I know--should probably listen to my colleagues who tell me I should just do gentle fun-running and yoga and stuff, but to me that's like saying, "Just lie down in your coffin and wait to die." Not time yet.

You know I love ya', LB. You are a beautiful snowflake...
If I ever get down south to Mizzou, I'll plan to look you up.

And BTW, from what I've read on other threads, I have great respect for what you do in your day job.
Props and thanks.

edited to add:

BTW, Coach Mike R would FLIP OUT if he saw that Ryan Hall advocated using the 220-age for 'estimation' of max HR to get training zones.
Someday I'll tackle that one, but I'm a bit tired right now...


Edited by dtoce 2013-12-10 6:20 PM

Hey Tricia - I'm no expert by any means, but I BQ'd at Chicago in October with a PR of 21 minutes and I only ran 3 days a week, maxing out around 50 miles. I was training for IMWI so I was essentially following the FIRST program with incredibly heavy cross training. My running consisted of the long run on Wednesday, speed work (inserted into a 6-8 mile run) Friday, and tempo (semi-long 9-13 miles) Sunday. You've done IM so you can guess what my cross training looked like The long tempo run made a HUGE difference for me. I did sub-4 at IMWI on the run, then 5 weeks later did 3:37 in Chicago. I had a huge fitness gain after IMWI and dropped over 20 seconds off my tempo pace. I'm a believer in the less is more approach and making those runs a lot harder and more intense, rather than loading 70 miles on each week. That works for some, it does not work for me. Now I'm not as fast at the shorter distances as you, but my long runs have sped up tremendously. I am aiming for a sub 3:30 marathon next.

Congrats on all your PRs, I've bee really impressed seeing you achieve them! You can definitely hit your BQ goal once you find the plan that works for you.