quote:<HR>Originally posted by Richard99:
Unlike JimR, I didn't invent or make up a single one of them. I certainly didn't omit data, hand-pick data, or perform any other sort of shenanigan to arrive at a pre-conceived belief or conclusion. <HR>

And neither did I. Feel free to identify what you feel I made up.

Actually, Ted lists himself as a retired math professor, so I'm sure he can identify errors in the scale translations, if any. I know the resolution of the graphs is small, but that's what you presented on your site so I'll stick with that scale unless you can provide something more appropriate.

http://This message has been edited by JimR (edited Nov-09-2007).

Just wanted to note how pointless this discussion is. Richard is just going to continue to be very vague and hand-wavy in his retorts. He's just going to keep suggesting we review the article, knowing how difficult it is to find a 23 year old magazine article and that nobody actually cares enough to go to the trouble of finding it and calling him on it.

Richard, the crux of the argument is as follows. If you don't care to address it, then there is no discussion.

You basically use two graphs to support your position. The first can only be used to conclude what everybody knows. That there is a decreasing marginal return for increased mileage. You say this in your article:

"Those who ran 100 km/wk performed the same as those who ran 80 km/wk"

Not true based on what you have provided. The authors per your quote don't say this. They say only that it levels off which is not the same. A chart of this nature would of course have to be asyptotic at the limits of human performance. The graph is negatively sloped everywhere which would lead you to conclude that continued increases in mileage will produce continued improvement, but at a decreasing marginal rate. I'll ask again, the chart stops at times around 58:00. The winning time was much faster than that. How many miles did that runner train? My guess is >100 Km/wk.

The second chart is meaningless as it's presented. Without the context of the article, no conclusions can be drawn from it. As you have presented it, numerous flaws can be found in your reasoning. Since you obviously have access to the article, perhaps you can provide the author's explanation of the chart.

You're trying to pass this off as science, but all you've done is taken two graphs and presented them out of context.

Can someone shed some light on what "velocity based training" is about - or how it compares to "normal" training?

Thanks

quote:<HR>Originally posted by bruncle:
Hmm, I'm actually quite attracted by this idea. I don't really know about the emphasis on the Central Governor theory, but a lot of what Burt says rings true. I've noticed that striving for arbitrary mileage limits every week doesn't really seem to help. When I'm base building, I improve strongly when I get a good long run and a tempo run in. The other easy runs just seem to tire my legs out. Having lots of rest days seems to fit with what I understand of supercompensation.

So I'm thinking I might go with this kind of schedule next year.
Day 1: 5k warmup, Main event (5k), 5k cooldown
Day 2: Rest (5k recovery jog?)
Day 3: rest (5k recovery jog?)
Day 4: 5k warmup, Shorter event (800m), 5k cooldown
Day 5: rest (5k recovery jog?)
Day 6: Longer event (26km @ MP)
Day 7: Rest (5k recovery jog?)
Day 8: 5k warmup, hill work (power), 2km cooldown
Day 9: Rest (5k recovery jog?)
Day 10: 5k warmup, Sprints, 5k cooldown
Day 11: Rest (5k recovery jog?)
Day 12: Rest (5k recovery jog?)

There's a lot of intensity there, but with that many rest days, I don't think it'd lead to overtraining.

Are there any serious objections to this kind of training? I like the idea of doing an experiment like this. I'll start next year, after having done two years of mainly base building (question in point: if it is successful, will it be because of the training or because of the training I have already done?). <HR>

You get an athlete with a very high oxygen uptake level and another athlete with a very low aerobic capacity; and you give them both the same program such as above. They would both almost equally improve their race time; if anything, the one who hadn't been running a lot might even improve quicker simply because they haven't developed "tired legs". The problem is; the one with low oxygen uptake might hit the peak after 3 weeks or so while the one with high oxygen uptake level, particularly if he/she maintain the aerobic capacity by doing lots of easy jogging, would most likely continue to improve for months..

If you give them some fast workouts, their performance will improve. So the question is how much do you want to continue to improve? The one who runs and runs and runs some more and never do any race specific training will never fulfill his/her potential and would most likely complain to the program such as Lydiard training method. But the problem is not with the program; the problem is that he/she never completes the whole balanced program. The one who runs fast and fast and a bit more fast will improve very quickly. They would most likely to conclude this is the shortcut to success. It is. But shortcut will eventually become shortlived as well. I thought we all figured this out decades ago. And the reason why people get sidetracked is because all those garbage keeps popping out.

Tinman; you understand good training principles already. It's waste of your time checking out Reader's Digest of training. I don't think it's worth your time.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Richard99:
Jim,

We've been over this before. You don't have anywhere enough information about my training history or health issues to claim that I've can't run anymore because I've pretty well beaten himself up too bad. I'd appreciate it if you would stop spreading this lie about me.

<HR>

I'm not inspired.[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Richard99:
If you would like to read about it, with his permission I've posted Marshall Burt's velocity-focused training program on my web site.

Marshall Burt's Velocity-Focused Training part 1[/URL" target="_blank">

<HR>

--- Workout: Main Event

--- Rest Day

--- Rest Day

--- Workout: Power Day

--- Workout: Sprint Day

--- Rest Day

--- Workout: Base Building 1

--- Rest Day

--- Workout: Base Building 2

--- Break Period

Main Event
goal pace workout for your main event distance =

------- start interval workout with first run done at any % of the race distance
--- for repeats that follow , take enough rest after each run to be able to continue reasonably fresh
--- durations of all repetitions that follow can be shorter than the first run
--- progress to where a majority of the repetitions are of similar duration as the first run
--- progress to running enough repetitions to cover 100% of the race distance or stop at the 3 repetition cap on workout volume
--- Over time, the objective is to make progressions, gradually move toward covering the race distance in [1] run

If I'm training for a marathon, I'll eventually be doing 3 repetitions of approximately 8.75 miles at goal pace.

Then finally covering the entire race distance in one repetition of 26.2 miles at goal pace. Essentially running a full-out marathon at marathon pace before the marathon.

Besides that sounding over-the-top and not advisable, another hole in this program is that you pick a goal pace before starting training. How does he suggest you go about picking one? Just pick any one you want?


--Jimmy

@@@@[/URL" target="_blank">
MAF log[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by aurang:
How so? If Paavo Nurmi was doing tempo runs, then what has science really added? Speaking about the West, the runners of today, even the very best, are no faster than they were 20-30 years ago. It took a 2:10 to make the US Olympic team in 1980, and a 2:11 this weekend. The US had two 2:08 guys in 1982, they have one right now.<HR>

Yeah, but none of those guys could run a half in under an hour.