Skip navigation
Community: Exchange advice in the forums and read running commentary Resources: Personal running log, calculators, links and other tools for runners News: Running news from around the world Training: Articles and advice about fitness, race training and injury prevention Races/Results: Find upcoming races and past results Home: The Cool Running homepage
Cool Running homepage  Search Cool Running Community

11026 Views 173 Replies Latest reply: Nov 24, 2007 3:59 PM by gregw070 RSS Go to original post 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 Previous Next
  • JPGarland Legend 776 posts since
    Dec 7, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    135. Nov 13, 2007 9:02 AM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    Nobby,

    I don't know about Daniels and his schedules one way or the other.

    As to paces, if your point was that some people put the cart before the horse and say, "I want to run a 3 hour marathon" (and we see those postings all the time) and this schedule says I need to run tempos at 95 or whatever, I agree. That makes no sense, and those would be bogus paces.

    The journey is to run as quickly as you are capable of running  but to get there you have to know where you are.  And the pace-charts that I've seen from Daniels and Pfitz/Douglas, as well as McMillan, all look at it that way, i.e., they are based on your current condition.  That's why I took exception to the characterization of them as "bogus."

  • rengle Rookie 94 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    136. Dec 26, 2007 7:22 AM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    Races are not workouts. More and more people think that they are. Thus we have a plethora of threads at Letsrun that go "What can I run for 10km based on this workout?"
    When I was in college I often frustrated my coach to no end because he'd have us doing interval sessions all the time and I just could not do anywhere near the paces he thought I should be doing. At a time when I could hold a 5:40-6:00 pace for five to six mile cross country races I'd often be running 440s in 1:30-1:45, i.e. six to seven minute pace. I was sixth man on a twelve man team that year and EVERYONE, first man through twelfth, ran those intervals faster than I did.
    I have yet to meet anybody who goes off to a race and runs exactly as
    their "workouts" say they should with anything resembling consistency.
    On the other hand, before major marathon efforts I often ran a 30 km to 20 mile race in the three weeks before the marathon (good luck finding any of those now) and found those to be very good predictors of how I'd race in the marathon.

    [http://This message has been edited by rengle (edited Nov-13-2007).|http://This message has been edited by rengle (edited Nov-13-2007).]

  • fredurie Legend 1,895 posts since
    Aug 21, 2002
    Currently Being Moderated
    137. Nov 13, 2007 10:25 AM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    quote:


    Originally posted by Mike T:

    Tuesday's "workout" is 4 x 30 seconds at V02-max pace with 3 min recovery jogs?

    That's funny.


     



    That would be a good workout if you were running them in 22 seconds,
    and you were a sprinter.

  • Kim Stevenson Rookie 59 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    138. Nov 13, 2007 12:26 PM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    Nobby has done a great job here so I stayed away.
    Knowing what an athlete needs on a particular day I believe is the "Art" in Coaching.
    To further back up Nobby I will use an athlete I have just picked up over the last 3 months.
    This lady had run a Half marathon in 1:30 but then began to "race" her training (Wanting to get faster !!)
    The first day I ran an Time trial/Tempo with her I had to grab hold of her arm and slow her down !!
    She began running far faster than her condition would allow.
    I have a 2.5k loop on a trail that I have used for a number of years and have 'pace' check marks throughout.
    I noted that this last Saturday as we headed out it was nice and steady. At the first check I did she was way slower than her first day but at the end of the Timetrial (3k) she was 20 secs faster than she was on the First day.
    When she first joined my group she thought that a Time trail was a race simulation and wanted to run accordingly. It has taken 5 to 6 weeks to settle everything down.
    She now enjoys these runs. Esp when she sees the progress.
    The first question I ask these athletes is how the last few days have been (esp if I have not seen them) and I then adjust the training accordingly. A hard and fast schedule would not allow that.
    Yesterday I had to do that when my young athletes ran the first rep of a session too quick, I altered everything on the spot and they continued on. needless to say they found the last rep slightly hard but on the run home they were more than happy with what they did. One mentioned that a Coach he had run with in another town would have continued that wotkout at that pace and he would not have handled it at all.
    To repeat, in all these cases I knew what we wanted to try and attain and adjusted the training to suit the athlete and the conditions of the day.

    Cheers Team

    ----



    Run easy, Run long

  • IceStorm213 Rookie 352 posts since
    Nov 1, 2005
    Currently Being Moderated
    139. Nov 13, 2007 5:00 PM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    quote:


    Originally posted by AndyHass:

    This is one of the best posts on this site in quite some time.

    Nobby meant to insult no one with "bogus target paces", he's just calling a spade a spade. You absolutely cannot with any certainty say that X is your lactate threshhold on a given day...if you are tired from a race, workout, or lack of sleep, your efficiency could be shot and you hit LT 10sec/mile or more off of where it was when you ran that nice tapered PR on which you are basing your calculations. You just can't do it. Period. Now, can you name a RANGE? Well, of course. but at the end of the day you MUST go by feel somewhat, because that nice chart in the back of the book is never going to be exactly right. It's like calculating your maxHR by 220-age then complaining that it's wrong.

    If you've been running 37 years and have no feel for effort levels, I must wonder why? Not that you must be exquisitly tuned to your effort but you have to have a general idea. The first step to learning is to throw those pre-determined guidelines out the window and MAKE yourself learn how to do it that way.

    Start a running log. When I start training seriously again, I take my first few workouts and compare them back to my 8 years of detailed running logs and find another time I was running similar workouts. This gives me a good idea where my next workout should fall...though I always adjust according to how I feel on the day of the workout.

    This is the biggest reason why I have always responded with caution to requests to train a runner over the internet. Sure I can give generalities, but without being there live to observe the effort it is quite hard to tailor the workout to the individual. The only exception is well-trained athletes who know their body well enough to take whatever guideline I give them and adjust it to the day.


     



    The irony of the typical idiotic Dick99 post is that it ends up eliciting some really interesting and useful tidbits from those who actually know things.  So while I wanted a boycott to drive Dick back into his hole of self-worship, I probably owe him a thank you.

  • Brian McN Amateur 240 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    140. Dec 26, 2007 7:22 AM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    quote:


    Originally posted by rengle:

    Races are not workouts. More and more people think that they are. Thus we have a plethora of threads at Letsrun that go "What can I run for 10km based on this workout?"
    When I was in college I often frustrated my coach to no end because he'd have us doing interval sessions all the time and I just could not do anywhere near the paces he thought I should be doing. At a time when I could hold a 5:40-6:00 pace for five to six mile cross country races I'd often be running 440s in 1:30-1:45, i.e. six to seven minute pace. I was sixth man on a twelve man team that year and EVERYONE, first man through twelfth, ran those intervals faster than I did.
    I have yet to meet anybody who goes off to a race and runs exactly as
    their "workouts" say they should with anything resembling consistency.
    On the other hand, before major marathon efforts I often ran a 30 km to 20 mile race in the three weeks before the marathon (good luck finding any of those now) and found those to be very good predictors of how I'd race in the marathon.

    [http://This message has been edited by rengle (edited Nov-13-2007).|http://This message has been edited by rengle (edited Nov-13-2007).]


     



    Rengle,

    Not to get too far off the subject but when you did that 30K or 20 mile race did you shoot for Marathon pace, best effort, or did you break the race up into stages. Just curious.



    [http://This message has been edited by Brian McN (edited Nov-13-2007).|http://This message has been edited by Brian McN (edited Nov-13-2007).]

  • bruncle Legend 725 posts since
    Sep 26, 2005
    Currently Being Moderated
    141. Nov 13, 2007 6:38 PM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    Thanks for these posts guys, I feel like a bit of an idiot. I guess I was just looking for a shortcut, but there really isn't such a thing in running. Kind of makes any improvement seem that bit sweeter

  • JPGarland Legend 776 posts since
    Dec 7, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    142. Nov 13, 2007 8:29 PM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    quote:


    Originally posted by AndyHass:

    This is one of the best posts on this site in quite some time.

    Nobby meant to insult no one with "bogus target paces", he's just calling a spade a spade. You absolutely cannot with any certainty say that X is your lactate threshhold on a given day...if you are tired from a race, workout, or lack of sleep, your efficiency could be shot and you hit LT 10sec/mile or more off of where it was when you ran that nice tapered PR on which you are basing your calculations. You just can't do it. Period. Now, can you name a RANGE? Well, of course. but at the end of the day you MUST go by feel somewhat, because that nice chart in the back of the book is never going to be exactly right. It's like calculating your maxHR by 220-age then complaining that it's wrong.


     



    But it's supposed to "feel" like ... what? You say, "but at the end of the day you MUST go by feel" but then you add, "somewhat." The chart is "never going to be exactly right." So aren't you saying there's a +/- factor. Wouldn't the target serve as a way of getting a sense of what LT "feels" like? How am I to know if it's supposed to feel like a 5:50 pace or a 6:00 pace? (It's never off of a PR. It's off of a recent race, using the race as a proxy for current condition.)

    I put in the 37 years comment and figured it would subject me to attack for being clueless. In fact, I probably could run these things by feel. But I like the structure of a particular pace. So when I run, say, a 20 minute tempo on the track, I do run it by feel, and use the target pace to keep me consistent, with each 400 being within a second of each other 400, and each time I do that workout in whatever conditions being similar to all of the others. If it's off a little from the target I don't worry about that in the least, because I recognize it as a target and nothing more. But if I'm dragging, that's fine. Just slow it down. As I look back at my logs -- I do keep them -- I find few, if any, that are significantly off my target paces, except for a couple of interval workouts in which I pushed too hard and had to shut it down early.

    Now when Kim says "my young athletes ran the first rep of a session too quick," and "She began running far faster than her condition would allow," what does he mean? Does he give target paces -- as Nobby mentioned 102 or 110 -- or does he just say "run"?

    I know you don't mean to sound arbitrary, but you do "If I see that what I did yesterday compares what I did 5 and a half years ago, I do what I did the next day today." How do you know that that tempo workout back in 2001 was the right workout?

    In the end, I think that if we're not on the same page, we're in the same chapter. I use the charts, but run by feel. But I am also doing more tempo things off the track on trails. I agree that the charts should not be followed blindly. As with so much else, they're a tool.

    Finally, you mention "efficiency" being dependent on conditions. We do a lot of repeats, and I find that they are a great help in locking in efficiency for all runs, including long runs. So even if I'm tired, I'm still able to maintain the same form and even if I'm tiring late in a 20 minute tempo I'm able to maintain the same pace with little if any added effort because my form is holding together.

    Here's hoping we don't end up like this thread[/URL" target="_blank">.

  • MrPHinNJ Amateur 139 posts since
    Oct 10, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    143. Nov 13, 2007 8:36 PM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    quote:


    Originally posted by martinjames:

    The irony of the typical idiotic Dick99 post is that it ends up eliciting some really interesting and useful tidbits from those who actually know things. So while I wanted a boycott to drive Dick back into his hole of self-worship, I probably owe him a thank you.


     



    Agreed.  Nothing personal, but I haven't read anything that Richard99 has posted that would improve my running.  On the other hand some of the most useful information I have read on these boards has come from within threads started by him.  So, thank you, Richard.

  • rengle Rookie 94 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    144. Nov 13, 2007 8:52 PM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    Rengle,

    Not to get too far off the subject but when you did that 30K or 20 mile race did you shoot for Marathon pace, best effort, or did you break the race up into stages. Just curious

    I just ran as hard as I could. Best effort. But I usually found I could run almost as fast for the marathon.

  • Kim Stevenson Rookie 59 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    145. Nov 14, 2007 4:02 AM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    quote:


    Originally posted by jpgarland:
    * bq. Originally posted by AndyHass:

    This is one of the best posts on this site in quite some time.

    Nobby meant to insult no one with "bogus target paces", he's just calling a spade a spade. You absolutely cannot with any certainty say that X is your lactate threshhold on a given day...if you are tired from a race, workout, or lack of sleep, your efficiency could be shot and you hit LT 10sec/mile or more off of where it was when you ran that nice tapered PR on which you are basing your calculations. You just can't do it. Period. Now, can you name a RANGE? Well, of course. but at the end of the day you MUST go by feel somewhat, because that nice chart in the back of the book is never going to be exactly right. It's like calculating your maxHR by 220-age then complaining that it's wrong.


     



    But it's supposed to "feel" like ... what? You say, "but at the end of the day you MUST go by feel" but then you add, "somewhat." The chart is "never going to be exactly right." So aren't you saying there's a +/- factor. Wouldn't the target serve as a way of getting a sense of what LT "feels" like? How am I to know if it's supposed to feel like a 5:50 pace or a 6:00 pace? (It's never off of a PR. It's off of a recent race, using the race as a proxy for current condition.)

    I put in the 37 years comment and figured it would subject me to attack for being clueless. In fact, I probably could run these things by feel. But I like the structure of a particular pace. So when I run, say, a 20 minute tempo on the track, I do run it by feel, and use the target pace to keep me consistent, with each 400 being within a second of each other 400, and each time I do that workout in whatever conditions being similar to all of the others. If it's off a little from the target I don't worry about that in the least, because I recognize it as a target and nothing more. But if I'm dragging, that's fine. Just slow it down. As I look back at my logs -- I do keep them -- I find few, if any, that are significantly off my target paces, except for a couple of interval workouts in which I pushed too hard and had to shut it down early.

    Now when Kim says "my young athletes ran the first rep of a session too quick," and "She began running far faster than her condition would allow," what does he mean? Does he give target paces -- as Nobby mentioned 102 or 110 -- or does he just say "run"?

    I know you don't mean to sound arbitrary, but you do "If I see that what I did yesterday compares what I did 5 and a half years ago, I do what I did the next day today." How do you know that that tempo workout back in 2001 was the right workout?

    In the end, I think that if we're not on the same page, we're in the same chapter. I use the charts, but run by feel. But I am also doing more tempo things off the track on trails. I agree that the charts should not be followed blindly. As with so much else, they're a tool.

    Finally, you mention "efficiency" being dependent on conditions. We do a lot of repeats, and I find that they are a great help in locking in efficiency for all runs, including long runs. So even if I'm tired, I'm still able to maintain the same form and even if I'm tiring late in a 20 minute tempo I'm able to maintain the same pace with little if any added effort because my form is holding together.

    Here's hoping we don't end up like this thread[/URL" target="_blank">.[/B]


    To answer my section ; No I don't give "Specific Target times" but I say I would like to do this session at "around this pace" (whatever I feel we need to do on that day). Regarding the young guys reps. I had in mind 2:25-30 pace for their 800's. They ran the first one in 2:18. Too quick for my liking so I looked at jogging them a little longer before they tackled the rest. They averaged 2:27 on those.
    Regarding my 1/2 marathoner. When we headed out on the first Timetrial she took off at 18:30 5k pace !. Considering she is only a 19:30 runner (PB that is) and she had just recovered from a viral infection I then consideed that pace is way over the limits for her condition at that time.
    Does that help my explanation in any way ??.

    Cheers




    ----



    Run easy, Run long

  • Jim24315 Legend 1,987 posts since
    Dec 14, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    146. Nov 14, 2007 7:41 AM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    quote:


    Originally posted by jpgarland:

    Nobby,

    I don't know about Daniels and his schedules one way or the other.

    As to paces, if your point was that some people put the cart before the horse and say, "I want to run a 3 hour marathon" (and we see those postings all the time) and this schedule says I need to run tempos at 95 or whatever, I agree. That makes no sense, and those would be bogus paces.

    The journey is to run as quickly as you are capable of running but to get there you have to know where you are. And the pace-charts that I've seen from Daniels and Pfitz/Douglas, as well as McMillan, all look at it that way, i.e., they are based on your current condition. That's why I took exception to the characterization of them as "bogus."


     



    I have become a huge believer in basing training paces on current condition rather than goal. It hasn't always been this way either, and in a way it is counter intuitive. But as you said, it really is putting the cart before the horse to say that you want to run a certain time and then start training at paces that say you are already there. I've found that it works much better to come from the other direction.

  • tigger077 Amateur 690 posts since
    Nov 19, 1999
    Currently Being Moderated
    147. Nov 14, 2007 8:14 AM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    As a bona fide data freak (Myers Briggs character type is ISTJ) I like all the external feedback I can get, but I have tried hard over the last few years to become a more intuitive runner.  There are subtle signals that I have discovered will tell me if I am on a particular pace or not.  Easy pace is....well it's just easy.  No hard breathing, no strong pushoff.  Threshold pace is at the upper end of comfortable.  It will feel comfortable for the first half and then will begin to feel like work for the second half.  All other paces are in between, except for intervals of course.  But I seldom run intervals because I don't race all that often.  So all remaining paces for me are in between easy and threshold, and will depend on the length of my run and how I feel on that particular day.  I just try to find a pace that I know I can sustain for the entire run without hurting over the final quarter.

    There!  That's not too complicated is it?

  • fredurie Legend 1,895 posts since
    Aug 21, 2002
    Currently Being Moderated
    148. Dec 26, 2007 7:22 AM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    JP, how do you know that any workout is the right workout?

    There are many different types of training systems and
    through experimentation you discover what your body will
    do.

    There is no "one way"

    The most productive university program in Canada is
    interval based, and the coach has been coach of the year
    over 32 times.

    [http://This message has been edited by fredurie (edited Nov-14-2007).|http://This message has been edited by fredurie (edited Nov-14-2007).]

  • JPGarland Legend 776 posts since
    Dec 7, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    149. Nov 14, 2007 8:53 AM (in response to Richard99)
    Re: Velocity focused training goes mainstream

    quote:


    Originally posted by Kim Stevenson:

    To answer my section ; No I don't give "Specific Target times" but I say I would like to do this session at "around this pace" (whatever I feel we need to do on that day). Regarding the young guys reps. I had in mind 2:25-30 pace for their 800's. They ran the first one in 2:18. Too quick for my liking so I looked at jogging them a little longer before they tackled the rest. They averaged 2:27 on those.
    Regarding my 1/2 marathoner. When we headed out on the first Timetrial she took off at 18:30 5k pace !. Considering she is only a 19:30 runner (PB that is) and she had just recovered from a viral infection I then consideed that pace is way over the limits for her condition at that time.
    Does that help my explanation in any way ??.

    Cheers


     



    Kim, thanks. Knowing what the pace should be, with slight variants, provides a check on people doing things too fast.

    Fred,
    I'm not saying there is one way.  I don't know if the approach taken by Daniels and Pfitz/Douglas is the right one, but I've gone through their stuff and that of others and find that it makes sense to me.  I find it to be a unified theory that addresses numerous systems that come into play when running and for the type of racing I do -- 5K to HM in one part of the year, marathon in the other.  I've been able to do long runs and killer track workouts of various types and sprinkled in races at various distances without having any significant post-run fatigue issues (except on the mental side).  And I know you'll be happy that for NY 2008 my goal is to get a significant increase in the relatively low mileage I had in 2006.

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...