quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tchuck:
I run or have run a sub 20 min 5K and 1:30 half and would consider myself a competitive runner - meaning I try to place in my age group and try to PR each race and get faster with my training techniques. I have even won a 5K race.

I have never ever run 4 hours in one week. At my peak with best race times, I would run 4 days per week with runs of 75-85 min, 60 min, 45 min and 30 min.

It is difficult to label a person based on their training time. I think general fitness would be 3 runs at 20-30 min. Someone with great genetics may even be competitive with this. Anything more and you are running with more goals than general fitness. This may be fun, enjoyment, race prep, stress relief, weight loss etc. My 3-4 hours of running puts my in top 5-10% of all races. 6 hours of running per week would probably put me in top 2-3% of all runners based on my genetics. It is all relative and we all have our own definitions.

<HR>

All due respect, Todd, I'm sorry to say but it seems to me that you are good enough of a runner to be dangerous. It's great that you run sub-20 for 5k and even win some 5k races. But I would hardly call that "competitive". My wife won a few races but she's nothing more than a glorified "jogger" (she runs well though!). You seem to combine decent workouts but you seem to suggest your pattern to other "newbies" which I would consider quite dangerous (I'd call that Higdon syndrome).

I consider 25MPW quite low simply because I used to run close to 100MPW quite regularly. I have a great respect for Dr. Noaks but he's more of an exercise physiologist than a practical coach. He has never coached an individual to superb condition in a true sense. I just got back from Houston (where it was in the 80s and now back in MN where it's 5 degrees!) where I had a talk with Lorraine Moller and Peter Snell. Lorraine is now coaching this young man and she's pushing him to the limit. He's done 120MPW, then 150 and this week he did 170 and feeling absolutely FIT. If this high mileage didn't give him any "added fitness", I don't know what did. Peter was telling us that someone mentioned that, because Peter had some sporadic weeks (90, then 100, but then down to 70 and 60..., etc.) that he was probably getting some "breaks" and that might have been the reason why he was the most successful runner in the Lydiard stable. He said that is "a load of ****". He said that he had the BEST season coming off 1012 miles of running in 10 weeks. He was running 14:40 for 5k on the grass track for training regularly.

Todd, you go out and spend 10 hours a week of training and come back and tell us whether your sub-20 is what you might consider "superb fitness" or your "true potential". All this talk about "less is better" by some mediocore "competitive runners" is "a load of ****".

Now that being said, you don't have to be "competitive". There's nothing wrong with being a fun runner. Of course, in my opinion, being a fun runner and try to apply this semi-competitive schedule is express lane to injuries and burn-out. In fact, I went back and read what I've written--I didn't think I said to you, Arla, that 25MPW is "so low". I said, "just say 25MPW doesn't mean much at all"--meaning that doesn't describe what you do well. Now you've laid out more specifically (one long run, two medium runs, etc.); that you ARE following quite well balanced (duration-wise) schedule. So if you want to spice things up a bit; meaning inject some faster stuff, I would still recommend throwing one fast run a week and alternate different types of fast stuff week to week.

You've got to remember--same principles CAN be applied to fast elite runners to slow beginners. It's not the matter of "schedule" (one reps a week, one tempo a week, one long run a week...). As a beginner, or as a runner who's fitness level is still low, you want to take longer time to cover all the elements while continue to have lots of jogging in between. You're still applying the same principles; covering the same elements; it's just you spread them all out into, say, 3 weeks instead of 1. That's what I'm doing with the girl I'm coaching right now. She's 26; she's run 3:41 for the marathon (her first after 4 months of training). But she's still very immature in terms of development. It's not the age or time or anything like that. It's just the matter of "development". I don't care if you're a 17-minute 5k runner or 27-minute 5k runner. Same principles CAN be applied. You just have to be a bit creative.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tchuck:
I run or have run a sub 20 min 5K and 1:30 half and would consider myself a competitive runner - meaning I try to place in my age group and try to PR each race and get faster with my training techniques. I have even won a 5K race.
...
My 3-4 hours of running puts my in top 5-10% of all races. 6 hours of running per week would probably put me in top 2-3% of all runners based on my genetics. It is all relative and we all have our own definitions.<HR>

I'm confused. Is there a contradiction there? If you're trying to "get faster with my training techniques", but acknowledge that you'd be faster on 6 hrs vs 3-4 hrs, wouldn't that imply you'd be training more? Also, in "top 5-10% of all races" is dependent on times of runners in your races. "In top 2-3% of all runners" implies WAVA table values or something similar. And I have no idea where 20-min 5k puts a person.

Also, I wasn't trying to label runners by their training times. Rather I was trying to get a handle on how much people train - just for personal curiosity - since 50mpw may be maybe 5 hrs of running for fast runners and 15+ hrs for someone like me. I was also recognizing that some people are happy training 2-4 hrs/wk for their goals while others might be out there for 10-15 hr/wk (or whatever) for years trying to be the best they can be. I know AndyHass and others have worked their butts off for years trying to be all they can be. Some of us fun runners spend the time because we enjoy running and have the time to run, but may not focus on speed. But specific training following basic principles allows us to spend more time having fun.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nobby:
All due respect, Todd, I'm sorry to say but it seems to me that you are good enough of a runner to be dangerous. It's great that you run sub-20 for 5k and even win some 5k races. But I would hardly call that "competitive". My wife won a few races but she's nothing more than a glorified "jogger" (she runs well though!). You seem to combine decent workouts but you seem to suggest your pattern to other "newbies" which I would consider quite dangerous (I'd call that Higdon syndrome).

I consider 25MPW quite low simply because I used to run close to 100MPW quite regularly. I have a great respect for Dr. Noaks but he's more of an exercise physiologist than a practical coach. He has never coached an individual to superb condition in a true sense. I just got back from Houston (where it was in the 80s and now back in MN where it's 5 degrees!) where I had a talk with Lorraine Moller and Peter Snell. Lorraine is now coaching this young man and she's pushing him to the limit. He's done 120MPW, then 150 and this week he did 170 and feeling absolutely FIT. If this high mileage didn't give him any "added fitness", I don't know what did. Peter was telling us that someone mentioned that, because Peter had some sporadic weeks (90, then 100, but then down to 70 and 60..., etc.) that he was probably getting some "breaks" and that might have been the reason why he was the most successful runner in the Lydiard stable. He said that is "a load of ****". He said that he had the BEST season coming off 1012 miles of running in 10 weeks. He was running 14:40 for 5k on the grass track for training regularly.

Todd, you go out and spend 10 hours a week of training and come back and tell us whether your sub-20 is what you might consider "superb fitness" or your "true potential". All this talk about "less is better" by some mediocore "competitive runners" is "a load of ****".

Now that being said, you don't have to be "competitive". There's nothing wrong with being a fun runner. Of course, in my opinion, being a fun runner and try to apply this semi-competitive schedule is express lane to injuries and burn-out. In fact, I went back and read what I've written--I didn't think I said to you, Arla, that 25MPW is "so low". I said, "just say 25MPW doesn't mean much at all"--meaning that doesn't describe what you do well. Now you've laid out more specifically (one long run, two medium runs, etc.); that you ARE following quite well balanced (duration-wise) schedule. So if you want to spice things up a bit; meaning inject some faster stuff, I would still recommend throwing one fast run a week and alternate different types of fast stuff week to week.

You've got to remember--same principles CAN be applied to fast elite runners to slow beginners. It's not the matter of "schedule" (one reps a week, one tempo a week, one long run a week...). As a beginner, or as a runner who's fitness level is still low, you want to take longer time to cover all the elements while continue to have lots of jogging in between. You're still applying the same principles; covering the same elements; it's just you spread them all out into, say, 3 weeks instead of 1. That's what I'm doing with the girl I'm coaching right now. She's 26; she's run 3:41 for the marathon (her first after 4 months of training). But she's still very immature in terms of development. It's not the age or time or anything like that. It's just the matter of "development". I don't care if you're a 17-minute 5k runner or 27-minute 5k runner. Same principles CAN be applied. You just have to be a bit creative.<HR>

Nobby,

What do you consider an "easy" pace (for easy days & long runs)? Do you use a percentage of max HR, age based (like MAF), a pace based on recent race times (runnersworld.com pace calculator, for example http://www.runnersworld.com/cda/trainingcalculator/0,7169,ssssss6-238-277-279-0-0-0-0-0,00.html[/URL" target="_blank"> ), or just go by feel.

Thanks.


http://This message has been edited by bdags (edited Dec-10-2007).

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tchuck:
AK
The only point I was trying to convey is that each person has a different mindset. For example, my wife thinks I am a running fanatic and obsessed with running and I run 4 X per week and no more than 25 miles per week. Serious runners think 25 miles a week is nothing. For me 25 miles a week is something and I try to make the most of it and improve as much as I can. Your quote was/is that someone can have reasonable running fitness on 6 hours of running per week. My opinion is that you can have reasonable running fitness on less time than this. <HR>

Tchuck, Yes, I recognize that there are different mindsets and for an assortment of reasons people may not be able to run as much as they want. I understand your comments to Nobby, esp. the training smarter to do the best with what you can do. That explains what was a perceived contradiction in my mind. Thanks.

Hey Nobby,

I really am in agreement with you of one harder work out per week (or none) for low mileage runners and this may mean slower/longer tempo work, tempo intervals or critical velocity reps (per Tinman). The only time I may deviate is if on a long run, the athlete is feeling great with 2-3 miles left, to pick up the pace. If not feeling great, then just keep pace or even slow down. I guess you could call this two tough work outs then. The above recommendations would vary depending on level of athlete, experience and where they are in the season.

Also, I see no harm in 4-6 short striders a couple times per week which I find are not hard on body and require no additional recovery ability. BUT a beginner maybe doesn't do these or starts with two and follows a progression. I am very much a believer in the Lydiard principles or how I interpret them and also realize each person is individual.

I do throw out very basic concepts to those who ask questions on these chat sites. It is hard to give exact advice because we don't know the person so it has to be general and people appreciate some tips. My motto is keep it simple until the runner is really serious and committed.

------------------
Todd[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by arlahile:
Nobby - just to confirm - I think what you're saying is that a large percentage of your time running must be easy, particularly if you're new or running low mileage, correct? Therefore, if you're running only 25MPW, you don't have the luxury of running much higher intensity work.

To scale down from your hypothetical Ryan Hall week of 2 hard workouts per 13 easy workouts, to a Joanne Average like me who is doing 4 runs a week means that Joanne could really only afford one hard workout every 3 weeks, at best. There's no reason to push beyond that, particularly since Joanne doesn't have an Olympic berth on the line

Interestingly, I've been doing a similar schedule (accidentally), by participating in a monthly fun run, which has worked really well for me (mentally fun and physically feels good).

Arla
PS My name isn't as interesting as yours...<HR>

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm thinking about. In training, as in life, pretty much everything is intertacting. If you're running "only" (sorry, for lack of better tern, I'll continue to use this expression) 20~25MPW, it's very hard to have adequate recovery workouts in between AS WELL AS a chance to build up an adequate aerobic base (or should we call this "Power Base"? ;o) Sorry, couldn't resist...).

I'd say alternate something like tempo (just like as Todd explained), hill exercises, and easy fartlek workouts in 3 week span.

I guess with what Todd said (or at least the way I read it) was that I thought he was recommending having all those "multi-paced" workouts all crammed into one week; and thought he was suggesting "4 hours a week training works better than 10 hours a week" type of philosophy (again, my apology to him). His concept works just perfectly if you have enough workouts in between to beef it up the weekly training program. To make a confession, actually, I also made a mistake; I read somewhere that someone was suggesting doing some anaerobic workouts to older, slower individual who runs around 20MPW. Yes, doing some anaerobic training is the key to getting faster---in a short term! Actually, here's a live story Lydiard had told me and this should be a lesson to most of us:

There was this friend of him down in Texas. He started running when he was 65 years old. He would go out and jog 4~6 miles in the morning, nice and easy. He would come to a local high school stadium; and he would run up and down the stadium steps a couple of times a week. He said, at the time, "This guy was 71 years old now and he's been improving his 10k time every years because he's doing hill training." Strengthen your legs and work on your running technique before you even think about hard effort anaerobic training. There's no more rewarding way than training on hills.