Run less, run faster?? (Page 3)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2008-12-22 5:09 PM in reply to: #1868104 |
Expert 2547 The Woodlands, TX | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? slake707 - 2008-12-22 3:51 PM This statement is often repeated I don't think it is an accurate characterization. X2 |
|
2008-12-22 6:11 PM in reply to: #1867297 |
New user 5 Portland, OR | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? Daremo - 2008-12-22 8:22 AM 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. I think, if you bother to pick up the book, you will find that the authors don't want people to jump into these programs without appropriate base. If you're coming off the couch, they have TWO 12 week programs that together introduce you to being able to do the 5K program. So, 6 months to do your first 5K off the couch. They also want you to do the 5k before the 10k before the half mary before the mary. If readers skip ahead, they are doing this at risk. The authors specifically address this.
Edited by tri-ac 2008-12-22 6:14 PM |
2008-12-22 7:37 PM in reply to: #1865171 |
Expert 936 Salisbury | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? Whenever I see the less = faster methods I always wonder how much base the authors have. How many years of 70+ miles does the person who designed the FIRST method have? I'm not saying it can't work. I'm just saying that someone who it works great for may already have years of experience. I know a woman who just PRd her IM by over an hour with only 3 long rides and runs during her training. However, she's got a lot of miles in her legs. |
2008-12-22 7:54 PM in reply to: #1868104 |
Master 1420 Reston, VA | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? slake707 - 2008-12-22 4:51 PM TriToy - 2008-12-22 10:05 AM 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. 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.. Slake - you and I have discussed this numerous times and I agree with you - I have been running somewhat consistently over the past 1.5 years - >95% of my runs are Z1 runs. My times have dropped from a 58 min 10K to 39 min and from 27 min 5K to 18 min all by just running more often and almost all in Z1. |
2008-12-22 7:55 PM in reply to: #1865171 |
Master 1547 | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? |
2008-12-22 11:23 PM in reply to: #1868104 |
Expert 2555 Colorado Springs, Colorado | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? slake707 - 2008-12-22 2:51 PM TriToy - 2008-12-22 10:05 AMI have to say training slow does not mean you race slow.. I agree. I do almost all my training at a slow easy pace as well and my race times have improved greatly as my overall mileage has increased. This year I've averaged about 50 miles/week and I've PRed 17 times in races ranging from 2 miles up to a marathon. Many of the PRs were significant improvements including the marathon, which was a BQ time. I've been amazed by training mostly long slow easy runs, yet having better race times. I do most training runs around 7-10 miles and pace between 9-9:30, yet my most recent 5K time was 20:30, a 6:37 pace. I've been doing this for a bit over a year and have had no problems with the increased mileage in training, as it's almost all easy. The main difference in what I do is that I race very often, almost 40 races this year. So in essence the races are my speedwork. I do it that way because I've found I will push myself much harder in a race than I would doing speedwork on my own. However, as well as what I've been doing has worked for me, I realize that there are many other paths to improving as a runner. I've tried some and they weren't a good fit for me, but they've worked well for others. If a person can strictly adhere to a run less/run intense program, they can probably improve. The problem I had is that the runs are so few that missing any would cause problems. Plus, I found it difficult to push myself at the intensity required in many of the runs. Different strokes for different folks. I find it relatively easy to run 7-10 miles every day because my running form is such that it doesn't beat me up - plus I have the time to do it. Other people with different form and body type would find it more difficult to run as much as I do, but potentially they might find it easier to run less/run intense. One problem that some people have with the high volume approach is that it takes a long time of running high volume consistently to see the improvements. Often some people are too impatient to stick with it, or they start doing more and more of their training at higher intensities that leads to injuries. For me training slow does not mean racing slow. The caveat is that when training slow, it's necessary to run more volume. In my case I started to see significant improvement when my weekly mileage exceeded 40 miles/week for at least a month. As my mileage went up to over 70 miles/week, my race times kept improving. For me that kind of volume is not a burden because I'm doing a race almost every week. I continuously have some short term feedback and that keeps me motivated. The main thing with any running program is consistency. If a person can't consistently adhere to the program, they likely won't get the results they were seeking. The run less approach may work, but a person could be wasting their time if they miss just a few key workouts. If the program is followed exactly, perhaps the results will be good. |
|
2008-12-23 10:26 AM in reply to: #1868512 |
New user 5 Portland, OR | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? Rencor, I think you're right. This program suits many long time runners who have maybe plateaued or have had a change in available schedule or who want to get in to triathlons. It also suits triathletes who have some base already established. As others have mentioned, just looking at the program details, it's clearly not targeted at athletes without established base.
|
2008-12-23 11:11 AM in reply to: #1868536 |
Elite 3683 Whispering Pines, North Carolina | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? sax - 2008-12-22 8:55 AM This thread reminds me of this guy ...
haha, that was pretty funny. i watched the whole clip...hilarious. |
2008-12-23 11:14 AM in reply to: #1869327 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? tri-ac - 2008-12-23 11:26 AM As others have mentioned, just looking at the program details, it's clearly not targeted at athletes without established base. And yet, in most cases everyone that wants to do it (as the easy way out of running to reach a PR) on BT is a relative beginner without much base. Again, not a bright idea in my opinion. |
2008-12-23 11:41 AM in reply to: #1868534 |
Extreme Veteran 535 Central New York | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? docswim24 - 2008-12-22 8:54 PM slake707 - 2008-12-22 4:51 PM Slake - you and I have discussed this numerous times and I agree with you - I have been running somewhat consistently over the past 1.5 years - >95% of my runs are Z1 runs. My times have dropped from a 58 min 10K to 39 min and from 27 min 5K to 18 min all by just running more often and almost all in Z1.TriToy - 2008-12-22 10:05 AM 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. 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.. This is so encouraging. For the past 2 months, I've really been working hard at staying in Z1-Z2 for most of my runs. While I'm in the thick of it though, it sometimes feels like I'm not accomplishing much because I don't feel like I'm working very hard. It's great to see that people have amazing results just laying down the miles nice and slow! |
2008-12-23 11:42 AM in reply to: #1865171 |
Champion 6046 New York, NY | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? all of you (I think 3) who state that they train slow and race fast - that is all anecdotal. great for you -
|
|
2008-12-23 12:01 PM in reply to: #1869521 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? TriToy - 2008-12-23 12:42 PM all of you (I think 3) who state that they train slow and race fast - that is all anecdotal. great for you -
science is so overrated |
2008-12-23 12:10 PM in reply to: #1869521 |
Master 1826 | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? TriToy - 2008-12-23 12:42 PM all of you (I think 3) who state that they train slow and race fast - that is all anecdotal. great for you - another anecdotal example such as gordo tends to disagree with you.. from his marathons training series "Historically, most of my running has been very slow (but so is my event and I need energy to bike/swim)." and another point he stresses which I think is the key, and that is why when talking about running I think adapting your body slowly is better.. I have fallen victim to it with many injuries from going hard, and I think many other beginners also will ".. is staying healthy, injury free and being able to back up your training every day." .. adding intensity to a beginner often leads to injury due to not being able to handle the stresses.. it is a cautious aproach but leads to a higher success rate.. as others have stated in this thread, the higher intensity programs can work, you are just playing with loaded dice if you are a beginner. I think a better statement is those that train consistently, race faster Edited by slake707 2008-12-23 12:11 PM |
2008-12-23 12:23 PM in reply to: #1869564 |
Champion 6046 New York, NY | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? If you look at my original post I said there needed to be SOME interval work - that overall if you train slow you race slow. that is not suggesting that you have to train all hard. The OP was asking about that - there was discussion back and forth - and I said EACH person had to find what works for THEM.
I would go insane if I only did z1-2 runs |
2008-12-23 12:38 PM in reply to: #1869600 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? TriToy - 2008-12-23 1:23 PM If you look at my original post I said there needed to be SOME interval work - that overall if you train slow you race slow. That is not really true at all and it depends on the distance. You can easily train at low intensity for months and still go out and run a very fast high intensity race. Will you be at the peak of your abilities for that race?? Not necessarily. But it is very easy to race fast and train slow. You do NOT race slow if you train slow. It becomes a mental issue with people not knowing how to push themselves into the red on the faster stuff in races when they do not train at speed. And there are "anectdotal" situations of this all over the boards. I would go insane if I only did z1-2 runs I can dig it, but that does not mean you would not get faster at all race distances as a result. Again, they may not be optimizing their performance gains, but they would improve. I'd also say there are plenty of situations where people are doing TOO MUCH speedwork as a way to overcompensate and rush their improvements. Road to injury and ruin and typical newer athlete's mistake ........ |
2008-12-23 12:43 PM in reply to: #1865171 |
Master 2355 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? Not that Rick and others haven't drilled it in already to their best ability. You need miles. I'm all about speed work, but you need to have the miles to back it up. Edited by smilford 2008-12-23 12:43 PM |
|
2008-12-23 1:28 PM in reply to: #1869624 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back | Subject: RE: Run less, run faster?? Daremo - 2008-12-23 12:38 PM TriToy - 2008-12-23 1:23 PM If you look at my original post I said there needed to be SOME interval work - that overall if you train slow you race slow. That is not really true at all and it depends on the distance. X2 to that. After ten years of running and trying nearly every damn thing out there I would offer the opinion that intervals are overrated and unsuitable for a wide variety of athletes and goals. IMHO (again) most would be better off doing tempo work in addition to the LSD and forgoing the intervals with their elevated risk of injury. Edited by the bear 2008-12-23 1:28 PM |
|