HR Training: How can I get fast faster ? (Page 2)

No.  "Clearly" you missed the context of the other posts in this thread and decided to start a seperate agrument about something that's worked for you. 

It's never a matter of need, but rather a matter of goals. If you're happy with your results given your training volume, more power to you. But the answer to the question at hand (How can I get fast faster ?) revolves around both quantity and quality of training. For beginners ESPECIALLY the fastest way to improve is to slowly and safely increase your volume. The sooner you recognize there's a co-relation between cycling <50mpw and posting bike splits of <17mph, the faster you'll improve.

Easy, killer.  Maybe you missed the smiley at the end of my post.  Don't take it so personal. 

Sure.  Coming from a background of little running, many people can make gains at 3x/wk if done consistently.  And coming from the couch, the cross-training can also help as cardio is a limiter.  Frankly, that's what I did for awhile too, as I also had to find the time to get better at swimming and cycling.  The OP has actually been running 0-3x/wk from what I see, so maybe the inconsistency is hurting more than the 3x issue right now.

But the best way to make lasting improvements is still going to be to run more frequently.  You may not have plateaued yet, but you will.  3x will not keep moving the ball forward.  The cross-training benefits will lessen.  And it is also not ideal for most people trying to build durability--the ability to keep running consistently without injury.  You may have in fact benefitted from this factor substantially by running more in the past, allowing you to maintain a 3x schedule while mixing in intensity.  The "won't cut it" was not written in response to your unique set of circumstances but to the OPs (and, frankly, can probably be applied to more people than your set can).

And lastly, "more" is more than just volume.  Intensity has its place and can be added to make "more".  But too many people don't understand where that place is.  And it doesn't change the fact that for most beginners, intensity is best held to a minimum--especially on the run.

I'm OK if we disagree on any of this.  Again, it's nothing personal. 

Huge difference between biking/running and golf in that golf, like swimminjg, IMHO is a technique-oriented sport. If you just go out and do volume without addressing technique you can very possibly be emphasizing and learning bad skills and habits which will need to be corrected down the road.

With biking and running, not so much. And really, the only thing you hear on here more than Run/Ride Lots is the 10% rule and to increase slowly and safely. Sorry if you missed that, but it is a vital part of the answer.

If a beginner really gets those impressions, they're not paying attention or reading enough.  I started here as a complete beginner with NO background in any of the sports.  And the message was not hard to get if you paid attention or asked a direct question on the subject.  It's still not.

What most people here require is PATIENCE (see my first response in this thread).  And I know it's hard when you get going and are filled with excitement for the sport and want to see improvements from your work.  It's easy to get caught up in "speed" intervals and aero gear and forget about the really important stuff.  I often have trouble taking my own advice.

Firstly, I apologize if I didn't mention about adding mileage/time in a slow, safe, manner.  You are 100% correct that those words should always be part of the advice given.  Speaking for myself, sometimes I forget to put that in there because I either thought it was said, or just....forget.  Experience can sometimes skew your perspective and make you miss mentioning something that needs to be mentioned.

As for specific advice about training...  My philosophy is like I posted.  There is a time and place for speedwork, sure.  To me, that time and place is in the peaking phase when getting ready for your "A" race.  Also, speedwork can be confusing.

Personally, I don't think the majority of people ever need to do "speedwork".  From what I've seen, they'll be better served by becoming more consistent firstly, and secondly adding volume; hence the reason I usually start with those two items.  I'm hesitant to suggest intervals or even harder tempo or progression runs to someone who hasn't met those first two things.  Heck, I don't do much more than tempo or progression runs, and those tend to be unstructured.  I got more miles to go before I feel comfortable doing repeats or that stuff.  Again, that's my take, and how I base my advice.  Your mileage may vary on many things here.

I'm not real big on HR training, so I can't comment on it specifically as to how it relates to what I do.  I have read, and have a pretty good understanding of, how it works, but I have chosen not to directly incorporate that. 

OK.  Now that we're on the same page, I agree with most of that too.

The problem (or a problem) I see is that a beginner sees: 10% intensive pace and begins doing a weekly track session.  Say they spend just 20' of time "working" on the track.  If that's to be 10% of their week, they need to run 200' (or 180' more).  If they're running 2-3x/wk, what are the odds they're getting that kind of volume?  Most people just don't analyze their training that closely (and generally I don't blame them for that--whatever keeps it "fun" ).

Now, if they were to do that workout 1x/month to add some variation and keep things "fun" then I see less of a problem (though not much other training value in it).

A really detailed response requires a detailed input from the person asking the question.  Few questions provide that.  And many questions are asked with a bias for an answer they want to hear (e.g., "give me some good interval workouts" ) instead of asking the right question (e.g."should I do intervals?" ).

In the end, I feel the "simple" answer is usually the best in most cases and is the least likely to send someone down the wrong path.

Edit:  And you're right that some of us (at least I) often assume that people understand you need to build up to "more" gradually.  I should point it out more clearly, more often.  But usually when I see the problem of doing too much, it's going too hard as opposed to building too much volume.

You know, this brings up an interesting point that I was contemplating while running.

How many of us keep track of all the little details of our workouts that actually make them useful for review.  Sure, most of us track time, distance, pace.  But how many of us track how we feel, or make note of exactly the workout done?  I have gotten somewhat better at that part (I keep another log separate with my own little notes).

In order to review your stuff, you have to record it in a way that is meaningful to you.  I do see that advice as well, though, but I think it needs to be reiterated, maybe expanded upon.

I almost always note the exact workout done.  Often where and under what conditions.  Usually note how I felt about the session.  But I'm a data freak.  You probably knew that already. 

There, I fixed it for you.

I know some people do.  I'm just thinking that it might be important to note for someone who's never really tracked this stuff before. 

I just read the entire thread again, and if you mean that I didn't get the context of the rest of the posts because I didn't agree with the simple answer of "more milage" - then your right. I didn't agree with the simple answer of more milage so I guess I missed the context. I did two things - responded to one previous post that stated that 2 - 3 runs "won't cut it". >>> it won't in the long run if that is your obejective.

I just don't think that's true. If you train smart during your 3 runs, you can make improvements. I'm not some genetic freak that can make improvements with only three runs per week while no one else can. Then, in my third paragraph, I directly responded to the OP by suggesting alternate workouts to help with speed - which they originaly asked for. >>> Well yeah, we become fitter by stressing our bodies but hard sessions stress our body a lot more (and require more rest) and the body adapts to this within weeks. Hence you will need to stress it some more to produce further adaptations and grow fitter. How do you do that? Well train harder, and harder and harder, which without the proper base, will cause you to either plateau cuz you can’t/won’t train harder or eventually your body will break down. That’s why the approach for periodization.

I just get tired of eveyone giving the pat answer "more", "more", "more". Whether it be time in the saddle or miles of running. Training is not about doing more, but training smart and maximizing results in the time you spend training. >>> you can get tired about but it won;t make it go away . Wether you like it or not, you need to do MORE, either volume, intensity or both, but you DO need to do more *if* you want to improve.

If you only have time for three runs a week, I know you can make improvments to your running times by mixing up speed work, hills, intervals, Fartlek, LSD, recovery runs etc. >>> again you will gain but only for so long before you need more.

Good point (and acceptable correction).  I used to tell people this more, but using the logs here is great.  Many people like the "community" aspect of BT the best.  But I still think the logs are the single greatest part of BT...and they're FREE!!!!

OK. I'm going to pick on you a little bit now (again, nothing personal).

You're original post in this thread disagreed with "2-3 runs per week is not going to do it".  It explained how you were progressing on a 3x program just fine. 

It then went on to at least suggest something to the OP that worked for you--1 LSD, 2 shorter speed/tempo runs.  Seems to me that mix could easily end up being relatively intensity-heavy and risk injury to someone without the right base or without at least some more qualification about how to add the speed/tempo.  Which is why I pointed out that your background may make this advice less relevant to the OP.  I still find that to be the case.

Full circle now, huh? 

I would have hardly called the time wasted, you know.  I think it's time well-spent, mostly because I think all of us directly involved took something away from the exchange.