Two choices: which is better overall? (Read 1503 times)

This can't be a serious question, because one important detail was left out. What cadence is each method done at?

I thought a train with a bar car would be MPH not cadence. Now I confused, I'll have to go back and reread the question.

C. Wait, what was the question? Hey, who took my beer?!

Snark travels faster than legitimacy.

Snark travels faster than legitimacy.

Silence. I keeeeel you.

Holy Schnikes. Snark attack. Who chummed up the pirañas?

must be the badminton players

Because i believe that getting the maximum out of a lower mileage first will help getting a higher amount (of aerobic fitness) from a higher mileage which you would otherwise not reach. That is the whole point of plan B. Therefore the slow build-up. Or am i thinking wrong?

Slow buildup is one thing, but Plan B does it on a geologic timescale. Plan A, with all of the easy runs done real easy -- there's your answer.

Slow buildup is one thing, but Plan B does it on a geologic timescale. Plan A, with all of the easy runs done real easy -- there's your answer.

Adding in some downhill running, especially on a treadmill, should help to shorten up the timeframe from geologic to lifetime for plan B.

What I have discovered from running and knowing other runners is runners come in catorgies. You have endurance oriented and what I term power oriented(myself). The endurance oriented runner probably will be able to increase mileage without much of a problem and will continue to improve by that alone(low Hr training). This guy probably is slow twitch endowed. This is the type that will injure easy from fast speed work and probably doesn't adapt to it fast(or enjoy it). If this is you and you race marathons your set with option B. In fact you may only need a few tempo's at best to sharpen up for your race. The power oriented runner will get injured from high mileage and will platue from it quickly. Speed work comes easy and you can usually sharpen up fast. Generally this runner gains more fitness(*even aerobic fitness)through some type of intensity. What I have noticed in myself and other power oriented runners is we adapt to a certain kind of running fast, platue and fall flat quickly if you don't switch the training emphasis. If this is you you would probably be better off following a 4 month cycle(3 peaks year), or finding a repeated cycle scheme(Lydiard race week non race week)to follow. So option A would work better. This kind of runner probaly enjoy's workouts and might bore easily from long slow distance runs(though he shouldn't neglect them). To summarize- If you are power oriented- Short 4-6 month cycles- Build mileage phase>hills>anaerobic> race. Wash rinse and repeat. 3 years go by and your running higher mileage like runner B and racing good. Endurance oriented- Keep building mileage using HR as a gauge if you will. When you hit max mileage(which will come fast) slowly add in short periods of intense running before races(start using tempo's, and progress in intensity each cycle). 3 years go by and your handeling speed work like runner A and racing good. So both work. Figure out what works for you. The power guy(A) will probably run better 5-10k's early on and poor marathons(if any). The endurance guy will probaly pop off decent marathons early on but won't do good at 5-10k(and he probably won't enjoy it anyways). Both types of runners remain consistant and you can experience decent races in both worlds in time though you probably will always excel in "your" distance. What gets me is you have a power oriented runner that just starts running. He like many others gets the marathon bug. Races it, compares it to his blazing fast 5k(though he didn't even train for a 5k) punches it into Mcmillian's calcs and suddenly the internet world convinced him he has some sort of "Aerobic Deficiency". This is where to much on hand information gets dangerous. Suddenly he is directed on what could be a wrong path.