Increase speed or increase distance? (Read 1287 times)


HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

    A common mistake for new runners is to conflate running faster with running harder.

     

    The thing to focus on is figuring out how to run fast without undue strain. You want to try to get faster at the same effort. ...

     

    ... (much explanation omitted)

     

    Those guys and girls at the front of the race -- they are not running harder than you; they've made fast easy. That's the challenge.

     

    Cheers!

     

    Jeff has said this in various forms in various places, but I find it easy to forget it, so I wanted to highlight the top & bottom of it (above) and say, thanks Jeff.

    It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

    MrNamtor


    DON'T TREAD ON ME

      .


      Mmmmm...beer

        Those guys and girls at the front of the race -- they are not running harder than you; they've made fast easy. That's the challenge.

         

        Cheers!

         

        I noticed that at my 5k on Saturday, I ran a 20:23, but I was dying out there.  There were guys near me who seemed to be putting out far less effort than I was to maintain the same pace. 

        -Dave

         

        2014 Goals | sub-19 5k done! | sub-40 10k | sub-1:25 HM | BQ done! | sub-3 M


        Muddling through

          A common mistake for new runners is to conflate running faster with running harder.

          ... -- incorporate some faster running in a relaxed way without changing the effort of your running, then you are on the right track

           I had to reread your post several times to catch this, but I think it bears repetition.

          2014 Goals: Run first trail ultra, first 100K, and see what I can do in a 24-Hour race

            Depends on if you want to be faster than you presently are or would like to carry your present speed over a longer distance. Most new runners are already fast enough to run a Boston Qualiying time they just can't maintain that speed for more than a couple of hundred meters. I read that somewhere and it makes sense to me. So to build endurance, I'd go with just run more.

            "The drops of rain make a hole in the stone, not by violence, but by oft falling." - Lucretius

              A common mistake for new runners is to conflate running faster with running harder.

              ... -- incorporate some faster running in a relaxed way without changing the effort of your running, then you are on the right track

               I had to reread your post several times to catch this, but I think it bears repetition.

               

              +1.  I'm not fast, but I'm gradually getting a little faster, and for me it seems to be all about learning to run relaxed.  

               

              Years ago when I'd try to do track workouts, I remember struggling to run 400s at 6:00/mile pace with 3 minutes of complete rest.  When running, I felt like everything was clenched, like I was trying to squeeze out more speed.  I hated it, and it was painful.

               

              Now, I run a little more mileage than I used to, and I work on running relaxed rather than fast.  It's much better.  On several Mondays lately I've been doing 9x400 with 2:30-ish jog recovery (a Daniels R phase workout that I like).  Not only is it relatively to keep to about a 6:00/mile pace, but if I don't watch the pace, it occasionally starts to drift down toward 5:30/mile --- not because I am pushing, but because it's so fun and I am running relaxed. 


              Old , Ugly and slow

                Is the post above spam?

                first race sept 1977 last race sept 2007

                 

                2014goals   1300  miles  , 190 pounds , deadlift 400 touch my toes


                Dad of a real runner

                  Is the post above spam?

                   

                  Either that or it's srlopez making merry.  (as opposed to making Mary)


                  day after day sameness

                    ...

                    The thing to focus on is figuring out how to run fast without undue strain. You want to try to get faster at the same effort. That's why Nobby recommends short speed strides, for example, instead of hard interval work or repetitions. If you can figure out how to separate fast from hard -- incorporate some faster running in a relaxed way without changing the effort of your running, then you are on the right track. There are a million ways to do this, and a lot of good things have already been mentioned on this thread.

                     

                    The one thing you want to avoid is taking the average pace of each run as an indicator that you are getting faster. That's what too many people mean by "increasing speed." Instead, practice speed by learning to run fast, in short, quick bursts at first, then perhaps in little timed intervals, something like 4 x 60s fast (not hard) with 90s jog recovery between each one would be a great place for a runner at your level to start. You are running too hard on these little pieces if you can't settle back into a jog after each one. Incorporating these little pieces won't bring down the average pace of your run, but will add some variety into it.

                    ...

                     

                    Those guys and girls at the front of the race -- they are not running harder than you; they've made fast easy. That's the challenge.

                     

                     

                    Concentrated goodness on a platter.

                    Put this one in the reference.

                    Oh my.

                    Choosing my words carefully has never been my strength I've been known to be vague and often pointless

                    J-L-C


                      Just want to say how much I enjoy reading threads like this where someone like Nobby (and Jeff and a few others) comes in and takes the time to explain things so thoroughly. 

                       

                      I think it's really awesome that you can get such direct insight from such knowledgeable, accomplished people on here. Great stuff!

                      xor


                        Either that or it's srlopez making merry.  (as opposed to making Mary)

                         

                        NOOOOOOO.  I have never once ever created another ID (a puppet) and won't.

                         

                        Me no spam, not even as a joke.  Promise.

                         

                        For those reading along: ClevelandMark's post isn't being called spam.  There was another post in between that WAS.  It has been disappeared.  And tweren't me.

                         

                          yeah i like Nobby.

                           

                          And I am sort of sorry for criticizing his grammar. I only really speak English with a smattering of horrible Spanish so I definitely cannot criticize anyone who is basically fluid in more than 1 tongue.

                          MrNamtor:

                           

                          Thanks for your Personal Message.  Though it sort of left it a bit of a mystery because you erased (or edited) what you had previously said, but I can say whatever you had said about my English, I'm sure you were much nicer than my wife is!! ;o)

                          MrNamtor


                          DON'T TREAD ON ME

                            MrNamtor:

                             

                            Thanks for your Personal Message.  Though it sort of left it a bit of a mystery because you erased (or edited) what you had previously said, but I can say whatever you had said about my English, I'm sure you were much nicer than my wife is!! ;o)

                             

                             

                            lol. Yeah, nothing i wrote was necessary.

                              I wasn't suggesting that one jump immediately into hard interval training or had waited until the last minute then panicked about training for a test. Perhaps if I relate what I did do beginning back in May, 1968, it would help. I had run track and xc in HS in a half-hearted fashion and quit after graduation with a mile PB of 5:22. Four years later I decided to start running again at age 21 with a hope to eventually be able to not only beat my HS PB, but to run sub-5:00. The college had a beginners running program supervised by a grad student in Phys Ed which I joined. I jumped in at level 3 of the 4 levels in the program. We ran 5 days a week, M-F, and level 3 workouts were 2-2.5 miles, some in a quasi-fartlek style and some steady runs. Within a couple days the supervisor asked me about my background because I didn't fit the profile of the typical participant. When I explained my background and goals, she proposed personalizing my workouts with that in mind and claimed she could have me running sub-5:00 in two months. We began increasing the length of my runs and started incorporating intervals after about 4 weeks working up to 8x440yd in lieu of the fartlek workouts. We gradually lowered the 440yd intervals from 85 to 75 seconds with a full 440yd jog recovery. At the end of two months I ran 4:56.4 for the mile. The workouts were designed for a very specific goal. Once that goal was reached my training was more general in nature anticipating eventually running xc and road races as well as the middle distance track races.

                              I happen to believe that the sound training principles can be applied to a 4-minute-miler to a 4-hour marathon runner; a 16-year-old to a 60-year-old.  Of course it doesn't mean you do all the same training.  But it's the PRINCIPLES.  What determines is your current fitness level and your background of training (or activities).  Take for example someone who has been playing soccer (I think there was a thread somewhere about this...???) for the past 3 months, staying quite active, and now switched to running.  Most likely he would be able to run 5-6 minute for one mile.  Can we give him some sort of "interval" training right from the get-go?  Probably.  Take another person who had been not so active and just took up running as his first physical activity.  Most likely, he would be able to run one mile in, say, 10-11 minutes.  I would NOT give someone like him "interval" training--though some sort of strides would be good for him.  What determines the difference of training pattern is not how fast or slow they run at the moment--though it just happens to appear that way; but their background of training and, due mostly to that, their current fitness level.  

                               

                              From what you wrote here, I'm still not quite sure what you were doing in those "blank" 4 years; how long you did the 2-2.5 mile fartlek workouts; and, to me, most importantly whether you did "4 weeks working" of base work BEFORE you started doing 8X400m OR whether you did 8X400m for 4 weeks (I actually read what you've written as the former but I'm not sure...).  If latter, then my question would be whether you started out doing 8X400m at 85-75 seconds or whether they were a bit slower at first.  Those things make a big difference because the question is NOT whether you were running fast or slow; but what's going on inside--just as I had explained earlier.  Dick Quax, the Olympic silver medalist in 1976 and one-time world record holder in 5000m in 13:12, told me that if he did 20X400m in 72 seconds, that's NOT ANAEROBIC.  If I run ONE 400m in 72 seconds, I will be anaerobic right now!!  I can do 8X400 in, say, 95 seconds and I'll be sucking oxygen.  Whereas, at his prime, if Quax did 8X400m in 80 seconds, he'd be jogging.  It was reported that, at one point, Lasse Viren of Finland was running 20km in less than 90-minutes (that's roughly 7-minute-mile pace) and his Heart Rate was not even 100.  Even a slow jog, my HR would shoot up to 140.  

                               

                              Now some people get all bent out of shape (particularly at some other message board...) that a great runner like Seb Coe may or may not have run as much as most middle distance and distance runners.  Reportedly, he ran only 50-miles a week (which I happen to believe is a bunch of BS).  But whether or not he ran 50 miles or 150 miles is completely irrelevant.  What matters is that he must have made sure that he had a good base to begin with.  Some people are blessed (let's face it; there IS some level of talent).  Some people can get away with not working as hard to get that than others.  I just got reconnected with a very old friend of mine from way back in 1984 (isn't internet wonderful?).  He was one of those very talented runner.  His friend took him out for a 10-mile run as his first ever run.  He was overweight (his belly was hanging out of his shorts) but it was his friend who was struggling to keep up.  Someone like him, because of his "current (at the time)" fitness level, could have started out with some level of interval training and survived fine.  But most of us would have to build it up first.  Interestingly, this friend, if I remember it correctly, "only" settled with something like 2:18 marathon for someone who was so talented.  I also knew someone else who nearly died during his first long run of 16-miler, running with a well-trained 15-year-old.  He turned out to become a bronze medalist.  You see, there IS talent but not to the level where you have to be all bent out of shape.  We can all develop it to a very high level IF we work hard at it and work out sensibly and correctly.  But one way or the other, you MUST have this aerobic base first before you move on to more strenuous type of training physiologically.  We ALL have to.  Kenyan runners might come to the US college and go straight into interval type of training and they'll do great.  If American kids, who hadn't been running to and from school since they were 8-years-old, may have to work a bit harder to get that aerobic base first before they emulate those Kenyans' training.  Some of us, maybe you or MrNamtor or LTH may have been gifted with this physiological make-ups; or they had been doing something without quite taking it into consideration...I wouldn't know.  But just because those people survived starting out with sprint/interval training and/or hard quarters from day one, it is highly unlikely someone who had to start out with C25K program can copy that kind of training.  It is not the matter of how fast or how slow one may run--yes, you were right on that.  But it all depends on the current fitness level and back ground of training.  There's no set formula to training.  But there IS certain principles that we just cannot ignore.  If we do, we get imbalance in training and we will be bound to get disappointed.  Ranting aside, THAT is my whole point.


                              Muddling through

                                I happen to believe that the sound training principles can be applied to a 4-minute-miler to a 4-hour marathon runner; a 16-year-old to a 60-year-old.  Of course it doesn't mean you do all the same training.  But it's the PRINCIPLES.  What determines is your current fitness level and your background of training (or activities).  Take for example someone who has been playing soccer (I think there was a thread somewhere about this...???) for the past 3 months, staying quite active, and now switched to running.  Most likely he would be able to run 5-6 minute for one mile.  Can we give him some sort of "interval" training right from the get-go?  Probably.  Take another person who had been not so active and just took up running as his first physical activity.  Most likely, he would be able to run one mile in, say, 10-11 minutes.  I would NOT give someone like him "interval" training--though some sort of strides would be good for him.  What determines the difference of training pattern is not how fast or slow they run at the moment--though it just happens to appear that way; but their background of training and, due mostly to that, their current fitness level.  

                                 

                                From what you wrote here, I'm still not quite sure what you were doing in those "blank" 4 years; how long you did the 2-2.5 mile fartlek workouts; and, to me, most importantly whether you did "4 weeks working" of base work BEFORE you started doing 8X400m OR whether you did 8X400m for 4 weeks (I actually read what you've written as the former but I'm not sure...).  If latter, then my question would be whether you started out doing 8X400m at 85-75 seconds or whether they were a bit slower at first.  Those things make a big difference because the question is NOT whether you were running fast or slow; but what's going on inside--just as I had explained earlier.  Dick Quax, the Olympic silver medalist in 1976 and one-time world record holder in 5000m in 13:12, told me that if he did 20X400m in 72 seconds, that's NOT ANAEROBIC.  If I run ONE 400m in 72 seconds, I will be anaerobic right now!!  I can do 8X400 in, say, 95 seconds and I'll be sucking oxygen.  Whereas, at his prime, if Quax did 8X400m in 80 seconds, he'd be jogging.  It was reported that, at one point, Lasse Viren of Finland was running 20km in less than 90-minutes (that's roughly 7-minute-mile pace) and his Heart Rate was not even 100.  Even a slow jog, my HR would shoot up to 140.  

                                 

                                Now some people get all bent out of shape (particularly at some other message board...) that a great runner like Seb Coe may or may not have run as much as most middle distance and distance runners.  Reportedly, he ran only 50-miles a week (which I happen to believe is a bunch of BS).  But whether or not he ran 50 miles or 150 miles is completely irrelevant.  What matters is that he must have made sure that he had a good base to begin with.  Some people are blessed (let's face it; there IS some level of talent).  Some people can get away with not working as hard to get that than others.  I just got reconnected with a very old friend of mine from way back in 1984 (isn't internet wonderful?).  He was one of those very talented runner.  His friend took him out for a 10-mile run as his first ever run.  He was overweight (his belly was hanging out of his shorts) but it was his friend who was struggling to keep up.  Someone like him, because of his "current (at the time)" fitness level, could have started out with some level of interval training and survived fine.  But most of us would have to build it up first.  Interestingly, this friend, if I remember it correctly, "only" settled with something like 2:18 marathon for someone who was so talented.  I also knew someone else who nearly died during his first long run of 16-miler, running with a well-trained 15-year-old.  He turned out to become a bronze medalist.  You see, there IS talent but not to the level where you have to be all bent out of shape.  We can all develop it to a very high level IF we work hard at it and work out sensibly and correctly.  But one way or the other, you MUST have this aerobic base first before you move on to more strenuous type of training physiologically.  We ALL have to.  Kenyan runners might come to the US college and go straight into interval type of training and they'll do great.  If American kids, who hadn't been running to and from school since they were 8-years-old, may have to work a bit harder to get that aerobic base first before they emulate those Kenyans' training.  Some of us, maybe you or MrNamtor or LTH may have been gifted with this physiological make-ups; or they had been doing something without quite taking it into consideration...I wouldn't know.  But just because those people survived starting out with sprint/interval training and/or hard quarters from day one, it is highly unlikely someone who had to start out with C25K program can copy that kind of training.  It is not the matter of how fast or how slow one may run--yes, you were right on that.  But it all depends on the current fitness level and back ground of training.  There's no set formula to training.  But there IS certain principles that we just cannot ignore.  If we do, we get imbalance in training and we will be bound to get disappointed.  Ranting aside, THAT is my whole point.

                                 I agree with all you said here. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my description as I was trying to keep it brief. During those 4 years I did no specific running or formal training of any kind, but I did keep active playing recreational sports - a little tennis, pick-up basketball games. The university also required 4 semesters of Phys Ed so I had some activity there for two years. By the time I started running again I could still run a sub-6:00 mile barely. Once I started I gradually extended the distances I ran those first 4 weeks. I don't remember precisely the exact numbers, but I think my longest runs were about 4 miles by the end of 4 weeks and I was running 5 days a week for 18-20 mpw. I think we started with 8 x 440yd in 85 and each workout tried to bring that down a few seconds as long as I could still run all 8 at the designated pace. We ran intervals twice a week as it was an aggressive program, but at no point did I feel too tired to complete the workouts. I always felt I could have done another interval or two. Workouts followed a hard-easy pattern. I'm not sure when I added a 6th day of running. It may not have been until after my race. What I didn't find out until later was that the grad student who was coaching me was an Olympic Trials qualifier at 800m and member of the national cross country team and her research project was in the area of endurance training.

                                2014 Goals: Run first trail ultra, first 100K, and see what I can do in a 24-Hour race