1234

On base building (Read 349 times)

JimR


     

    I have a problem with the experiment cited in this article.  It says that group A did a run each day, while group B did a run and recovery run each day, followed by a day of rest. So the difference between the 2 groups was two variables (recovery run and a day of rest), not one. That being the case, how could it be concluded that the increase in fitness was due to the addition of a recovery run and not the day of rest?

     

    All they wanted to determine is whether adaptation with two workouts close together is differant than with two workouts spread further apart while maintaining the same amount of volume.  If they had the two-a-day workouts each day as well, they would have more volume and make it difficult to identify the stimulus.  Studies like this aren't usually meant to be conclusive, they're meant to be observational.


    Future running partner.

      A question on base building. When one tries to increase the mpw during base building (not moving toward sharpening or later training phases due to not having a goal race), should one focus on increasing just the amount of easy runs, or also proportionally increase the amount of other hard runs? For example, I've been running about 40mpw last year, with 1 or 2 hard runs in a week (always a long run plus sometimes an interval or a tempo run). I'm working on getting up to 50 to 60 mpw again (tried that a couple times last year but didn't succeed in staying at that mileage for long), and am wondering if there's a need to do at least 3 harder training runs a week, or should the focus mostly be just time on feet? And on a somewhat related topic, my simplistic understanding of easy run is that its purpose is to allow recovery during supercompensation after hard trainings, and causes the body to grow stronger during that phase. So if the frequency of hard-easy runs increase from added trainings in a week, the period for recovery/supercompensation must decrease, so what actually enables the body to decrease the recovery time? Is it just more running? I can't get my head around this chicken and the egg thing, I know someone can straighten me out here. Thanks.

       

      To the OP. It looks like you are there. At least for the last few weeks. How are you feeling? If you feel good keep it up. If not then you need to change something. Perhaps eliminate the hard workout until you reach your mileage goal. That being said. I have a tendency to prefer building a base with out doing any hard interval/Tempo/Hill workouts. The more intense anaerobic stuff has a tendency to hinder my ability to put in quaility aerobic work and hinders aerobic adaptations to take place. I like to Schedule my weeks (idealisticaly, life will rearange things) like this in terms of time:

      Sunday -- 2hr long

      Monday -- 40-60 minute short.

      Tuesday -- 80-90 minute medium

      Wednesday -- 40-60 minute short

      Thursday -- 80-90 minute medium

      Friday -- 40-60 minute short

      Saturday -- Rest day. Sleep in. Have fun doing other stuff.Forget about running for a day.

       

      If I am still not up to my desired mileage with this then I start throwing some doubles by doing another 45 minute afternoon/evening run. I typically plan to do this for anywhere from 6 to 12 weeks depending on how long I have to train for a race or races. I have done base training for as long as 20 weeks in the past.

       

      One key thing that is very important during base building is to maintain some strength training, particularly in the core. Logging lots of miles without doing any other form of exercise tends to create muscle imbalances that make you more suseptable to injury. I've learned this the hard way. One last thing is that if you are not doing tempo/hill/interval work. Lots of base training can make your top speed slower and even lower your anaerobic capacity. So I'm throwing in stuff like, 4-6 short hill sprints, flat sprints and short plyometric sets at the begining of my short days to help maintain speed that I already developed and even develop it more to some degree. Or I'll thrown in some 5k to 10k paced pickups in the middle of a run. Nothing long enough to make you very winded but enough keep your fast twitch muscles fireing a bit while doing so much aerobic work. I'm also finding the short speed work to also be good for reducing imbalances in the legs.

      MrNamtor


      DON'T TREAD ON ME

         

        All they wanted to determine is whether adaptation with two workouts close together is differant than with two workouts spread further apart while maintaining the same amount of mileage.  If they had the two-a-day group run on the alternate days, they would have more volume and make it difficult to identify the stimulus.  Studies like this aren't usually meant to be conclusive, they're meant to be observational.

        I think there actually IS a conclusion to be reached from the study (assuming its validity, which might be a stretch). i think you could conclude that if X volume, concentrated into doubles and done on alternate days brings more fitness than X volume spread out over daily workouts, then you should do high volume workouts with alternate days of rest instead of medium volume workouts daily.

         

        Yet this is exactly what most runners don't do. Weight lifters do it. But runners don't and many advanced runners scoff at idea of taking every other day off. Then even when they are tired, they do recovery runs instead of total rest.

         

        I'm not saying that this study is at all valid. It actually sounds kind of silly the way it's described and you can't really validate it from the description. But if it's correct, it does not validate recovery runs as they are practiced by most runners who do them, because most runners do them instead of total rest and not as a double on the same day of a hard workout with a day of rest following.

        JimR


           i think you could conclude that if X volume, concentrated into doubles and done on alternate days brings more fitness than X volume spread out over daily workouts, then you should do high volume workouts with alternate days of rest instead of medium volume workouts daily.

           

           

          Not from this study.  There is nothing in it regarding higher volume.

             

            Not from this study.  There is nothing in it regarding higher volume.

             

            Or running for that matter.

            Runners run.

              I think there actually IS a conclusion to be reached from the study (assuming its validity, which might be a stretch). i think you could conclude that if X volume, concentrated into doubles and done on alternate days brings more fitness than X volume spread out over daily workouts, then you should do high volume workouts with alternate days of rest instead of medium volume workouts daily.

               

              Yet this is exactly what most runners don't do. Weight lifters do it. But runners don't and many advanced runners scoff at idea of taking every other day off. Then even when they are tired, they do recovery runs instead of total rest.

               

              I'm not saying that this study is at all valid. It actually sounds kind of silly the way it's described and you can't really validate it from the description. But if it's correct, it does not validate recovery runs as they are practiced by most runners who do them, because most runners do them instead of total rest and not as a double on the same day of a hard workout with a day of rest following.

               

              Nator:

               

              I think "most advanced runners" usually run almost everyday.  This, in fact, is where the concept of "Recovery Run" comes in.  Remember what I had pointed out; in this study, the subject worked out everyday; hence, his/her heart was working everyday.  You really have to get the idea that you can compare endurance event such as distance running and weight lifting can be compared (unfortunately, it seems a lot of people seem to do on-line...).  Development muscle mass and power is completely different from developing aerobic stamina.  In an extreme argument, you can "pump irons" without heart; you can work really hard to be strong and be VERY inadequate in cardio-vascular fitness.  In an endurance event, your plumbing means a whole heck of a lot more than other power events.  In short, as far as I'm concerned, to be a decent distance runner, working out only every other day is utter nonsense.


              And in the end...

                ...But runners don't and many advanced runners scoff at idea of taking every other day off. Then even when they are tired, they do recovery runs instead of total rest.

                 

                A key part of endurance training is running while fatigued.  Running a race at your true fitness-based race pace will produce tremendous fatigue during the race event itself, and how a runner responds will usually depend on how much training they have done while in a fatigued state.

                 

                Quite a few runners seem to think that they should start every training run on 'fresh legs'.  It's just not so.  Run as much as you safely can get away with.  Throw in a little fastish running here and there.  Enjoy the little niggles, aches and pains, and the stiffness that feels like cement in your legs.  When you get it right, you'll be out a run one day, flying along, and your legs will feel like pistons firing in a race car.  You'll hardly feel like you're working.  That's when the light will go off and you'll understand what all of those runs really do for you.

                 

                I'm trying to get back to that feeling... so I'm going to RUN MORE!

                ------------------------

                The GITM is moot.


                Feeling the growl again

                   

                   

                  Yet this is exactly what most runners don't do. Weight lifters do it. But runners don't and many advanced runners scoff at idea of taking every other day off. Then even when they are tired, they do recovery runs instead of total rest.

                   

                   

                  Running and weightlifting have very few things in common, they are completely different endeavors.  I used to lift quite a bit...before my running got to the point where it was time-consuming and lifting counter-productive...and I approach the two sports with very different training techniques.

                   

                  If advanced runners....the people who have learned to be successful at this sport... scoff at the idea, are you really scoffing at themConfused

                   

                  Lifting is largely driven by anaerobic energy systems.  Running, quite the opposite.  This is why you could take some incredibly strong lifters, dump them into World's Strongest Man where endurance starts to come into play, and they would fail terribly.

                  "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                   

                    Nator:

                     

                    Here's another way to look at it.  You have jumped to conclusion with this particular study when one leg (of the same person) did X amount of exercise everyday while the other leg doubled the amount per day (even though there was a break) and took a day off in between.  And the latter leg got 90% more "endurance" (I would love to see how this person walked/ran after this study...).  And you concluded that the reason for the latter leg's significantly more training benefit was due to "day-off" in between.  I wonder if there's been any study done; split the legs and one leg would do double the amount every other day; vs. another leg would do the same amount one day followed by the half the amount...and alternate.  Naturally, in this case, the latter leg would get approximately 50% more ENDURANCE exercise (assuming it was endurance exercise that these legs performed--it wasn't specified)...  Which leg do you think would gain more endurance?  In your concept, the former, the one that took every other day off would perform better.  I highly doubt it.

                     

                    I can't remember which thread it was but I responded to Mikey's comment about that German study on recovery and Super Compensation.  According to this study, again, aerobic exercise would (or should) recover within 12 hours; and SC follows in 24 hours.  Anaerobic exercise 32 hours to recover and SC in 48 hours.  STRENGTH training 48 hours to recover and SC in 72 hours.  Strength training is not just anaerobic exercise because it involves breaking down and rebuilding of muscle tissue (probably the reason why super long run of beyond 3-hours take longer to recover).  So, you're right, it stands to reason that those who does body building or strength training do so every other day.  But that's TOTALLY different from running distances.


                    A Saucy Wench

                       

                       

                      If advanced runners....the people who have learned to be successful at this sport... scoff at the idea, are you really scoffing at themConfused

                       

                      +1

                      I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets

                       

                      "When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7

                      MrNamtor


                      DON'T TREAD ON ME

                        thanks for replies to my statement, Jim, Nobby, Matt and spaniel.

                         

                        @spaniel - not scoffing at anyone. Just trying to figure things out. That means questioning things, something much different from scoffing at people who have achieved something in a sport. Would you prefer an orthodoxy where to even ask a question is considered some sign of arrogance? I wouldn't.

                        MrNamtor


                        DON'T TREAD ON ME

                          Nator:

                           

                          Here's another way to look at it.  You have jumped to conclusion with this particular study when one leg (of the same person) did X amount of exercise everyday while the other leg doubled the amount per day (even though there was a break) and took a day off in between.  And the latter leg got 90% more "endurance" (I would love to see how this person walked/ran after this study...).  And you concluded that the reason for the latter leg's significantly more training benefit was due to "day-off" in between.  I wonder if there's been any study done; split the legs and one leg would do double the amount every other day; vs. another leg would do the same amount one day followed by the half the amount...and alternate.  Naturally, in this case, the latter leg would get approximately 50% more ENDURANCE exercise (assuming it was endurance exercise that these legs performed--it wasn't specified)...  Which leg do you think would gain more endurance?  In your concept, the former, the one that took every other day off would perform better.  I highly doubt it.

                           

                          I can't remember which thread it was but I responded to Mikey's comment about that German study on recovery and Super Compensation.  According to this study, again, aerobic exercise would (or should) recover within 12 hours; and SC follows in 24 hours.  Anaerobic exercise 32 hours to recover and SC in 48 hours.  STRENGTH training 48 hours to recover and SC in 72 hours.  Strength training is not just anaerobic exercise because it involves breaking down and rebuilding of muscle tissue (probably the reason why super long run of beyond 3-hours take longer to recover).  So, you're right, it stands to reason that those who does body building or strength training do so every other day.  But that's TOTALLY different from running distances.

                           

                          Nobby, among other things, your post here very well puts in a nutshell what was wrong with this study as it was described.

                           

                          I never intended to say that this was a meaningful study from which valuable conclusions should be drawn. Only if you take that study at face value. But the face value itself is very ambiguous and murky.

                           

                          I'm just sort of playing around with some "what ifs". And I appreciate the replies.


                          Feeling the growl again

                            thanks for replies to my statement, Jim, Nobby, Matt and spaniel.

                             

                            @spaniel - not scoffing at anyone. Just trying to figure things out. That means questioning things, something much different from scoffing at people who have achieved something in a sport. Would you prefer an orthodoxy where to even ask a question is considered some sign of arrogance? I wouldn't.

                             

                            I included the confused emoticon explicitly to show that I was unsure of your meaning in the statement.  My attempt to ask you to clarify without jumping to judgmental.  Smile

                             

                            Asking questions is fine, but there is a certain level of legitimacy to be given to people who have backed up their methods with success.  Questioning that simply for the sake of questioning with no good support to  it would lead a lot of people to get tired of the conversation quickly.  I'm not sure how long you've been around here but we have had a few individuals (a certain Trex ostrich runner comes to mind) who believe they have to be right simply because they are the only ones "brave" enough to question the methods of those who have actually done pretty well applying their methods.

                            "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                             

                            MrNamtor


                            DON'T TREAD ON ME

                               

                              I included the confused emoticon explicitly to show that I was unsure of your meaning in the statement.  My attempt to ask you to clarify without jumping to judgmental.  Smile

                               

                              Asking questions is fine, but there is a certain level of legitimacy to be given to people who have backed up their methods with success.  Questioning that simply for the sake of questioning with no good support to  it would lead a lot of people to get tired of the conversation quickly.  I'm not sure how long you've been around here but we have had a few individuals (a certain Trex ostrich runner comes to mind) who believe they have to be right simply because they are the only ones "brave" enough to question the methods of those who have actually done pretty well applying their methods.

                               

                              I always approach any subject having to do with running with the idea that i am a complete dumb ass. Nothing I ever say should in any way be taken as an expression of the idea that I am some kind of pioneer or have a better way to do anything. It's more along the lines of child asking things like "why can't I jump to the moon" or something like that.

                               

                              I'm 52 years old, and I've been running a little less than 2 years. I'm a recreational runner with good times for my AG in races I've been in. In the 5k, my time is, i think an age adjusted "locally competitive" time.

                               

                              You can see by my log that I put in 30 something mpw efforts, sometimes more, sometimes less. Generally I run as a conditioning base for my larger general physical regimen, but I am interested in the science of training to run faster, and I do want to achieve the best times I can in the races I run.

                              1234