What's up with this FIRST training? (Read 1192 times)

I'm far from a great runner, but I hear what you're saying Stephen.

Btw, I wasn't being snarky when I said you and spaniel were great runners. In my mind, anybody who can run a sub 3 marathon is a great runner.

Some other things I don't like about FIRST. I have figured out, partly through trial and error, that I can't handle three hard workouts per week--so I don't do them. I do two at most. I've figured out that easy mileage is not the hard part of any training program and almost no amount of it seems to do me in...it's the workouts. I've also learned that the more easy mileage I'm running, the bigger and harder workouts I can handle. So why would I want to increase the amount of high intensity training, which I know raises my injury and burn out risk, while simultaneously reducing my easy mileage, which I know helps me recover for the hard workouts? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

Well, have you experimented with cross training? Maybe if you traded some of those easy miles for cross-training, you would be able to add more quality with less risk of injury or burn-out. Anyway, that is the idea behind FIRST...

Hi Stephen, My running log is not public because it is not there. I do not keep an online log, I have a 3-ring binder logging every mile I have run for the past 7 years (except the last 6 months when I got lazy and didn't transfer my weekly summary from coolrunning before the threads were lost). As mikeymike eluded to, 3 hard workouts per week is A LOT for most people....too much for most. The first recommendation I would make WOULD be to drop one of them, and replace with 2-3 easy runs. Workouts are "supported" by a base of easy miles....the more you run, the more most people can do hard work. This year I was running less than half my historical mileage, and I had a rough time tackling many of the workouts I used to do, even when I slowed them down. Time and time again when I hear people talk about having tried FIRST, they talk about what a hard time they had handling those 3 hard workouts. This tells me that the plan was sub-optimal for them. If you need more than 1 day a week completely off due to being too tired to handle a run, your workouts are simply too much. I do believe most would be better served by running more with only 2 hard workouts. When in shape, a typical week for me would be: M - easiest day, 8-12 miles easy 6:40-7:00 pace T - AM, off or 6 miles easy 6:40-7:10 pace. PM, intervals 8X800m 90 sec recovery 2:23 avg or 6X1000m 2min recovery 3:02 avg 10 miles total for PM W - AM, off or 6 miles easy 6:40-7:10 pace. PM, 8-12 miles easy 6:30-6:40 pace R - AM, off or 6-8 miles easy 6:40-7:10 pace. PM, tempo, 10-14 mile run with 6-10 miles tempo (5:15-5:35 pace depending on length) or 10 mile with long fartlek sections w/short recovery F - AM, off or 4-6 miles easy 6:40-7:10 pace. PM, 8-10 miles easy 6:40-7:10 avg Sa - 10-12 miles either easy 6:40-7:10 pace or progression run if I felt especially good Su - long run, 16-20 miles 6:20-6:40 with last 4-6 miles solid pace (sub-6) Total for week - 90-110 miles You'll notice that the only real hard workouts are on Tuesday and Thursday. I'd do a very light workout Saturday if I felt especially good, and usually do SOME work at the end of my long run on Sunday. If my long run was going to be a real workout, I'd have gone easy on Thursday. Now cut this mileage by half or even to a third....and still do 3 hard workouts?? Nope! You are more likely to get injured from jamming in those 3 hard workouts without the easy mileage to support it than you are from running every day. Most injuries I have witnessed occurred during hard sessions, not easy runs. There are some people for whom this may be a good option -- those time constrained for running, with joint injuries that are aggravated from running mileage but still want to race, etc. But as a training methodology to lead to continued improvements in the long-term (more than 4-6 months), I remain completely unconvinced. I do know one guy who trains like that and races well (2nd place master's runner, national CC). Of course 80% of his runs are sub-5:20 pace and he once beat Bill Rodgers in a marathon so he's hardly setting any PRs on it (and can't race well over 10K due to lack of volume). I don't think references to elite training are funny. It is very true that we need to be cautious and not go out and try to emulate their training as it would break us mere mortals. However, elites train as they do because these are the basic principles which have proven through the decades to produce optimal performance. Therefore, the principles can be interpreted to the level of mere mortals. One issue here as you mention mikeymike and I and say you'll never be as fast as us; like our training doesn't apply to you. You are taking a snapshot in time, what we are like now. I haven't been on this excellent site for long so you don't know much about me including how I got where I am. I can tell you that I too started out "fat and slow". At 16 years old I could only just manage a sub-20 5K, which at that age is pitiful for someone who had already been seriously training for 4 years. I ran more, and harder, and was a tick over 17:00 when I graduated. I kept hammering the interval workouts and moderately low (30-40 mpw) mileage through college, going nowhere for 2 years but getting 34:18 10K/16:13 5K by my senior year. I know that sounds pretty quick but for a collegiate runner who'd been training for 10 years that's solidly back-of-the-pack. After college, I gave up weight lifting and cc skiing and concentrated on running. I ran more and more, and six years after leveling off at a mid-34 10K in college I broke 31. Through all those years it was increased volumes of easy miles which enabled me to handle progressively harder and longer speed workouts. My point is that you shouldn't sell yourself short. Almost all of us could be better than we imagine if we just trained right for it. We may not be elite, but if we look at those a level above us and how they train (like I did when I increased my mileage, shortened the recovery on my intervals and slowed down the intervals themselves) we can learn and progress. If you look a level or two above you in local races, do those people train more or less like FIRST recommends? My guess is you will find they get further from it as you look at faster and faster people. Not everyone's goal is to progress to be the fastest they can be. Sometimes it's finishing, sometimes weight loss, etc etc. So I do not recommend FIRST to be a bad route for everyone. I am speaking simply from a performance standpoint.

I've decided to add weight training to my exercise regimen this year. Last week I started with three consecutive days of lifting what I could, and then I stopped an decided to read something on it before I injured myself. My wife had a book called Body for Life, by Bill Phillips. He advocates three high intensity workouts per week for both weight training and for aerobic exercise. It sounds a lot like this FIRST program. I'm going to give it a try, but I'm not giving up my mileage. I like my mileage.

Stephen, you bring up another point about FIRST that worries me a bit. One thing I did before I learned better (there was no internet when I started running, I learned a lot by screwing up and then hearing 10 years later that the pros had arrived at the same conclusion years before...oh well) was that I thought I'd get better faster by hammering every workout I did. If it was not an easy run, I put my guts into it. I dry heaved after workouts and felt like the big man. My college coach told me that what I lacked in speed I made up for in guts. The problem is, I never got much faster doing that. I got burned out, I got hurt. But not a whole lot faster. I think it is a common mistake for people to make -- running workouts too hard. Unless they are sprint intervals, most aerobic intervals (ie 3k-race-paced or slower) are not meant to be all-out efforts. You shouldn't feel absolutely trashed after these workouts. Tired, yes. Trashed, no. With a program like FIRST that emphasizes a large bulk of hard work, I'm concerned that people feel pressured to run it too hard.

I am fairly conservative when it comes to pushing the pace. I have been doing most of my winter training on the treadmill, which is nice since I have such good control over the speed. I also have been wearing a heart rate monitor, so I know the relationship between my paces and my heart rate, and I have mapped out my hear rate zones. That said, I usually go into a run with a rough idea what I want to do, but beyond that I take what my body will give me, so I often run by feel. This approach has worked well so far, for I have been feeling like a million bucks after my runs – tired, but a good tired, and not trashed.

One of the best changes I ever made in my training was to ease up my intervals. I used to run 800s by doing 2 sets of 4 for 8 total, with 2-2:30 minutes recover between intervals and 5 minutes recovery between sets. Man would I haul on those intervals! After a lot of reading and talking to REALLY good runners, I went to 8X800 straight with only 90sec recovery. I had to slow them down, but the result was I spent more time working my high-end aerobic system and not going so anaerobic. I got a lot better results and within a few months I could run them as fast as I had before but now with less recovery. Like I said, I'm sure the program will work for many people for a period of months before plateauing. If you think about the plan, if you are already working very hard to try and hit those workouts there isn't much of a place to go with it once you plateau. This is why I compare it to a classic peaking period, it's much the same thing. Of course there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of that period of improvement! Good luck with your training, and keep us updated on how it works out for you.

Well, after one period, comes another. As long as I allow for sufficient recovery, and avoid overtraining, I should be able to continue to see improvement as I increase the training stress. Note I have one thing going for me and that is I am relatively new to running, and I think I am still on the steep part of the improvement curve.

PS - A few thoughts on mileage. People typically log miles as in running it's often thought that mileage is synonymous with work. While this link is not 100% it follows more or less. But 50 mpw with 15 miles of good quality is not the same as 50 easy miles. It's about quantity AND quality. I'm not suggesting quantity over quantity over quality when I disagree with FIRST....I'm just talking what I feel is a more appropriate balance of quality and quantity. Look up "5-pace training". Different paces lead to different adaptations...you can't exclude slow runs and expect fast runs to do the same thing.

Yes, I understand what you’re saying about balance. I suspect that the hard work-outs in the FIRST program are balanced by the cross-training. I am still experimenting with the intensity of my cross-training workouts, but many of my cross-training workouts so far have been below my MAF heart rate. I realize that this discounts other adaptations, that may occur during easy running, but it does provide the cardiovascular balance (e.g., your heart doesn’t know whether you’re running easy, or biking). There are also the warm-up and coolidown portions of my runs, which are run at or below my MAF pace. Note, I have been studying the topic of quantifying training load, and often thought this might be a nice feature for RA (e.g., if Eric includes heart rate data in the Garmin feature he is working on). Perhaps you have heard of the concept the training impulse or TRIMP, where work-outs are graded by intensity, as measured by heart rate, and duration. A simple TRIMP measure is just work-out duration x average heart rate, but there are more complex ways to calculate it based on the times spents at different RPEs or heart rate training zones. If you're interested, here is a paper on Measuring Training Stress which talks about TRIMP and some other forms of measurement.

Perhaps you have heard of the concept the training impulse or TRIMP, where work-outs are graded by intensity, as measured by heart rate, and duration. A simple TRIMP measure is just work-out duration x average heart rate, but there are more complex ways to calculate it based on the times spents at different RPEs or heart rate training zones.

Stephen - have you looked at Cooper Aerobic Points? I don't know much about them, but I read about them when I first started running. I seem to remember them working similarly to what TRIMP does - but maybe not with the HR.

Here's my take on things, from what I've read: FIRST works, it really does. Assuming you actually follow the plan. This is not an easy task, however, and I would not recommend this plan for a beginning runner. Why? Because it requires a good knowledge of pacing. To get the benefits of the limited runs, you need to be very good at setting a proper pace for each run. Additionally, from reading both the plan, and others' experiences with it, you are not limited to just three runs per week. The cross-training can also be running (I've seen this approach taken successfully). The cross-training is a big thing here. Most people overlook it, because it's not running. It is, however, extremely important for the success of the plan. The people for whom this program doesn't work struggle with one or both of these issues: running at the wrong pace; not doing the cross-training (at all, or not enough). You cannot skip any of the running workouts with this program. Additionally, it is very important to keep up on the cross-training as well. If you don't, you're going to struggle. Playing a pick-up game of basketball is not proper cross-training for this program. It needs to be a sustained effort, like cycling or swimming. FIRST works great for triathletes, since they are already doing aerobic cross-training. Also, it's not really new, it's been around for a good number of years. I think it's growing in popularity because of Runner's World. But RW and RT have had articles on it in the past.

Also, it's not really new, it's been around for a good number of years. I think it's growing in popularity because of Runner's World. But RW and RT have had articles on it in the past.

You're right, there have been articles over the last few years. The book is fairly new (came out last May). The earliest reference that I could find about similar training ideas was a NYT article from 1989: Cutting Mileage Will Keep You Fit Excerpts... ''The magic 20'' had been considered about half the minimum mileage necessary for racing success. But injuries, mental fatigue and the advent of total fitness have caused competitive runners to experiment with their training mix. What many are discovering is that 20 miles a week can keep your performances at the same level as 40 to 50 miles, as long as you follow these guidelines: * Speedwork must be done once a week (jogging alone is not enough); * Racing must be done frequently; * Alternative training such as cycling and swimming must be done on a regular basis; * Rest or recovery days must be designated in order to be fresh for quality training.