Thinking about replacing one of my weekly easy runs with... (Read 279 times)

Either a strength workout or yoga.

Over the past marathon or two, I've begun to suspect that I'd feel better toward the end if I went into it a little stronger.  I use Hansons, and I think I'd like to replace one of the easy runs per week with one of the two types of workout (I would try to add it in, but honestly, I'm stretching my schedule pretty thin to accommodate just the running portions).

Which do you think would be more beneficial?

Seems to me, benefit of yoga is that it would also help flexibility.  Problem with yoga is that here in rural East Texas, there isn't exactly a yoga studio on every corner...I'd need suggestions on how to go it alone.

Pros and cons for strength work is the inverse of yoga.  I have easy access to a gym.

MTA: I'm adding mileage to the Advanced Plan in Hansons'...my weekly mileage gets up to around 70-85 during the peak weeks.

That depends on what your goal is. If you want to be a better runner, run more, and if you're able to run, don't cut  the running and replace it with something else. I'd treat the yoga as a supplement, not a replacement.

 

If you're just running for fitness, then the yoga makes perfect sense as a fitness regime.

+1, with minor editorial addition.

Why can't you do stregth and running duing the week.  Or Yoga and running?  If taking a weekend day off will help you irregardless of strength or yoga - Do it, but I can lift weights 4-6 times a week and still run everyday.  I split the body into 2 logical groups, so 4x a week is 2 of each or 6 x 3 of each.  Splitting it up makes each session pretty easy to manage from a time standpooint.  Session #1 takes 30-35 minutes for lifting, stretching and core and session #2 takes 45 minutes for lifting including leg weights.

Like I say, I'm barely managing the time with my mileage as it is.  Shortest easy runs per week in Hansons are, IIRC, listed as six-milers...but I always add three miles to those, so they end up taking about an hour and twenty minutes or longer, not including getting ready and stretching/showering after.  This is after a workday that ends at, usually, about 5:30, so I end up getting home at around 8:00 or so, and that's on the "easy run" days.  I mean, sure, I could still then go to the gym at that point, or I could get up an hour and a half earlier (which would be 4:15) and run before work, but frankly, that would be the point at which running and work would be all I do, and I'm just not ready for that to be the case.

I suppose I could split the difference, and just cut the mileage on one of those easy days.

 I suppose I could split the difference, and just cut the mileage on one of those easy days.

I think this sounds like a good compromise. I recently added strength training to my schedule (which is much lighter than yours) and like to get in a short run beforehand to warm up. You could get in three or so easy miles and then a 45-60 minute workout in roughly the same time (or less than) you would spend doing your normal easy miles.

As for yoga, there are a lot of DVDs and websites out there which could be helpful. You could get in a 15-20 minute routine in the morning if you're willing to wake up a bit earlier and/or replace/extend your post-run stretch with some yoga poses.

Once you get the yoga pants......you are golden!

You said yoga pants. It reminded me of this classic from Tim Hawkins:

Yoga Pants Song

I won't comment on the running part, as there are much better people to talk to about that. But spaniel had the right idea about doing some bodyweight work. You'd be surprised how much you can fit into ten minutes of high intensity bodyweight work at home. Try a ten minute superset of 10 push ups and 10 air squats. It'll probably be a challenge. If you're just looking to add some strength and don't care about looking like Arnold, you should be able to get more than enough in with about an hour a week. Put a pull-up bar in your house or garage and you're all set. If you need to learn some more exercises, check out You Are Your Own Gym, by Mark Lauren. Ignore everything he says about running and his scheduling and just look at the pages and pages of exercises you can do without any gym equipment.

 

Okay, I've been thinking about this, and I guess I have a few questions that will take us off-topic a bit...

 

I'm pretty sure the reason for the easy runs is, yes, recovery, but I'd always assumed it's more like recovery + getting miles in.  You know..."run lots, mostly easy."  I've always heard that the way to be a better runner is to run more (that's why my title is "Thinking about replacing..."), so how do I increase my weekly mileage, if it's not on the easy runs, regardless of which plan I use?

Yes, easy runs are for getting miles in but in the right way.  Why did Hansons tell you to run 6 and not 9?  I strongly suspect there was a reason for this.  But you elected to do 50% more than recommended.  Really, if you did a workout the next day an 80 minute run is too much for real recovery.  If it's been a couple days since your last workout then it may be okay.  But at the mileage your running, I suspect it is still a bit much.  If you feel anything but refreshed at the end it was probably too much.

I did an easy run this morning, trying to get my miles up so I was going for 12.  At 10 (70 minutes) it was feeling a bit too much like an effort. So I stopped.  I'm not that great of a runner anymore but I did nearly hit 3000 miles last year and run a 1:13 HM.  I feel pretty safe saying 80 minutes is getting really iffy as an every day "easy run" for a 50 mpw runner.

There are multiple ways to get more miles in.  Once you reach the useful limit to how much you can add to a single run, if you want to further increase your run you may need to double.  Yes, this is often difficult with scheduling around life.  I struggle with that myself.  But that does not change the reality of the situation.

Fatigue from a run is related to both time-on-feet and pace.  Obviously, the slower you run the longer you can go to get the same fatigue.  This is where the difficulty of comparing the training of runners at very different levels comes in.  I cover about 11.5-12 miles in 80 minutes at a very easy pace.  Someone else may only cover 8-9 miles in that same time, at the same effort level.  So you can't just give the same mpw or miles per run goal to both runners, because the faster runner is going to be able to cover more miles with the same fatigue level.

MTA:  Four score and seven years ago I had a former Olympian as a coach and had lofty goals.  I had interval workouts on Tuesdays and tempo or fartlek workouts on Thursdays.  He wanted me running 14 miles at 7:30 pace on Wednesdays.  This was stupid slow considering that at the time I considered anything over 6:40 to be a slow recovery pace.  So I did them in the 6:50s, even when it was hot.  I ended up with classic over-training 6-8 weeks before my goal marathon and blowing my shot at a Trials qualifier.  In retrospect there was a rhyme to the reason behind asking me to go longish but over-slow on that easy day.  So if you want to go longish on an easy day, at least consider doing it stupid slow.

 

Yes, easy runs are for getting miles in but in the right way.  Why did Hansons tell you to run 6 and not 9?  I strongly suspect there was a reason for this.  But you elected to do 50% more than recommended.  Really, if you did a workout the next day an 80 minute run is too much for real recovery.  If it's been a couple days since your last workout then it may be okay.  But at the mileage your running, I suspect it is still a bit much.  If you feel anything but refreshed at the end it was probably too much.

 

I did an easy run this morning, trying to get my miles up so I was going for 12.  At 10 (70 minutes) it was feeling a bit too much like an effort. So I stopped.  I'm not that great of a runner anymore but I did nearly hit 3000 miles last year and run a 1:13 HM.  I feel pretty safe saying 80 minutes is getting really iffy as an every day "easy run" for a 50 mpw runner.

 

There are multiple ways to get more miles in.  Once you reach the useful limit to how much you can add to a single run, if you want to further increase your run you may need to double.  Yes, this is often difficult with scheduling around life.  I struggle with that myself.  But that does not change the reality of the situation.

 

Fatigue from a run is related to both time-on-feet and pace.  Obviously, the slower you run the longer you can go to get the same fatigue.  This is where the difficulty of comparing the training of runners at very different levels comes in.  I cover about 11.5-12 miles in 80 minutes at a very easy pace.  Someone else may only cover 8-9 miles in that same time, at the same effort level.  So you can't just give the same mpw or miles per run goal to both runners, because the faster runner is going to be able to cover more miles with the same fatigue level.

 

MTA:  Four score and seven years ago I had a former Olympian as a coach and had lofty goals.  I had interval workouts on Tuesdays and tempo or fartlek workouts on Thursdays.  He wanted me running 14 miles at 7:30 pace on Wednesdays.  This was stupid slow considering that at the time I considered anything over 6:40 to be a slow recovery pace.  So I did them in the 6:50s, even when it was hot.  I ended up with classic over-training 6-8 weeks before my goal marathon and blowing my shot at a Trials qualifier.  In retrospect there was a rhyme to the reason behind asking me to go longish but over-slow on that easy day.  So if you want to go longish on an easy day, at least consider doing it stupid slow.

Let me preface this by saying, I promise I'm not trying to be obtuse!  You're bringing up some really great food for thought, and answering your questions with my own thoughts is how I "chew."  Since your qualifications became clear to me some time ago, I'll always defer to your knowledge, and know that I disregard your advice at my own risk.

Why do they recommend 6 miles for the easy runs and not 9?  Well, I assumed it was because they had a certain amount of mileage that they considered appropriate for a runner using an "advanced" plan, they wanted a certain percentage of those miles to be easy, so they divided that percentage up over the easy days.  As outlined in the book, they advise advanced marathoners to top 60 mpw.  If they had written it out for 70 or 80 miles - and I can't imagine they think that volume of mileage is unreasonable for runners of a certain experience level - I speculate some of the easy runs would indeed have been 9.  Matter of fact, some of the runs labeled "easy" are listed at 8 miles, some even 10 (though those only occur on weekends that don't include a long run).

I finally got home to the book and looked up their advice on adding mileage...after some discussion about which plan is appropriate to various runners (which seems to indicate I am "experienced in the marathon distance" - boy, that sure doesn't feel right some races), their first suggestion is to run on the rest days, an easy 4-8 miles.  Mmm, gonna have to pass on that, if for no other reason than I've planned my weekly schedule with my rest day being the night we go into Tyler for ballroom dancing classes (boy, that's a thread in itself).

Their second suggestion is - and this must be where I got the idea and forgot - "through modification of easy days in the Advanced Program.  Since most of the easy days have runs of 6-8 miles, it is reasonable for an experienced marathoner to increase those runs to 8-10 miles....We have successfully used this approach with a number of competitive men and women who run in the low-and-sub-3:00-hour range."

I must say, I'm not sure I would call the low 3's - which I almost am - "competitive," but I get what they mean.  Though, it does look like I might have, perhaps due to dunderheaded bravado, decided adding 3 miles would be better.  Maybe I will cut it back to adding two.

(the final method they mention for adding miles is to increase the long run, which they are famously loathe to recommend and spend the next couple of paragraphs qualifying)

Anyway, do you think I'm just misinterpreting all that, or is it just that you disagree with their advice?  Or are they, as you talked about, just assuming that the "experienced marathoner" is going to run those easy 8-10 miles in the same time that a beginner would run an easy 6-8?  Whether I consider myself an "experienced marathoner" or not, I will say I can indeed go longer without fatigue than I could a couple years back.  I'm certainly interested in your thoughts...sure, the Hansons have a book and all, but PLENTY of professional coaches disagree with them, and I consider you to be in that sphere.

Along those lines, thanks for the last couple paragraphs of the quoted post above...very interesting, and I'll definitely keep it, as well as all of the post, in mind.