Yesteryear Training. (Read 1358 times)

Has training changed in the last 35 years? For a calibration, see Training - 1970s Style.

I don't get the obsession people have with simplifying things. If you don't want to follow a rigid plan, then don't follow a rigid plan. But don't deny that it doesn't work for some people. If you don't like GPS devices, modern fueling and hydration options, or technical gear, then don't use them. But don't deny that some people don't use them with great success. If you don't care to be bothered with VO2, LT paces, and running economy, then don't buy the books. But don't deny that these principles are a scientific reality and can be used as a training tool. Everyone wants everything to be simple and easy. You want to take running and reduce it to a glib slogan: "run lots; mostly easy; sometimes fast." Print it on a t-shirt and make bumper stickers. Run by "feel" not by a schedule. Pain isn't pain. Fast is easy. Oh, and ridicule anyone who takes a more structured, scientific approach. That's a load, in my opinion. Physiology is a science, and there are scientific methods to become faster, stronger, and better. Running is hard; its the hard that makes it great.

If a gadget or certain piece of knowledge helps you to train better and race faster then I believe anyone here would say go for it.

Actually no, a fair number will mock you. But this is the key piece I took from the article

Runners can’t agree on a single recipe because there’s nothing to agree upon. As long as certain general routes are followed, there are an almost infinite number of ways to reach the same end. Half the fun in running is in mapping out those ways, watching where they lead, and arguing with runners who come at the same place from a different direction.

Simple is as simple does. Imagine two people who can play the guitar as a hobby. One plays casually at home and likes to learn how to play all his favorite songs. The other person plays guitar in a band with nightly practices and weekend shows. One is not structured and he is doing what he enjoys doing. The other is structured and precise in doing what he enjoys. They both play the guitar, enjoy doing it and get better the more they play. Is either one wrong? Running is running. It is not wrong to be simple nor is it wrong to take advantage of the advances science has made in the sport. I don't think anyone should mock a complex training schedule nor should the simple brigade be looked down upon by those with rigid plans.

Exactly right!

I don't get the obsession people have with simplifying things. If you don't want to follow a rigid plan, then don't follow a rigid plan. But don't deny that it doesn't work for some people. If you don't like GPS devices, modern fueling and hydration options, or technical gear, then don't use them. But don't deny that some people don't use them with great success. If you don't care to be bothered with VO2, LT paces, and running economy, then don't buy the books. But don't deny that these principles are a scientific reality and can be used as a training tool. Everyone wants everything to be simple and easy. You want to take running and reduce it to a glib slogan: "run lots; mostly easy; sometimes fast." Print it on a t-shirt and make bumper stickers. Run by "feel" not by a schedule. Pain isn't pain. Fast is easy. Oh, and ridicule anyone who takes a more structured, scientific approach. That's a load, in my opinion. Physiology is a science, and there are scientific methods to become faster, stronger, and better. Running is hard; its the hard that makes it great.

I've been thinking the same thing Berner. Well stated.

Quote from Berner on 7/29/2008 at 2:10 PM: I don't get the obsession people have with simplifying things. .

I dont get the obsession people have with complicating things.

I dont get the obsession people have with other people's training

don’t run 26 miles at five minutes a mile on good looks...

Ah crap. *cancels makeover

Don't "train" Just run.