Two choices: which is better overall? (Read 1503 times)

What the hell are you talking about?

What if both trains have bars on them. Hmmmm What to do?

Consider this: we have a runner with no injury and no injury potential. He is under 25 and adult. He has been running for one year max and he has no aerobic base as he only ran hard intervals, fartleks and tempos. Suppose his mileage was low(under 15 miles a week). He ran several races, but none of them were satisfying (because he had no base). There was no or little improvement. Now the runner wants to race well, and he also wants to have a really solid aerobic base(!). Suppose the runner has two choices and suppose he follows the plan he chooses strictly. This are the two choices: Plan A: Our runner runs 5 days a week. He increases mileage every week, and takes a step back every third week. He builds up from 15 miles to 50 a week fairly quickly(suppose he won’t get any injury). He plans the race, and then counts back. 50% of the weeks (3 months minimum) he builds his aerobic base. No hard runs whatsoever. After that 50%, he has a 15%(of the time) hill period. He remains building his base, but incorporates one hill session a week. Then the remaining 35% of the time (max 8 weeks) he has the anaerobic period, which substitutes the hill session for an interval session. The runner will probably run a big PB. This is what the runner wanted, but, he also wanted a really solid aerobic base, which he kind of impairs with his anaerobic sessions. Plan B: Our runner runs 5 days a week. Following years he only runs aerobic, except for 2 races a year. His strategy is like this: he runs at a low heartrate (at or below MAF; 1,5-2 minutes per mile slower than 10K pace if you like). He stays running 15 miles a week and charts his progression with a monthly MAF test. He will run the same weekly mileage over and over again, till he reaches a plateau. When this happens, he increases his mileage with 5 miles a week. Then he waits till he reaches a plateau again. He keeps repeating this till he is at a really high amount of weekly mileage, 60 miles a week as minimum. Now this would ofcourse take a hell of a time to complete. As mentioned the runner races two times a year. You could say that he has now optimized his aerobic system to the max. However, his races would be worse than with plan A. The question is, what is better for our runner? He wants to race well, but he also wants to reach the maximum aerobic function. You race well with plan A, but less with plan B. Your base gets kind of impaired for a small amount of time with plan A, not with plan B. What do you all think that is better for the runner? And especially: why?

Indeed. I wondered about the cadence. Also - is the runner striking with the heel or the forefoot? That would heavily influence my answer. Depending on how heavily under the influence I was.