RunningAHEAD - Topic: progressive runs

1 234 5

progressive runs (Read 941 times)

jEfFgObLuE view log Frustrating Project	posted: 2/22/2008 at 8:38 PM modified: 2/22/2008 at 9:07 PM
	Quote from mikeymike on 2/22/2008 at 8:24 PM: To me all this so-called scientific applied to running always turns into a case of affirming the consequent. The numbers in question are gathered from analyzing the past, after the results are in. Isn't this how the scientific method works? Nearly all scientific discovery involves analyzing what has already occurred or been observed in order to form a model as to how and why occurred. We form a falsifiable hypothesis, then test the hypothesis to see if our model is correct. What you can't quantify, of course, are things like guts, determination, HTFU'd-ness, etc. So you are correct in asserting that not all aspects of running are quantifiable. Quote from mikeymike on 2/22/2008 at 8:24 PM: If you don't know what a tempo run feels like then all the math and science in the world won't help you become a faster runner. If you don't know fast to run to achieve the training goals for a tempo run, then you won't know what a tempo run feels like. It's kind of a chicken and egg-thing. Personally, I don't need a pace table to know what a tempo run feels like, because I've been running them for about 20 years. But paces are helpful to someone who's new to running and doesn't have the experience to know how it feels. Quote from mikeymike on 2/22/2008 at 8:24 PM: I realize I'm late to the Jeff v. Jeff smackdown--not that it would have been hard to guess which side of the argument I'd come down on. But a thread about progression runs is the last place on the world wide Trenternet that I'd want to see math and percentages. Didn't see it as a smackdown so much as two different Jeffs finding some common ground even as we disagreed about a few points. And again, I was speaking to the tempo run pace digression, not about progressive runs (which I know are a favorite of yours, Mikeymike). MTA: I did do my lunchtime run sans Garmin. And generally ran a lot quicker pace than I normally would on an easy day. Up until the point where I listened to my body and slowed down because my hamstring hurt. At the beginning, I was thinking: Hey, I don't know my heartrate! Hey, what's my cadence? Hey, I don't know my pace! Hey, how fast am I going? I felt like I was naked out there. And then I remembered the last time I actually did run naked. Guess what, I wasn't worried about any of those things at that time. If it sounds like I'm trying to argue both sides of the issue, well, I am. For me at least, I'm very quantitative about running, but I do also find it liberating to throw that out the door sometimes. Which in a sense, is what a progression run is all about.
	20th Century: 800m: 2:04 \|1600m: 4:37 \|3200m: 10:06 \|5k: 16:23 \|10k: 35:38 \|15k: 54:20 25k: 1:35:59 21st Century: 5k: 19:42 \|10k: 43:00 "Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth." Steve Allen Oswald acted alone.

mikeymike

view log

posted: 2/22/2008 at 9:18 PM
modified: 2/22/2008 at 9:19 PM

Quote from jEfFgObLuE on 2/22/2008 at 8:38 PM:

If you don't know fast to run to achieve the training goals for a tempo run, then you won't know what a tempo run feels like. It's kind of a chicken and egg-thing. Personally, I don't need a pace table to know what a tempo run feels like, because I've been running them for about 20 years. But paces are helpful to someone who's new to running and doesn't have the experience to know how it feels.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything here because we have different ways of thinking about running (and that's okay) but this is the crux of what I'm arguing against. I don't think running a prescribed pace = a tempo run even if said pace is scientifically derived and the runner runs exactly that pace for exactly the right amount of time. Learning what a tempo run feels like has to happen first, THEN you can calculate what pace it was you were running when you felt "tempo" and what % of 10k pace (or whatever) that equals for your you. Maybe it's just a matter of us operating with different definitions of "tempo run."

But we can all get together on the progression run, so lets drink to that

jEfFgObLuE view log Frustrating Project	posted: 2/22/2008 at 9:24 PM
	Quote from mikeymike on 2/22/2008 at 9:18 PM: Maybe it's just a matter of us operating with different definitions of "tempo run." Yeah, I'm sort of a strict constructionist on this one; I do believe in shooting for the 10k+0:15 level. Maybe because in my youth a tempo run was "easy for 2 miles, then blast for 20 minutes, then stagger home." These race-like efforts weren't necessarily what I needed at the time. Quote from mikeymike on 2/22/2008 at 9:18 PM: But we can all get together on the progression run, so lets drink to that. Mikey, Jeff, and the rest of the progressive thread, there's a Bass Pale Ale at home in my fridge with a toast to y'all written all over it.
	20th Century: 800m: 2:04 \|1600m: 4:37 \|3200m: 10:06 \|5k: 16:23 \|10k: 35:38 \|15k: 54:20 25k: 1:35:59 21st Century: 5k: 19:42 \|10k: 43:00 "Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth." Steve Allen Oswald acted alone.

AmoresPerros view log "Idiot"	posted: 2/22/2008 at 9:35 PM
	I don't know hardly anything about all the thresholds and so forth. I saw this thread, and the idea of progression -- speeding up -- sounded fun, so I went out yesterday and tried it. I ran my first mile at 10min/mi, second at 9:30min/mi, third at 9min/mi, fourth at 8:30min/mi, fifth at 8:00min/mi, and final at 6:50min/mi. I was more tired than I expected (last night & this morning), and the sole of one of my feet hurt last night. So I may not hurry to do it again -- plus, I didn't follow all the math, so I just made up some speeds, so I really don't know if what I did matches up to any of what you all are discussing.
	RA calculator

jEfFgObLuE view log Frustrating Project	posted: 2/22/2008 at 9:41 PM
	Quote from AmoresPerros on 2/22/2008 at 9:35 PM: I don't know hardly anything about all the thresholds and so forth. I saw this thread, and the idea of progression -- speeding up -- sounded fun, so I went out yesterday and tried it. I ran my first mile at 10min/mi, second at 9:30min/mi, third at 9min/mi, fourth at 8:30min/mi, fifth at 8:00min/mi, and final at 6:50min/mi. Yeah, pay no attention to that Ed McMahon look-alike babbling on about thresholds and paces. Sounds like you had a nice, fun run!
	20th Century: 800m: 2:04 \|1600m: 4:37 \|3200m: 10:06 \|5k: 16:23 \|10k: 35:38 \|15k: 54:20 25k: 1:35:59 21st Century: 5k: 19:42 \|10k: 43:00 "Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth." Steve Allen Oswald acted alone.

Marcus L S Monkey Scratch	posted: 2/22/2008 at 9:43 PM
	Quote from AmoresPerros on 2/22/2008 at 9:35 PM: I don't know hardly anything about all the thresholds and so forth. I saw this thread, and the idea of progression -- speeding up -- sounded fun, so I went out yesterday and tried it. I ran my first mile at 10min/mi, second at 9:30min/mi, third at 9min/mi, fourth at 8:30min/mi, fifth at 8:00min/mi, and final at 6:50min/mi. I was more tired than I expected (last night & this morning), and the sole of one of my feet hurt last night. So I may not hurry to do it again -- plus, I didn't follow all the math, so I just made up some speeds, so I really don't know if what I did matches up to any of what you all are discussing. If you do that a couple of times a week you will get faster. Don't try to make it more complicated than it needs to be. You have to train fast (sometimes) to race fast. Just don't do it on days your legs feel crap.
	all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be Obesity is a disease. Yes, a disease where nothing tastes bad...except salads.

Jeff view log	posted: 2/22/2008 at 10:11 PM
	Quote from jEfFgObLuE on 2/22/2008 at 8:38 PM: Didn't see it as a smackdown so much as two different Jeffs finding some common ground even as we disagreed about a few points. And again, I was speaking to the tempo run pace digression, not about progressive runs (which I know are a favorite of yours, Mikeymike). I didn't see it as a smackdown, either. I think Jeff and I agree about the basic tenets of training, and our differences are more aesthetic than anything else. Not that aesthetic differences are unimportant.
	a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there. ~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611

jEfFgObLuE view log Frustrating Project	posted: 2/22/2008 at 10:22 PM
	Quote from Jeff on 2/22/2008 at 10:11 PM: I didn't see it as a smackdown, either. I think Jeff and I agree about the basic tenets of training, and our differences are more aesthetic than anything else. Not that aesthetic differences are unimportant. Yup. And let's not ignore the fact that nearly all Jeffs are excellent people. The only exception I've ever encountered was a guy from college who was so awful that he became the subject of a frequent toast by my self and another Jeff: "To all the Jeffs in the world. Except for -- THE Jeff!"
	20th Century: 800m: 2:04 \|1600m: 4:37 \|3200m: 10:06 \|5k: 16:23 \|10k: 35:38 \|15k: 54:20 25k: 1:35:59 21st Century: 5k: 19:42 \|10k: 43:00 "Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth." Steve Allen Oswald acted alone.

spaniel view log	posted: 2/23/2008 at 2:09 AM
	Quote from jEfFgObLuE on 2/22/2008 at 5:05 PM: I'm not sure how fast you are has anything to do with it. Assuming both individuals have trained to their potential, 10k pace for a 50 minute 10ker is just as hard for them as 31-minute 10k pace is for you. I get your point, but disagree halfway. By this I mean that sustainable effort is time dependent, not distance dependent. Someone who takes 50min cannot sustain the same effort level that I do for 31-33 minutes. They are running at an effort level similar to what I experience during a 10-mile race. So the perceived effort at 10k pace IS different. This is why training for a 2:30 marathon is very different than for a 4-hour marathon. The extension of this is that a 4-mile tempo means very different things if your tempo pace is 5:10 or 10:00/mile. 20:40 vs 40:00....the effort during that run will be very different. This is why I define tempo runs by time when I make recommendations for training people when I'm not intimately familiar with their level.
	"Talent" is a cop-out for not wanting to try harder. marathon - 2:28 HM - 1:09:53 10K - 30:57 5K - 15:18 (2nd half of above 10K)

Trent view log ʎǝʞuoɯ ʎʞunɟ	posted: 2/23/2008 at 2:19 AM
	Response A: This is a GREAT example of a progression run, eh Mikey? Response B: Quote from jEfFgObLuE on 2/22/2008 at 8:38 PM: Isn't this how the scientific method works? Nearly all scientific discovery involves analyzing what has already occurred or been observed in order to form a model as to how and why occurred. This is retrospective analysis Quote from jEfFgObLuE on 2/22/2008 at 8:38 PM: We form a falsifiable hypothesis, then test the hypothesis to see if our model is correct. This is prospective analysis Which is it?
	noʎ ɥʇıʍ ǝq ʎǝʞuoɯ ǝɥʇ ʎɐɯ

zoom-zoom view log Registered for #2	posted: 2/23/2008 at 2:31 AM

	Kirsten '07: 1324.5 mi '08: 1561 mi ... • Ladies Locker Room • .: 2009 Goals :. • Run 1750 miles • 2 marathons (May - Bayshore, Fall - ?) • PRs: 5k ~ 15k ~ 25k? ~ HM ~ 26.2 • 1st trail relay (North Country)

JakeKnight view log	posted: 2/23/2008 at 2:40 AM
	Quote from zoom-zoom on 2/23/2008 at 2:31 AM: Yes. Exactly.
	E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com -----------------------------

jEfFgObLuE view log Frustrating Project	posted: 2/23/2008 at 2:45 AM
	Quote from zoom-zoom on 2/23/2008 at 2:31 AM: I resemble that remark, too. At least the nerdy part. I'm not nearly that ugly, though.
	20th Century: 800m: 2:04 \|1600m: 4:37 \|3200m: 10:06 \|5k: 16:23 \|10k: 35:38 \|15k: 54:20 25k: 1:35:59 21st Century: 5k: 19:42 \|10k: 43:00 "Do not allow children to mix drinks. It is unseemly, and they use too much vermouth." Steve Allen Oswald acted alone.

crb81 view log	posted: 2/23/2008 at 3:50 AM
	No mention of running these runs by HR. That might keep you in your zone.
	crb81 2008 goals sub-20 5k, sub-43 10k, 1:35 half, 3:20 marathon

Jeff view log	posted: 2/23/2008 at 4:51 AM
	Quote from crb81 on 2/23/2008 at 3:50 AM: No mention of running these runs by HR. That might keep you in your zone. I give up. Uncle.
	a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there. ~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611

1 234 5