I was just rereading The Maffetone Method--includes all the good stuff from Training For Endurance, so if you can't find Training For Endurance, The Maffetone Method is just as good. The following is a breakdown from a blurb on page 67 of The Maffetone Method by Dr. Philip Maffetone ©2000, Ragged Mountain Press. He wrote about a woman who started with a walking program.
---Her MAF test time (walking) at the beginning was 18.5 minutes per mile.
--After 10 months, her time was down to 13.5 minutes per mile. Since she was getting uncomfortable with that walking pace, she began to jog.
---It took a year more to get her MAF test time down to 11 minutes per mile.
---Six months later it was down to 9:15. It was then she started to race. She increased her training.
---Her MAF test time dropped to 8:45 and stayed there for 3 months.
---The next month test was 9:15 (regression)
---after a year more of not consulting with Dr. Maffetone, she showed up at his office with knee pain, fatigue and depression. Plus a number of other overtraining signs and symptoms.
---after 3 visits and a modification to her diet and training, she began to feel better.
--During the time of her first office visits, her MAF time remained at 9:15.
--Two weeks after her 1st visit, it improved to 9:00
--After a month, she was symptom-free
--Her MAF test time improved to 8:20 and continued to make slow, steady improvements
This might be encouraging, or discouraging, depending on your viewpoint. Currently, I am Run/walking 14:17 and find the story encouraging.
From the very beginning: It took her about two and a half years to drop from 18:30 to 8:45 per mile @ her MAF.
It took her a little less than two years to get down to 11:00
It took her 2 years, four months to get to 9:15
That's amazing improvement for someone who began with walking.
It shows the kind of commitment it takes, but also shows the results in better health and speed. Although, like most of us do at one point or another, she overdid it. Her MAF tests told the story.
Enjoy! --Jimmy
Max McMaffelow Esq.
I was just rereading The Maffetone Method--includes all the good stuff from Training For Endurance, so if you can't find Training For Endurance, The Maffetone Method is just as good. The following is a breakdown from a blurb on page 67 of The Maffetone Method by Dr. Philip Maffetone ©2000, Ragged Mountain Press. He wrote about a woman who started with a walking program. ---Her MAF test time (walking) at the beginning was 18.5 minutes per mile. --After 10 months, her time was down to 13.5 minutes per mile. Since she was getting uncomfortable with that walking pace, she began to jog. ---It took a year more to get her MAF test time down to 11 minutes per mile. ---Six months later it was down to 9:15. It was then she started to race. She increased her training. ---Her MAF test time dropped to 8:45 and stayed there for 3 months. ---The next month test was 9:15 (regression) ---after a year more of not consulting with Dr. Maffetone, she showed up at his office with knee pain, fatigue and depression. Plus a number of other overtraining signs and symptoms. ---after 3 visits and a modification to her diet and training, she began to feel better. --During the time of her first office visits, her MAF time remained at 9:15. --Two weeks after her 1st visit, it improved to 9:15 --After a month, she was symptom-free --Her MAF test time improved to 8:20 and continued to make slow, steady improvements This might be encouraging, or discouraging, depending on your viewpoint. Currently, I am Run/walking 14:17 and find the story encouraging. From the very beginning: It took her almost two years to drop from 18.5 to 13.5 per mile. It took her three years to get down to 11:00 It took her 3.5 years to get to 9:15 That's amazing improvement for someone who began with walking. It shows the kind of commitment it takes, but also shows the results in better health and speed. Although, like most of us do at one point or another, she overdid it. Her MAF tests told the story. Enjoy! --Jimmy
Money Jimmy,
Sure. You can send it to my company address.
Beginner all over again
Bump
I went looking for this one to re-read it
I'm like that woman in Maffetone's book in a lot of ways, but I can shuffle-run a fair amount at about 16.5 minutes per mile and then walk a bit too. I am excited to see where I'll be in a year and impatient too, but it's a day at a time, a run at a time. Even though I want to get better faster. Ugh.
Jimmy when you talk about high mileage what does that mean for you? I'm doing about 22-26 miles per week but REALLY trying not to worry about the numbers. On the other hand, if I don't pay attention to numbers I won't get off my ass and get to it. But I need to watch that Type A crap, and the espresso.
Thanks Money for the faith idea. Needed that too.
I used to train by miles, regardless of time. My highs in terms of distance was six 100 mile weeks (aprox. 20 hours in a 6-day week), a tom 60+ (aprox. 12 hours in 6 days) and many more over 70+ (aprox 14 hours). The time spent on my feet was a lot. the question I'm exploring is where the optimum training load (duration x intensity) really is for someone my age, my limited talent. Those 20 hour weeks (100 miles) brought my marathon time down 8 minutes, but could I have achieved that same improvement or even better with just 10 hours, regardless of the distance. At what point does it become overkill. Seems a few things will indicate when it is. The MAF tests plateau and regress. The LT runs plateau. The body feels a little off. Etc.
I've become a total believer that it is duration and intensity that has to be monitored. Miles are secondary. One person's 20 miler is another person's 14 miler at equal intensities and duration. Same training effect.
I like that case study. Interesting how she walked until it became uncomfortable to so so, because it was so fast, then started to run. Eventually her MAF test were incredibly fast relative to when she began. Walking is a rock solid thing to do.
--Jimmy
I meant to also say I know my miles are low. What I am working on is consistency and a slow buildup, because I was the queen of missing a week and then leap-frogging over that week's missed training to the next part of my all-important schedule. No more.
I'm walking during the week with a run or so thrown in, and then a long run on the weekend. I tend to rest on Fridays since I usually do the long run on Saturdays. Tomorrow I'm running (and walking since the first 6.5 miles is uphill) in a very cool place, one of my favorites but I don't go much since dogs aren't allowed. It's full of bighorn sheep and mountain goats, and a river runs through it. Magical and peaceful, although once I had to make a crazy, cliffed out detour due to 2 sheep fighting on the trail!
Happy weekend everyone.
Those 20 hour weeks (100 miles) brought my marathon time down 8 minutes, but could I have achieved that same improvement or even better with just 10 hours, regardless of the distance. At what point does it become overkill. Seems a few things will indicate when it is. The MAF tests plateau and regress. The LT runs plateau. The body feels a little off. Etc. I've become a total believer that it is duration and intensity that has to be monitored. Miles are secondary. One person's 20 miler is another person's 14 miler at equal intensities and duration. Same training effect. I like that case study. Interesting how she walked until it became uncomfortable to so so, because it was so fast, then started to run. Eventually her MAF test were incredibly fast relative to when she began. Walking is a rock solid thing to do. --Jimmy
Those 20 hour weeks (100 miles) brought my marathon time down 8 minutes, but could I have achieved that same improvement or even better with just 10 hours, regardless of the distance. At what point does it become overkill. Seems a few things will indicate when it is. The MAF tests plateau and regress. The LT runs plateau. The body feels a little off. Etc.
Jimmy, your comment resonated with me. I've kind of decided 10 hours is what I'll give and then optimize as best I can. I was injured in November (and still carry it to a degree) and worked my way back to 10 easy and then have added some "more than easy" running. That opens pandora's box of course in terms of all the variables of intensity, duration, etc.
Someone posted (on RA I think) a link to this tomehttp://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/methods-of-endurance-training-part-1.html (this is the first of 5 parts). It's geared to triathlon training (and kind of long-winded!) but I think it's relevant. It also struck me as somewhat Hadd-like in its emphasis on below threshold training.
I'm not advocating anything he says, but your approach with 20hrs per week struck me as what he calls the "miles build champions" approach (although it doesn't align with Lydiard who coined the phrase). He basically says you'll be more effective with more intensity if you have a limited time to spend, but you won't do as well as with the high volume approach. It's a fairly interesting article. Note that you have to translate from triathlonese where "tempo" doesn't mean threshold. If you read the whole thing, it's really pretty Hadd-like.
blog, training log