The Less is More approach - does it work? (Read 2185 times)

It would be an interesting study to take two evenly experienced groups and put them into a FIRST type program and a more traditional program. From looking around at training programs online I see that many of them suggest cross-training as a part of the overall plan, so I am not sure the differences are as stark as they are made out to be. Sounds like most folks have learned through experience what works for them. Isn't that much more fun than being given the right answer?

Unless the experiment lasted over a long term (like more than a year and maybe more like 24-36 months) the high intensity training would look like it was the better way to go because that group would likely show some immediate improvement where the more tradiational group would show little to no short term improvement. This is the exact reason why programs like this keep getting so much good press - they work - in the short term. Most of these "training studies" last 6-8 weeks at most and shoving a bunch of high intensity type training at a person will cause some short term improvement, but without laying down a good base that improvement will stop and will have a high likelihood of causing injury and/or burnout. Over the long term a more traditional approach will win out every time

Well, the FIRST "studies" took their subjects through an entire training cycle for the marathon, not 6-8 weeks. I think in the one I read from their website, 21 out of 25 stayed with training and completed the race. I'm not sure whether that is comparable to "traditional" training. I agree that it would give you more data points to use larger numbers and watch them over multiple cycles.

Furman University must have a really good Cross Country team if that's where FIRST was invented. How'd they do at Nationals last year?

It would be an interesting study to take two evenly experienced groups and put them into a FIRST type program and a more traditional program...

I can't find my copy right now, but I think it was Orville Atkins who wrote a piece titled "Long Term Comparison" in one of those Runner's World pubications (book/pamphlet) back in the 60s or maybe 70s. He wanted to break 2:30 in the marathon, and over a period of years he tried three differeent systems: 1)training under M. Igloi - gut-busting, interesting stuff... popular at the time for some; 2)traditional system - similar to what we would call traditional now; 3)"all slow" - just go out and run real easy, but do fartleks or hills etc for a break when you feel like it. His marathon times under all these systems were very close, maybe within 3 minutes or so. Finally he was able to break 2:30. Which system gave him the fastest time? The "all slow". His conclusion was that all of the systems worked (but he wouldn't do Igloi's again!)

You get stronger when you rest, not when you exercise. Unless you do massive volume I really believe quality of runs is more important than volume. If you are running 100mpw quality probably doesn't matter as much. Most of us however are not meant to run that kind of volume. I do believe though if you are working a lower volume plan, quality is very very important. All plans incorporate speed, tempo, and Long run. The difference is what you do on the other days. If you are able to get a more intense work out by cross training those other days, it may be very beneficial for you. Also you should incorporate some sort of periodization into your training plan. Training has different goals in different seasons. A competitive runner should focus on base building a couple times a year which would include large volumes of low intensity work. When preparing to race, he/she should probably reduce volume and up intensity.

If you truly believe you get stronger when you rest and not when you exercise, then how is cross training making you better? You aren't resting when you are cross training. I go back to all the people I know who have truly tried to do FIRST as it is given. With the low volume, almost all of them were unable to do the hard workouts they were supposed to do and ended up cutting back on them anyways.

...In February I was sidelined due to a knee instability issue... I started back slowly in March with no issues. In May I became a streaker. I have now run 44 days in a row, one of those days included a half marathon. I have had no knee issues... I don't know what your issues are with your knee, but if I had listened to my doctors I would not be running every day. Or even back to back days...

I have no comment on FIRST program but, ShanHas, your comment caught my eyes. When you develop a certain pain, you really need to determined whether the pain is actually caused by "over-use" or in fact just a process of getting stronger. In most cases, medical professionals would tell you to "back off". When you first starting out running, you just go around the block and you'd be wheezing and feeing the effect--you feel PAIN! Any idiot can tell you to stop doing that and you won't feel that PAIN any more (and, just think, you pay big bucks to get that "solution" from professionals?). If you stop, then that PAIN would go away and you'll be happy. But if you keep at it, eventually the PAIN would subside because now you're getting stronger. Then what happens is that you can withstand even greater stress--maybe you can go around 4 blocks and think nothing of it! Then you may decide to run down to the next city and back; and you feel a temporary PAIN but then you'll body would adapt ("...then I thought, might as well, I've come this far, why not turn around and run back?"--FG). Some intitial aches and pains are given. You need to determine if it's getting worse as you go along, or is it desappearing as you warmed up. Human body is quite amazing; it can withstand so much more abuse than we think we can. More often than not, pampering is not the best way to go about. So way to go, ShanHas! YOU are on your way to be a greater runner than you thought possible! Keep it up!

It's better to run again (more stimulus) and provoke more adaptation. Too much rest and you'll regress. Even a day can be too much depending on your conditioning level and training phase.

So that means forget the taper for the Marathon? Run full tilt right up to the big day? You mean if I take the day off before a marathon I'll regress?