123

Experience with Owen Anderson's schedules? (Read 2124 times)

    Nobby415, thanks for your thorough answers. When I talk about a low mileage, it is above 70 km a week which, in my eyes, is high for an average runner. As I wrote earlier, my fastest marathon was based on a Daniels program, so naturally I have a solid base. I wouldn't do so much running without having read quite a bit about running. Note the following:

     

    1. According to Brad Hudson, former marathon runner Steve Jones did a relatively low mileage.

    2. Bruce Tulloh, former European record holder in 5K did 28 miles a week the last 10 weeks before setting a European record in 3 miles.

    3. Brad Hudson's program for master runners has just 3 runs a week + cross training and strength training.

     

    I'm pretty sure that if I cut down quality with the same mileage, my times would become slower. If it was possible for me to run 150 km a week, I would become much faster; I totally agree with you here.

     

    My favourite work-out is definitely Anderson's super sets; I'm not saying that it objectively is a better work-out than so many others but for me it feels just right. The same goes for his marathon circuit training.

     

    I'll be leaving for Frankfurt in 7 hours, so I won't be able to answer comments until I'm back on Monday.

     

    Again, thanks for having taken the time to give such detailed answers.

    If you only have 7 hours, you probably shouldn't checking the internet!! ;o)

     

    Here's the thing--Steve Jones; yes, and I was with him a month ago at that Lydiard clinic.  I have a talk I had with him a few years back and I intend, someday to post it somewhere...  At any rate, I told him that I was surprised he was so into Lydiard because, with all the readings I've done, I didn't think he was a high mileage guy.  He told me, somewhere along the way, he said something like his AVERAGE yearly weekly mileage would be about 90.  So they all rush to print and said, well, when everybody is talking about 120~150 miles a week training, Steve Jones "ONLY" ran 90 and set the world record.  Well, he told me that, during the BUILD-UP, he might go as high as 140; but during the RACING PERIOD, it may be as low as 50.  You average it and you get somewhere around 90. 

     

    Tulloh was a great runner in his era which was back in 1960s.  That was when NOBODY was running high mileage because they didn't have time to train full-time!  Out came Lydiard's runners and, if I remember it correctly, I don't think he beat ANY of Lydiard runners 1500m to 5000.  He might have beaten Magee because Magee was basically a marathon runner who did speed work.  I'm not saying 100MPW always beats 28MPW but my point is; if you have time to do lots of easy running to build the base first, it is so much better off to do so before you even consider doing quality workouts.  Besides, like I said with Jonesie's example, I'd be actually more interested to know what Tulloh did between 11~20 weeks BEFORE he set the UK record.

     

    I don't know much about what Hudson does; though, of course, I do know that he bases his training principles basically on Lydiard and, when he was coaching Ritzenhein, I thought he had him do lots of mileage.  What I don't understand--well, actually I DO understand why--is why people like him or Galloway remotely even think, and suggest, doing 3-days a week training as EFFECTIVE training program; they SHOULD know better.  And I tell you why; it's because that's what THE AUDIENCE WANTS TO HEAR.  If they tell people, as Lydiard did, to run 7 days a week, nobody would buy their book!!!  Don't think a "popular" book is the "correct" book.  In many cases. that's what the audience wants to hear and that's why they buy it.  Just because so many millions of people around the world buy and eat McDonald, that does NOT mean it's good foods.

     

    Good luck at Frankfurt!!

      Is there a list of names out there somewhere of runners who had success off 'relatively low mileage'?  So when someone doesn't want to run much, they just say "oh yeah!?!?  Well (insert name from list) trained this way and they were successful!"

      Yeah, right.  And THAT is when nobody argue "Well, everybody is different..."  EVERYBODY wants to be that person who ran brilliantly with low-mileage training, right? 

      DoppleBock


        Nobby - I wasthinking about this on this morning run.  Everyone gets so caught up in what the elites are doing in training - Its always training - training - training.

         

        Most people are so fixated on training - But often what makes elites better than other people is their ability to recover from the training.  The only reason they can do those workouts are because they are either genetically giften at recovery or focus on it as much or more than training.  How do I get recovered to get to the next hard workout ready.

         

        Now people make choices in life on how much time they are willing to dedicate to training - But almost as important or maybe more is they make choices on how much effort and time they will put into recovery.  Sleep - Diet - Hydration - Other activities all dramatically impact recovery.

         

        pabstars - Good luck @ Frankfurt

        http://a-big-horse.blogspot.com/ 

        2013 Goals ~ Mar < 3:00, 5M < 29, 10k < 35  

         

        DoppleBock


          I am probably one of the few people that people suggest (Many times) I should consider running less.  I understand that suggestion.  I even believe for me 110-130 is my sweet spot with a few 140-170s to accomodate 40+ mile runs. 

           

          Reality maybe 80-110 is my sweet spot with it packaged the right way - But I am not currently wired to run < 100 miles per week consistently.  

           

          Yeah, right.  And THAT is when nobody argue "Well, everybody is different..."  EVERYBODY wants to be that person who ran brilliantly with low-mileage training, right? 

          http://a-big-horse.blogspot.com/ 

          2013 Goals ~ Mar < 3:00, 5M < 29, 10k < 35  

           

          JimR


            People like being told what to do, it makes things easier for them.  If it doesn't work out, they can blame the source, and if it does they can congratulate themselves on picking a good source.

              Nobby - I wasthinking about this on this morning run.  Everyone gets so caught up in what the elites are doing in training - Its always training - training - training.

               

              Most people are so fixated on training - But often what makes elites better than other people is their ability to recover from the training.  The only reason they can do those workouts are because they are either genetically giften at recovery or focus on it as much or more than training.  How do I get recovered to get to the next hard workout ready.

               

              Now people make choices in life on how much time they are willing to dedicate to training - But almost as important or maybe more is they make choices on how much effort and time they will put into recovery.  Sleep - Diet - Hydration - Other activities all dramatically impact recovery.

               

              pabstars - Good luck @ Frankfurt

              Funny I was thinking about that today as well! ;o)  I started to try to get back in shape this summer, maybe around July or so.  I started running everyday (I like to just switch one day instead of gradually work my way up--do as I tell you, not as I do!!).  Gradually, I was getting better and started to feel better and stronger.  Then we had that Lydiard clinic in Boulder and, when I came back, I started to run twice a day.  My morning run is nothing more than a half an hour of easy (I mean, EASY) jog.  Can't believe how EASY it feels to run well in the afternoon now!!  I tell you, "Doubles is always better than singles IF you really want to be good."  I think THAT is the difference.  It's not a matter of how many mile elite runs or how hard they do their intervals.  The key is to RECOVER while running--running more.  Resting is not the way to recover.  In fact, I've read Toshihiko Seko saying that he really leaped to the new level when he realized the key to marathon preparation is to RECOVER by running 90-minutes on his "rest" days. 


              Bacon Party!

                ...My morning run is nothing more than a half an hour of easy (I mean, EASY) jog.  Can't believe how EASY it feels to run well in the afternoon now!!  I tell you, "Doubles is always better than singles IF you really want to be good."  I think THAT is the difference.  It's not a matter of how many mile elite runs or how hard they do their intervals.  The key is to RECOVER while running--running more.  Resting is not the way to recover....

                 

                This. <sound of lightbulb slowly coming on over my head...> Thank you! Smile

                Liz

                pace sera, sera

                DoppleBock


                  I am all about running ... jogging for recovery - 

                   

                  I also think we can get better at the non-running recovery stuff

                   

                  or at least

                   

                  I know I have to get better at the non-running recovery stuff!

                   

                  The one thing I am doing and will continue to do is to have discipline on recovery runs to go slow enough or at least not fast.  If I feel really good - I am trying not to run much faster - But to throw in a few striders.

                  http://a-big-horse.blogspot.com/ 

                  2013 Goals ~ Mar < 3:00, 5M < 29, 10k < 35  

                   

                    Thanks for all of your answers. This has been very inspiring for me. From this thread I feel that the issue has become mostly a question of mileage. I think that everybody including me thinks that there is a better chance of a good performance when running 100K a week rather than 70K a week even if you have a "witch doctor's recipe for disaster" (the most fantastic workouts).

                     

                    My point was: If you want to use time for 70K running each week, how will you get the best performances then? I still believe that a very nice amount of quality is essential to achieve this.

                     

                    However, as I would love to try to break the 3 hours in a marathon, I'm completely sure that the absolutely only way to get really close is a quite dramatic increase in mileage with my limited talent for running and an age of 46. Inspired by this thread, I'm seriously thinking of starting 100K weeks in December and keeping this quantity right up to the tapering period for Copenhagen Marathon in May 2012. I think I will base it on Daniels' principles with a nice base period (even though he doesn't have speed work for the first parts of his programs, I'll participate in some 5K runs this winter. I don't have the book (Daniels' Running Formula) with me in Frankfurt but I seem to remember that he in phase 2 suggests that your quality  is either very  fast 100 meter runs or hill work. I'll definitely  go for the latter. For the most intensive quality I'll go for super sets instead of Daniels' suggested intervals like for example 6*1K.

                     

                    I don't find the criticism of Hudson fair. He has a master program with few runs. His normal programs have nice amounts of quantity and since there are many people who don't want to use a lot of time on running, it is only reasonable to have some programs for them too. If you choose between running 0K or 50K a week, I'm sure your doctor will prefer the latter.

                     

                    Frankfurt resulted in a DNF due to a knee injury (not got anything to do with Anderson's workouts). I have been limping for quite a few weeks and Frankfurt was a gamble but after just 10K I dropped out as the knee was bad. So now I will take a break from running for a few weeks, do some strength exercises for my legs and have some nice cross-training. After that, a lot of slow running will be part of the dark nights in end-November...

                      Thanks for all of your answers. This has been very inspiring for me. From this thread I feel that the issue has become mostly a question of mileage. I think that everybody including me thinks that there is a better chance of a good performance when running 100K a week rather than 70K a week even if you have a "witch doctor's recipe for disaster" (the most fantastic workouts).

                       

                      My point was: If you want to use time for 70K running each week, how will you get the best performances then? I still believe that a very nice amount of quality is essential to achieve this.

                       

                      However, as I would love to try to break the 3 hours in a marathon, I'm completely sure that the absolutely only way to get really close is a quite dramatic increase in mileage with my limited talent for running and an age of 46. Inspired by this thread, I'm seriously thinking of starting 100K weeks in December and keeping this quantity right up to the tapering period for Copenhagen Marathon in May 2012. I think I will base it on Daniels' principles with a nice base period (even though he doesn't have speed work for the first parts of his programs, I'll participate in some 5K runs this winter. I don't have the book (Daniels' Running Formula) with me in Frankfurt but I seem to remember that he in phase 2 suggests that your quality  is either very  fast 100 meter runs or hill work. I'll definitely  go for the latter. For the most intensive quality I'll go for super sets instead of Daniels' suggested intervals like for example 6*1K.

                       

                      I don't find the criticism of Hudson fair. He has a master program with few runs. His normal programs have nice amounts of quantity and since there are many people who don't want to use a lot of time on running, it is only reasonable to have some programs for them too. If you choose between running 0K or 50K a week, I'm sure your doctor will prefer the latter.

                       

                      Frankfurt resulted in a DNF due to a knee injury (not got anything to do with Anderson's workouts). I have been limping for quite a few weeks and Frankfurt was a gamble but after just 10K I dropped out as the knee was bad. So now I will take a break from running for a few weeks, do some strength exercises for my legs and have some nice cross-training. After that, a lot of slow running will be part of the dark nights in end-November...

                      Sorry to hear you had to DNF.  It's a bummer.

                       

                      Just to clarify though; it wasn't like I was criticising Hudson.  It might have sounded that way but, like I said, I can see why and, as you pointed out, that's what audience wants.  There's no point of writing a book, again as Lydiard did, to tell you to run 7-days a week when not too many people can afford to or want to.  So that part if fine--even WE had come up with 4-days-a-week training program though we actually drew a line and 4 is minimum.  My problem, however, is; well, I'm sorry, but if someone like YOU use his master's program having only 3-days a week as an argument to support 3-days a week is good; my argument is I really don't think Hudson put it as "this is better" but it's more like "well, if you don't have time or don't really want to, this is okay..."  I don't know; I'm not Hudson and I never asked him about t; but, even you supported that is most likely not the case, but if THAT is used as an example of "well, 3-days a week is just fine..."; then it's mis-represented.  He should know better and I don't think he would agree with you on that one.

                       

                      In regards to training, again, I don't think it's a good idea, just because the consensus seems to be "run more", that you'll go straight up to the taper with mainly quantity.  You do need both and you do need to understand when to do what and how much.  It is definitely not one way or the other.  You need everything. 

                       

                      Good luck with Copenhagen and its preparation.

                        I couldn't dream of having training weeks which only contained quality training. My training has always contained a lot of non-quality running in all phases. Running some trips without GPS in the woods where pace is absolutely non-essential is just fantastic for me.

                         

                        Having Daniels' Running Formula as my bible, it would be insane to go for 70K with no slow runs. However, you must tailor a plan to suit your needs/preferences and therefore I feel that super sets are good for me and marathon circuit training as well. Since Anderson has suggested these workouts, I had hoped that his schedules would be ideal but this doesn't seem to be the case.

                        Scout7


                        CPT Curmudgeon

                          I have never liked the use of "quality" when describing a type of running workout.  What makes a harder effort run a "quality" workout, and an easier effort run simply "quantity"?  In my mind, they both add value to your training, so in that sense, they are both "quality".

                           

                          It's like the argument over "junk miles".

                           

                          People seem to think that easy effort runs aren't sexy, so they don't get the consideration that "real" workouts get.  And I think that's an issue with how people approach training in general.  No one type of workout is any more or less important than any other in a good training plan.  There has to be balance, especially if you want to see ongoing improvements.  Labeling harder efforts as "quality" training skews the approach towards those types of workouts, possibly to the detriment of the overall plan.

                            Thank you Scout - I was starting to get upset that 90% of my logged runs lack quality. Sad

                            Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

                              Yeah, I agree that my wording with non-quality/quality isn't very good. Easy runs of course also serve an important purpose and any good training schedule for a marathon should contain this component too. Daniels' guidelines using training intensities based on your current VDOT are in my opinion ingenious. Naturally, his plans contain:

                               

                              1. Easy and long runs

                              2. Marathon pace runs

                              3. Tempo runs

                              4. Interval runs

                              5. Repitition running

                               

                              In the edition of Daniels' Running Formula from 98, you can see how fast you should run the above types of run when you know your VDOT. Some may find it stupid but I don't use a heart rate monitor for my runs because my pace is based on my VDOT value. So using a GPS watch or training on a track means that you can see if your pace is correct. Combining a GPS with a heart rate monitor is probably the best but I don't like the strap from the HRM.

                               

                              Daniels only uses the term junk miles about runs where your pace is too slow/fast for your workout. More or less meaning that you probably don't know the purpose of the run. To finish the circle, this is perfectly in line with easy runs definitely being important just you run them at the correct pace. 

                                In half a year Copenhagen Marathon will take place. Right now, my VDOT value is below 52 and therefore I ought to run easy runs at a pace which is slower than 8 min/mile according to Daniels. I expect the VDOT to become somewhat higher when mileage increases a bit. Is it too conservative running easy runs according to the VDOT value when I'm used to doing the easy trips with a pace of about 4.50/km? It could be nice to try to go high on mileage and slow in pace and see what happens. Probably I'm not the only person in the world running quality-junk, as Daniels puts it. It is very tempting to run easy runs faster than prescribed by my running guru.

                                 

                                Many running regards,

                                Paul

                                123