Calling anyone interested in a Running - Wizard training group (Read 1462 times)

You can use EITHER duration OR distance.  The original program (as developed by Dick Brown) was based solely on duration.  And we believe that's how it should be.  However, how many of you actually go running and say, "Oh, I'm supposed to run 53-minutes today..." and you get to 4 blocks from home and the watch clicks "53-minutes" and you stop and walk home?  And how many of you look at the schedule and all the workout is shown in minutes and wonder, "Well, it says 45-minutes and I always enjoy running around that lake and I know it's 4-miles around and it takes me about 48 minutes..."  Frankly, it wouldn't matter that much if it's 45 minutes or 48 minutes.  In fact, we rounded up or down for distance (shown as duration divided by pace) because, again, it's silly to show the distance as 7.3 miles...  Basically, whichever is easy for you to use; pick one.

 

 

Sorry if I was unclear, Nobby. What I wanted to know was which valuation takes precedence: duration or pace?

Here's a user perspective: I'm using the RW program for a June marathon now. I became a big fan of HR monitors before I started the program, mostly as a way to make sure I don't go too fast on my runs. So I've been using the suggested HR ranges in RW as my primary guide for effort/intensity rather than the suggested Pace ranges (i.e., I adjust my pace so that my HR stays in the range). It seems to be working for me. For some runs, these two indicators are interchangeable -- for long runs and aerobic runs, I can run at the prescribed pace and my HR will fall right in the middle of the range. But for the Recovery/Jog runs, I have to slow WAYYY down well below the pace guidelines to stay within the HR range, so that's what I do. Similarly, for the Fartlek runs, I use Paces that are significantly above AND below the suggested Pace range in order for me to get anywhere near the suggested range of HRs. I don't know if anyone else has a similar experience. I'd also like to hear Nobby's thoughts on this approach.

I'm having a somewhat similar experience following a RW plan for the Boston Marathon in April. On my long runs, if I stick close to the target pace, I end up with my HR lower than the minimum suggested. If I try to stay within the minimum-maximum range, my pace is higher than suggested. Taking the view that duration is more important and that the goal of the long aerobic runs is to run for long durations comfortably, I am focussing on pace, but I wonder if I should be working a bit harder. (For the mid-week aerobin runs, I focus on HR and the pace is faster than the long runs.)

Wow!  You're right!!  I did know that (JML did tell me) but have overlooked.  And, yes, there are tons of comments that I actually wanted to hear.  I'll go over there and check it out--one by one.  Sorry about that, folks!  Yeah, I only quickly skim through what's shown on the front page and don't usually check "behind the screen".  Thanks for the reminder!!

For those interested, there is a Running Wizard user group within RA organized by JML. The forum and list of threads is here:

http://www.runningahead.com/groups/RunningWizard/forum

For Nobby, there are a number of Running Wizard users (people who have purchased an RW plan) that have posted questions about RW within this user group, hoping to hear your advice and comments. There are some very helpful users that have chimed in with their own views and comments, but we haven't seen much from you in those threads.

PLEASE NOTE: If someone posts a thread (or a reply to thread) within a User Group on RA, it does not show up in the Running Ahead home page list of recent posts. I can only surmise that this is the reason you have not responded to the threads and questions posed in the RW User Group (since you have been so helpful in many other threads here on RA).