Forums >Running 101>Is this a good idea?
So, I have been an on-again, off-again runner for a few years. I most recently started up in January after more than a year off. I have always been a goal and training plan oriented runner, running 3 or 4 times a week and really sticking to a gradually increasing mileage type of training plan. However, I seem to hit a wall or burn out at some point and just stop doing it when it becomes not enjoyable. I want to break this cycle!
I am thinking that one of the problems is trying to build up too much of a long run on only running 3x per week and getting frustrated when it's really HARD... I think the other problem is that by taking a day, sometimes 2, off between runs is keeping me from getting into a really solid routine.
So I just took about a month off and I am in need of a new gameplan. What I have been doing this first few times out is run 3/walk 1 intervals for 30 minutes. I am thinking about doing this either 2 days on, one day off, or even three days on, one day off. Don't change the workout AT ALL until this routine gets easy and I am not feeling sore. I think this will help establish a routine that I can eventually build on and be much more productive as a runner. The other factor is that I have about 50 lbs to lose, and I think that getting out there more often will help me lose it faster.
What do you think? I feel like it's conservative enough and will keep my legs looser anyway. I guess I just want some expert reassurance or ideas if this needs to be tweeked at all Thanks!
It seems like you already have an answer yourself. One of the things is that the more often you run, the better. In other words, it's better to do little often than a lot a few times a week. I've noticed most people here are 3~5 times a week runners. It's better to do 5 than 4; 4 than 3... 6 or 7 would be even better. It is that momentum psychologically as well. You take 2, 3 days in between and you get lazy. 4th day comes and you are more likely to put it off one more day. So by the time 5th or 6th day comes around, you're at the starting point with your fitness level. But your schedule more than likely to call for more work load... So running gets harder and not enjoyable.
It's good to have a plan, yes. But at this point, probably the best plan for you is to do little often than to be a weekend warrior. And go by how your feel; not by some cold-cut "plan" that gets better and better only on paper (or computer screen). Just get out and go by how you feel--if you feel good, go a little further and faster. If you feel not good, go shorter and easy...or take a walk break. Listen your body and don't push it. So what if your body is telling you to take a day off? Well, that's more than likely your head telling you to take a day off. Decide 5 minutes after you get out and start running. By then you should be feeling much better.
Every single one of us had gone through that stage. I still do. Sometimes the best solution is to just get out; think nothing of it. Lay out your running clothes and shoes the night before so you don't think anything about getting up and go the next morning. One of my favorite running commercials was of Nike years ago (in 1980s); Joan Benoit Samuelson doing just that (in the morning before dawn)...she opens the door and it's pouring rain. She looks up, and closes the door... There's a rain gear hanging on the door inside. She puts it on and off she goes.
The more you run, the stronger you'll get. The stronger and fitter you get, the easier it'll get to get out. It only takes a few weeks to a few months so hang in there.
A Saucy Wench
I think it is a move in the right direction!
But if the problem is it becomes less enjoyable then I would move away from structure a bit more.
Personally I would just plan to do it every day and let life dictate when you take the day off. I find that if I PLAN off days then inevitably something happens the next day and I end up with more off than I needed. I just wait until either life interferes or I wake up one day and my body says, nah...you need to rest today or just walk today or do something different today.
Same with the distance/time. I think at this point you know some days you might feel like going longer so go longer. Other days maybe you are busy or tired or bored and if the thought of 30 minutes overwhelms and makes you not want to go at all, go for 20 or 10.
Or maybe today instead of 3/1 you just put the watch away and run when you feel like it and walk when you feel like. Explore a new route. One of the best burnout busters I have is to start my run on a nice day right before the sun comes up, put the watch away and listen to the birds, watch the sunrise, breathe the morning air.
I can be a goal structure gal too, but sometimes if I feel like a slave to the structure I lose interest.
I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets
"When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7
+1
Some of the most memorable runs I've had... I remember as recently as last winter (in MN), it was cold "crisp" morning--a kind of a morning you can feel your nostril hair freezing up--, I think it was -10F, it was before sunrise but the sky was soft purple, just like water color paint. At that point, my morning jog was 30 minutes; 15 out and turn around and back. But on that day, instead of turning around, I turned right, head up the hill and down to the lake to see some more... I actually didn't think anything of how my lefs were feeling that day.
Last summer while in Boulder, CO, I went up to famous Magnolia Road. I went up there earrrrrrly in the morning so as to see the sunrise...then ran with my camera to take some pics. You're literally on the top of the world... And I remember a few years back when I was up there running with this girl I was coaching in mid-September and it started to snow...!! We had a lot of fun that day! ;o)
Early summer morning, birds singing is one of the best music...even some monkey-like Cardinals!!!
I am by far not an expert. In fact, I am not even a runner. My thing is boxing, and to be in shape for boxing, I need to lift weights and I have to pretend to be a 1500-m sprinter four times a week. But I understand you completely because I have come from 265 lbs @ 42% body fat down to currently 159 lbs. @ 7% body fat within three years. And I had been smoking about 50 cigs a day for over 25 years.
You can break your cycle by following ready-made plans. The only thing you cannot do is finding excuses. We all get stuck somewhere. Otherwise I’d be running 1500 m in 0.3 seconds. If you get stuck at the beginning, repeat the week. Nobody says you have to progress every single day or week. Accept your limits and train accordingly.
Be patient. It’s much better to have only very slight increases and progress for a longer period than giant leaps that only make you plateau in no time at all. Don’t get frustrated: think about how you can make it more enjoyable. Perhaps buy a runner’s watch, which in my opinion is the single most motivating thing you can do. It can keep you motivated for years.
Okay, where can you start? This starter plan is great: http://www.the-fitness-motivator.com/start-running.html My suggestion is that you start this plan from the very beginning. Forget about what you have done before and enjoy the easy beginning. When you’re finished, you could go for some 5k running plans that you can find here: http://running.about.com/od/racetraining/a/first5K.htm If you want to train the shorter but more intense 1500 m, take a look here: http://www.runningplanet.com/training/mile-1500-meter-training.html Those two sites also have plans for longer distances and those plans can keep you busy and motivated for years.
For your weight loss questions, I can say that right now, you won’t need to worry about that. If you follow those plans, weight loss will eventually set in. It will become clearly evident when you get into interval training and long runs over 10k.
But don’t hurry things; it’s really no problem to repeat weeks. However, if you need to repeat weeks in the starter plan more than twice, perhaps you’re not pushing it sufficiently. Don’t look for excuses not to run – look for reasons that are worth your effort.
Boxing, aye? Oddly, I was a huge boxing fan in the days of Ali vs. Spinks or Sugar-Ray or Hugler or...let's just say pre-Tyson days! ;o) I remember watching a made-for-TV show called "The Grestest" (I don't think it was "Ali"...) and I believe Ali himself was in it. And the show starts with Ali (himself) running in the morning mist and got very much inspired by it.
...to be in shape for boxing, I need to lift weights and I have to pretend to be a 1500-m sprinter four times a week...
Now with that, he wasn't doing "1500m sprinter" like workout, was he? As a beginner, like someone like the original poster, or most likely for someone like yourself as well; training program for "competitive" 1500/mile is not the direction you'd want to take. I know it'll give you the sense of, whatever you wanna call it, "No Pain, No Glory" kind of ex-footballer practice kind of feeling and may even make you feel good in a sense that you feel like you're "doing something". But in actuality, you're doing very little to your base fitness level if you're doing that kind of training. That's the kind of training you should be doing AFTER you've already established good base line fitness. So you may already have; but, by no mean, the OP should be doing that. Your first two suggestions are good--particularly the first one. But, you see, like the second one--the 5k program--is very much deceiving. To finish a 5k and to race a 5k are two very different exercises and involves very different approaches. The one you posted is to "finish a 5k"; the one for 1500/mile is to more or less compete a mile and you cannot, and should not, jump from one to the other. I'm sorry, that Jillian girl may look exciting but I wouldn't count on giving a solid advice in running.
Sometimes it's helpful to think of running as play, rather than exercise, or however you think of it.
I like the 2 on / 1 off pattern, but vary what I do. Usually the first of the 2 runs is a key workout of some sort - either hilly or flat. Second is shorter and easier, usually. Or maybe make them both easy, if that's all my body can handle at that time. "Off" may be walking or trail volunteer work or nothing.
If you're near trails, consider just running outbound however long you can handle, but not longer than 10-15min for now. Turn around and head back. Then next time, see what's around the next corner or up the next hill (assuming you're not dealing with 3000ft vertical hills). Routine is good sometimes, but mixing things up can make it more of a surprise.
FWIW, I progressed from 3 days/wk to every other day to 4 days/wk (didn't like this at all) to 2 on / 1 off. My body tends to like consistent patterns. I can run 3 or more days in a row if I'm trying to squeeze something in, but I almost always need 2 days between my key workouts for a sustainable schedule. A year ago, I tried 5 days/wk, and that resulted in lower volume and no quality. My body didn't like it at all, although that may have been related to snow consistency that year. When I've tried it more recently, I do get more of a pattern of expecting to run every day, but my body can't handle that plus other stuff I do.
When I shorten my runs so that I can run more frequently, then that limits the trails I can run on since I can't get as far from the trailhead. I get really frustrated with more but shorter runs. I'll usually drive to a trailhead 2-3 times/wk, and those runs need to be long enough to justify the drive time (10-30min) plus to get to the parts of the trail with certain features. Then there's the exploratory runs on new trails or going further on an old trail or taking the left rather than right turn.
But it's play - always looking for something new. And no, I don't exercise.
As a beginner, like someone like the original poster, or most likely for someone like yourself as well; training program for "competitive" 1500/mile is not the direction you'd want to take. I know it'll give you the sense of, whatever you wanna call it, "No Pain, No Glory" kind of ex-footballer practice kind of feeling and may even make you feel good in a sense that you feel like you're "doing something". But in actuality, you're doing very little to your base fitness level if you're doing that kind of training.
Why isn't it the direction we'd like to take? I don't know where you get this idea from because 1500-m training is so similar to 5000-m training, just more intense since there is more interval work. And of course it does lots for your base fitness level. I really didn't get this. Sprinters also do long runs; personally, I have runs of up to 10 miles, which is quite a lot for this distance. Not all people who run like long distances. I'm pretty sure my advice is not wrong at all. But please, explain because I really didn't get it.
http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/about/staff.aspx
that's a place to start understanding nobby's perspective.
he's not just some nob-job
he's right. you might just be beating yourself up with those kinds of workouts. pain. not much gain. sometimes, if it hurts, it's just wrong. or is not the most efficient way.
5000 m work, i should think -- and i am nowhere near an expert in running -- should be more akin to 26.2 than 1500 m training.
it's about endurance.
boxer?
sure, it was a movie, but where did rocky run? art museum. south philly. all the fuck over the city of brotherly love.
endurance, baby.
with endurance will come speed. and, i should think, the 15th round win.
if it needs to get that far.
DWARP Marathon Madness Mob
So if I get this right, without any specific reason, anything that's not endurance work for marathon is wrong. Yeah, I'm wrong here. Bye.
Well, I guess I’m too late to get on and explain… But anybody who rushes to the conclusion to say “If not one way, then it’s got to be the other and the end of story…” should, sorry in my opinion, not be in a position to give anybody, particularly the beginning person, advice. This is the problem with one of these “internet message board advices”. In most cases, unless you are a real beginner, it’s always a balanced mixture. I’ve noticed in most internet message board debate (if people are civilized enough to actually “debate” that is…) seems to be always “do we need to run fast at all, or do we need to run fast all the time?” It’s almost always both – particularly if you want to race well.
Anything you do, it requires oxygen. You run, your body requires oxygen. You box, your body requires oxygen. And the higher the workload, the more oxygen your body requires. You box easily, you don’t huff and puff as much. You box very hard and you’ll be sucking air through your ears. Same thing; you run slow and you can hold a normal conversation with your buddies WHILE you are running (most likely, you are running at your “aerobic” speed). You run faster, you start to huff and puff and soon you’ll get breathless. Now you’re getting into “anaerobic”, as opposed to aerobic, and you’re getting what we call Oxygen Debt. Maximum of Oxygen Debt, as we know of today, is about 5 liters. This means you can continue to work until you accumulate approximately 5 liters of absence of oxygen. Of course, you’ll have to develop tolerance that much oxygen debt by working out. That’s what all those intervals or sprint work would do. And the development of oxygen debt does not matter how high or low your VO2Max, or oxygen consumption ability, is. In other words, even someone whose VO2Max, or basic fitness level, is very low can work on sprint, sprint, sprint; or all those interval training, to get it up to the maximum to run a decent 1500m or so but it’ll actually do very little to your basic fitness level because that’s not what you’re working. It’s like hitting the punching hanging thingy (whatever you call it) day in and day out and expect to shoot the hoop well – they’re totally different energy systems.
However, you run easy and long, now you’re actually developing your basic fitness level – mainly the ability to assimilate, transport and utilize oxygen. By going slow and easy enough, you can go far and for a long time at lower effort, meaning, your heart rate won’t be as high as when you’re running at faster speed – like trying to run at your mile pace (as the mile training program you had recommended recommends); besides the fact that you get into anaerobic/oxygen debt which creates lowering of your blood pH level, consequently resulting neuromuscular breakdown (anybody who has run 400m all-out can remember the feeling of the burning sensation in your quads that, against your own will, won’t come up any more. Remember how you gasp for air when that happens? That’s “anaerobic” at its best – or “worst”); your heart is no longer working effectively. My friend recently had a near-death experience when his HR went all the way up 200+ and basically seized. When your heart is beating (or trying to beat) something like 180 or more (some actually claim this happens when it goes beyond 160), it no longer contracts fully; therefore it’s working much harder but not as effectively. Okay, I’ve digressed a little but, by going slower and longer, you are developing your heart so much more effectively and, by going for a long time, your body also develops capillaries around the working muscle so much more effectively; resulting “better (or higher)” base fitness level. Better fitness means higher level of your body’s ability to assimilate, transport and utilize oxygen. Because of that, you won’t huff and puff as quickly and easily. In other words, you can maintain your “aerobic” level even though you’re running faster speed. This is actually what it means when you see people on here talk about “if you go far at easy pace, then you’ll be actually running faster”. You watch some elite runner running an all-out mile or 1500m, they run so fast NOT because their speed is better, or not because they do lots of sprinting workout. They can run so fast BECAUSE their aerobic threshold, or their base fitness level is so much higher that they can run at a very fast speed aerobically. You watch elite marathon runners, chatting and laughing while running at 5-minute-mile pace. It is NOT because they do some sprint work or interval work, trying to run at 5-minute-pace (which would be anaerobic work for most of us); but because they had run A LOT to bring about their base fitness level so high that they can run 5-minute pace or even faster AEROBICALLY. Boxers run. I was watching “Invictus” the other day and I saw all those rugby players ran. They all run not to become a faster runner; but to get their basic fitness level higher.
I know in recent “research” some people claim that you actually improve your VO2Max better by doing lots of short, sharp sprints instead of lots of easy running. I don’t know how they did those researches but I don’t believe that and anybody who’s done any field work (i.e. coaching) would agree with me – those are nothing but a desk-top “physiology” When you can give me more than a few examples of American high school kids who do nothing but intervals day in and day out in their teens dominate a crop of African runners who had done nothing but lots of easy running to and from school in their teens, then I might give it (starting your training program with sprinting) a second thought.
Well, I had tried to explain rationally. In fact, if you ever studied history of the sport (of running) and/or studied basic exercise physiology, you would not ask that question and understand why your way of thinking is all “backward thinking”. And even after all this explaining, if you still don’t like to run long, I don’t know what to say. Some kids don’t like to eat vegetables. Doesn’t mean, as a parent, it’s okay to just say; “That’s okay. Just eat whatever you want…” There’s a good diet and a bad diet. There’s a right approach to train and a wrong approach to train. And, as far as I know, yours is a wrong way. But it’s a legit question; so I had tried to explain as well as I could. “Speed vs. duration”, although not a part of the original question, seems like ever-lasting argument on internet message board. This is a quick-and-dirty “Running Training 101”. If you still have an argument, with good solid reasoning, I’m all ears. If you just want to ignore, that’s your choice too. But I never knew of any boxer who, after just one punch in a face, crawls into a corner and sits there. But then again, I guess some people just like to do so too… I do have to say, though, great job losing weight. You’ve done a hell of a job and it should be praised.
I don't think I've ever been asked the question "is this a good idea?" when the sober answer was yes. So thank you for that.
I suggest adding a once a week group run in there. Maybe you don't make it 100% of the time but maybe you do. And the thought that you need to keep going out there 4 times a week to stay ready for your group run is incentive. A lot of people need some kind of carrot out in front of them (a race in 2 months?) to stay motivated and interested. The other thing about a group run is that it is not the same routine day in and day out. Mix up the routes. Mix up your running partners.
Sorry to dig it up and old thread--it seems like our friend here is really "done" with this thread. Seriously, this is why you really have to be careful with what you read on-line. Some people like to just jump in, throw something, anything, and get the hell out because we (or rather, because "one person") didn't explain deep enough; yet, I didn't see any specific reason why sprint-sprint-sprint work is better for someone like the OP either.
Just wanted to add one more thing I thought about while watching "Miracle"... It was, of course, based on a true story about the US Olympic hockey team for 1980 Lake Placid Games. Now, in that same game, a beautiful young girl by the name of Kristi Yamaguchi won the gold medal in figure skating. Let me tell you--she actually trained based on Lydiard principles. Not so much running 100-miles-a-week; but Lydiard "principles". Her coach, Christy Ness, was married to a guy originally from Australia, an ex-runner who was coached by Lydiard himself. When they took over Kristi's training, they figured a short program of 2-minutes is equivalent of running 800m, long program of 4-minutes 1500m. So they worked in getting her VO2Max up first; not by running, by working on a stationary bike. Her VO2Max improved from 40-something to 60-something. The principles behind it is simply; if she can work on jumps and spins and other routines for (I don't know the exact number so I'm just going to throw some bogus number here) 3 hours a day; by raising her basic fitness level, in other words, her aerobic fitness, now she can do it for 4 hours because she's not going to tire so quickly. Also, as well, she won't be as tired 3/4 into the final of the Olympic Games. Why many skaters falter and make mistakes in the latter stage of the routine? Because they get tired. So that's what they did and she won the gold medal. The legendary kayaker from New Zealand, Ian Ferguson, who won something like 5 gold medals in 2 Olympic Games in the 1980s, did exactly the same. He in fact seeked advice from Lydiard himself and he actually kayakked 100-miles a-week; nice and easily, to get his aerobic capacity up. So the principles can be applied the same. In 1990s, former national swimming coach of Australian team literally worked with Lydiard and came up with a book called "Swim to the Top" as opposed to Lydiard's original book, "Run to the Top". Swimming is particularly interesting because there's no "pure" sprint in swimming--perhaps with a new event now, 50m, it may be so. Even 100m takes nearly 50 seconds--equivalent of running 400m which is a long sprint that involves a lot of aerobic fitness. This is actually proven by great Michael Johnson's coach,Clyde Hart who also coached Jeremy Worriner as well as, what's his name, the new Olympic champion from Beijing. Some of you might know; his training involves a lot of aerobic running instead of lots of sprinting like a conventional training method. If a successful training for 400m involves a lot of aerobic running (i.e.; not sprinting), how much aerobic training do you think we should do to prepare for 1500 or 5000m?
Running a lot at easy pace prepares you to do a lot more race-specific work such as intervals. That's what above mentioned athletes did--they did lots of aerobic training first so they can do a lot more event-specific work they can perform. There's a good physiological reason as to why that develops your aerobic capacity better than sprint-sprint-sprint work. You still need to do that in order to race well. But that would come AFTER you had established solid aerobic fitness. The problem with most so-called "research" is that they'd have to isolate only ONE element to compare. The rest of the variable would have to stay the same. So they might compare someone who does aerobic running for 2 weeks vs. someone else who does sprint work for 2 weeks. I would not be surprised if the latter person ended up running a mile faster; or testing his/her VO2Max higher. But, while he/she would most likly level off their improvement after 4 weeks, the former would continue to develop theirs for a long period of time, in the end, much higher than the latter group. But what would the reserachers say? Besides the fact that it's "contrary to the conventional thinking", therefore, worth mentioning in the media, it is a quick fix that everybody likes to hear. I am in fact so very curious to see how the wonderful world of FIRST is going... We heard so much about it, when was it, like 2 years ago. It was like everybody heard nothing besides FIRST program. They even claimed that the faster people, like 2:30 marathoners, improved using their method. Well, I sure as hell don't hear much about it any more. If it's so successful, how come it never took over the official training method of US Olympic Center? Or Team USA CA group or Hansen's group? Or national training program for Finland or Nigeria? I'll be the results were short-lived and people got injured right and left... If anybody has the follow-up study on that, I'd be most curious.