>General Running>Newsflash: RunnersWorld writes something useful
Feeling the growl again
File this under "no shite Sherlock". But we've talked around it here more than once.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
So.... binge drinking and sprinting every day is not the way to get ready for a beer mile?
It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.
Damn. I've messed up my training already...
So....somebody figured out that 24 hard workouts in 21 days was not a good thing to do.
To quote the Guinness guys "Brilliant!"
So the sane runners improved 1.25% per week and the crash runners improved 1.29% per week. Sounds like a wash to me.
Andy, I have to say I love your thread title.
We are fragile creatures on collision with our judgment day.
Scott Douglas has written a lot of really useful things.
24 hard workouts in an 8 week period - To me that is "crash" training.
I am fuller bodied than Dopplebock
On 100+ MPW I could do that in my 20s - Tuesday intervals, Thursday tempo-type workout, and long run, typically with some good effort, on Sunday. But one has to be very fit to handle it and benefit from it; I certainly cannot do that anymore. And as a percentage of total miles, my miles spent at faster paces was pretty modest. 4-5 miles of intervals, 4-10 miles tempo, 6-10 miles effort during the long run, so 14-25 miles of non-easy paced running in ~100 a week. Usually 14-20. Even then I ended up over-trained a couple times.
This is funny because at least 50% of the content of the German Runner's World (which I assume is not that different from the US one) is exactly this type of "crash training" plan. Literally like "You're signed up for a half marathon but you haven't run all winter? NO PROBLEMO." (I keep my subscription because....uh, I like looking at the pretty pictures of stuff I can't afford.)
This is funny because at least 50% of the content of the German Runner's World (which I assume is not that different from the US one) is exactly this type of "crash training" plan.
According to the numbers in the article, crash training then resting actually worked as well or better than the longer term training. Not sure if the misinterpretation is Scott Douglas's or the original author's, but the study is actually proof that crash training does work. One of the comments also pointed that out:
"Problem is it appears that the durations of the study groups were different. 33 days versus 60 after recovery periods. The rate of increase for the crash group is actually higher. They could of almost completed two training periods during the same period."
I've got a fever...
Since that article was actually useful and somewhat technical, I'm gonna attribute it to the Running Times side of that website rather than Runner's World.
On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office. But you will wish that you'd spent more time running. Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.