Power Running Physiology Enters the Mainstream (Read 2197 times)

Mr Intertia, I base training around 6 key workouts spread across 2 weeks. It is where I recommend you start. Sprint/interval workout: 200 - 1200 meter sprints/intervals, moderate to hard intensity 2k workout: 1 - 2 miles, (1 mile repeats or 2 mile continuous run), moderate to hard intensity 5k workout: 3-4 miles, moderate pace 10k workout: 5-7 miles, easy to moderate pace 1/2 marathon workout: 10-13 miles, easy pace Marathon workout: 14-22 miles, easy pace Week 1: Monday - sprint/interval workout Wednesday - 5k workout Friday - Marathon workout Week 2: Monday - 2k workout Wednesday - 10k workout Friday - 1/2 marathon workout

So basically : cruise intervals ala Daniels a short easy run a longer run and lots of cross training That does look a lot like the FIRST method. I have a few hesitations 1. I have made a lot of progress lately simply by increasing the frequency and lengths of my runs. In addition to the quantifiable PR from a few weeks ago, I feel much stronger when I run, more relaxed and recover from difficult workouts more quickly than I ever have before. I am hesitant to interfere with the method that has given me so much progress thus far 2. This may seem minor, but right now running is absolutely responsible for saving my sanity. My job is increasingly stressful and I am dealing with no small amount of disharmony in my home. Running provides a reliefe valve for that and, to be honest, being asked to do less of it scares (I don't use that term lightly) me. Throw in to that mix the fact that I'm going to take on a new endeavor (strenght training) of which I know almost nothing and have limited access to the required equipment and that serves simply to increase my stress levels. Yes, the FIRST method has produced some improvements in many runners. However just about any reasonable training plan will produce some results. Heck, even doing the exact same training schedule will yield some improvements over time. As I said before, I could care less about the physilogical gopbbledygook that stems from training. The only think I care about is getting faster and I am somewhat interested in what kind of results your training would yield. However, for now, I've engaged in a method of training that has produced results and am reluctant to try and fix that which is not broken. I think, for now, I would be well served by continuing along that path and adapting some training methods that have proven effective for a huge pool of people instead of trying something unproven.

I think, for now, I would be well served by continuing along that path and adapting some training methods that have proven effective for a huge pool of people instead of trying something unproven.

Okay. Best of luck to you.

If this thread must continue, I suspect it needs a picture of a man in nose-glasses on a mountaintop with a bird on his head. <-------- that is all. my work is done. that="" is="" all.="" my="" work="" is=""></-------- that is all. my work is done.>

Basically, yes. I use the modified RPE (rating of perceived exertion) scale. 0 no exertion at all .5 extremely weak 1 very weak 2 weak (easy) 3 moderate 4 somewhat hard 5 hard 6 7 very hard 8 9 10 extremely hard (almost maximal) * maximal Earlier, I provided recommended intensity levels for each of the 6 key workouts. These are recommended intensity levels for someone who has been training moderately hard to hard and is able to handle the intensity. If you haven't trained hard lately, then take your time building up the intensity level in the moderate to hard workouts. For example, I suggest a hard intensity for the sprints. But if you haven't done sprints lately, then start off at a moderate intensity and over a period of weeks/months build up the intensity to the hard level.

So you are to do Dick's easy runs at an RPE of 2. Which are no different from any of the easy runs we do. Dick will just call them something different so he can pretend he told you something.

I don't care what one's theory is, (there are 400 miniature gremlins crawing around under my skin and they get freakin ANGRY if I don't run a lot, and sometimes fast) I mean really truly, does it matter how much I know about ATP and ADP and all that jazz? but if it results in training methods that differ substantially from the vast cloud of data and anecdote that I will refer to as "training that works" ... then it's no good. Training that works, for improving long distance running (for the VAST majority of runners of all skill levels, ages, sex, etc... ) Training that works. Run a bunch of miles. Run some hills. Run at various paces, various surfaces. Allow yourself adequate recovery. Run sometimes long. Run sometimes very fast. Improvement takes time. if it differs from that too much, it's not right.

I skimmed the whole of this thread, and I still feel the final word is what obsessor posted on the very first page (quoted above)... One thing to correct is that the Brad Hudson and Matt Fitzgerald book does NOT present Richard's "muscle power" theories as "fact". In fact, one of names Hudson gives to a particular training run is "aerobic support". Obviously, training your "aerobic system" is still of utmost importance in Hudson's training philosophy. He actually includes all of what obsessor writes above. The main thing is he advocates training more along the lines of the "complex training" or "non-linear periodization" approach like DeCastella trained in his heydays, touching on most all facets of training throughout the week. Zzzzzzz... wake me up when it's over...

Oh gee, intervals, tempo and long runs. That's very controversial Dick. And it doesn't look anything like FIRST. Nope. Not at all. FIRST says 3 key workouts a week and Dick says 6 key workouts in 2 weeks. And FIRST says runners are encouraged to cross train or run easy on other days of the week, while Dick says you should cross train but if not you should run easy. http://www.furman.edu/first/2006%20marathon%20training-first%20marathon.pdf

You seem to be hung up on the FIRST program for some reason. You do realize that running 3 days a week was not invented by the FIRST physiologists, don't you? Personally, I was recommending it at least 4 years before I ever heard of FIRST. Others have used 3 days per week before FIRST. There was a fellow on the Runners World forum who was recommending 3 days per week for about 1.5 years prior to the FIRST ever coming out. Later he wrote a "3 days per week marathon plan manifesto" talking about his years of experiences with the program. It's a very interesting read. Here's the link:http://forums.runnersworld.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/697106477/m/175109677?r=175109677#175109677 Here's his first post on the topic. "maybe i should call this: i was FIRST before FIRST was cool This has been a recurrent topic since RW published the article about FIRST training. Over the year and half I’ve been posting here, I’ve engaged in some spirited debates about the efficacy of training 3 days a week. I started running 3 days a week many years ago, while in graduate school, seeking to find some balance in my life and deal with the time requirements of work, school, relationship, and fitness. I quickly found that I didn’t slow down any, in fact I got faster. I found I could train harder on the running days, since the total rest days (for the legs) ensured more complete recovery. I’ve been called a dilettante and a dabbler by some (less than tactful) former forumites. I think with more than 400 road races and multi-sport events (21 marathons) recorded in my logs (and the corresponding t-shirts taking up space in my apartment), those are not accurate labels. I can only laugh at the recent comments I’ve seen, like “a real runner wouldn’t run only 3 times a week” or “no one who really loves running only runs 3 days a week” allow me to quote the fastest marathoner in the world, Paul Tergat: “at the end of the day, running is a passion. It is not my whole life.” I couldn’t agree more. I love to run and always have – going on 30 years now. But it is not the be-all and end-all of my existence – it’s close, but not quite. I also love to work out in the gym – almost as much as I love running. And as a part-time personal trainer for several years now, it is important that I maintain a frequent presence in gym. I also see frequent comments like: “you won’t run your best on 3 days a week” or “there’s no way you can PR on such a program: or “you can finish a marathon, but you won’t maximize your potential” to those, I respond that I did indeed set a PR on 3 days a week, and broke a 15-year-old time set when I trained (under a college coach’s guidance) at least 6 days a week and ran about twice my recent average mileage. on 3 days a week, I got fit enough to run even faster, but hot weather denied me a chance to lower my PR even further. And 3 days a week has kept me from slowing down very much as I’ve moved into my mid-40’s. Will you achieve your absolute ultimate best possible marathon performance on 3 days a week? I doubt it, but think about this… how many of us are realistically pursuing that goal? If you were, you’d quit your job and train, eat and sleep – like the pro’s do. How many of us are really in a position to devote that much time and energy to this sport – no matter how much we love it? I suggest what we really do, most of us anyway, is try to run the best we possibly can, under our own individual circumstances, which include career and family commitments. I took almost 11 years between marathons, from January ’83 to December ‘93. When I decided to get back into it, and get my BQ, I read every training program I could get my hands on in books and magazines. I sifted through them all and realized that certain elements that were common to almost all of them. I eliminated the recovery runs (I leave it to you whether they are “junk miles” or not) and included the essentials – I was sure I could run a good marathon on 3 days a week – and set up my own program. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. This is not for everyone. It is not easy. When you are in the midst of the program, it is intense. Every workout is “quality” and there are no real easy days. The overall fatigue is the same as one gets with more running. But, it is a viable option; my results over more than 11 years of marathons support my claim – and I think FIRST supports that claim. There are several issues with the FIRST program as a scientific study, but I would argue that it shows there is an alternative to higher mileage – there is another path to both finishing a marathon and running a fast marathon. Is it a “short cut?” not really. Is it a “get the marathon finisher’s medal the easiest way possible” plan? nope. I think you could do that by jogging a couple of times a week for 30-45 minutes and doing 1 long run per week – I’ve known folks to comfortably finish marathons on just such a program. And I’m not making any RW-type promises. I wouldn’t recommend the training program to a beginner. I think someone with at least a few years of running and general fitness under their belt and a variety of training experience would be the best candidate for this kind of program. My structured marathon training is usually 15-16 weeks and each week looks like this: 1 long run 1 day of speed work: usually repeat 800's or 1600's 1 day either tempo run or marathon pace run at the outset the elements are usually: 4 x 800 (2 min interval); 2 x 10 min at tempo; 5-6 miles at MP; long run of 90 min. the peak for each element is usually: 10 x 800; 30 min tempo run; 13.1 miles at MP; 3-hour long run. the longest week is around 38 miles. you may notice I don’t include hill work, which is a common element to many programs. All of my long runs are very hilly, and so are most of my runs when I’m not in a training program. I am a big believer in goal-pace training. I think the more natural and comfortable your goal pace feels, the more likely you are to hold it for more than 20 miles on race day - and acquiring that natural feel and comfort for the pace requires practice. I frequently do goal-pace and tempo runs on the treadmill. And on the TM I do mixed workout: goal-pace runs with tempo elements, where I do hills at goal pace, which, if you look at conversion charts, makes it a tempo-type effort for part of the run I do an intense upper body/core workout 3 days a week and take one day off – although on my days off I frequently go for hikes here in western NC and when I lived at the beach in SC I would usually go sea kayaking or for a beach bike ride– so my “rest” days are frequently active. So there it is."

I would just like to point out that pralines are candy-covered nuts.

(Rich) These 3 things - muscle, physiological systems, Central Governor - together determine how you will perform during any endurance event. Cross training can consist of any activity you choose that works the muscles of the lower legs (cycling, rowing, etc.) and should also include some amount of plyometrics. Bounding exercises can be done on any day though the sprint / interval day may be the most convenient time to do them. Strength training is included once per week, but if you don't care for strength training, you can substitute a cross training workout instead. Are you familiar with FIRST? That program is pretty much what I've been advocating for years. And it sure has worked for the vast majority of those who have used it.

Rich's theory seems to be from Run Faster (muscle part) and program from FIRST (low mileage without VO2, LT or aerobic crosstraining). Rich emphasizes "power" (muscle) running and crosstraining the muscles. Why is anyone responding to Rich if you already know he's wrong and getting angry about it. Rich, are you serious. I think you are sincere. In summary: If you're aerobic system sucks you can't run worth anything even if you have the worlds strongest muscles. - CarmelRunner