Yesteryear Training. (Read 1358 times)

And those that 'don't train and just run',, they run JV.

Really?

New Zealander Jack Foster ran a 2:11 marathon at age 40. He runs a lot, of course, but he doesn’t consider it “training.” “When I was asked about training and schedules last time,” he once said, “I told the guy ‘I don’t train. I just went for a run each day.’

So I take it your JV team has lots of 2:11 marathoners, huh? I find it fascinating reading this debate, since on one side is Lydiard and Bowerman and Nobby and Jim2 and Mikey and on and on ... and pretty much every truly experienced runner I've ever known or met or read. And on the other side ... not so much. 2:11 marathoner at 40. Might be worth listening to. Who knows? In the end its all a useless semantic argument anyway. The people being mocked for "simplifying" actually work harder than anybody else. The only difference is they focus on fundamentals. And like every sport and every human endeavor, its focusing on fundamentals that leads to success. That doesn't make it easy. And "don't train, just run" isn't meant to imply a jog around the block.

Has training changed in the last 35 years? For a calibration, see Training - 1970s Style.

I was going to let this unfortunate thread die, but since its been bumped I can say what I really wanted to say: Jim, I really appreciate your input here. I generally only see your site when you add something ... and then I end up going there and wandering around for a while. And what I love about it is that I learn something new every time. Or more precisely, I see something from a different perspective. I remember reading your site 3 years ago when I first started running. I think I read the whole thing one day. But now when I read it ... I get something very different out of it. The information is the same, but I guess my perspective shifted ... and each time I get something new out of it. That definitely applied to this article. The first time I didn't get it. This time ... I get glimmers of understanding. Maybe in a decade or two, I'll really get the point. Regardless, its all fascinating stuff, especially the way you've compiled so many different perspectives - yet all arriving at similar places via different routes. -------------------------------- One question on the '70's running greats: didn't it ever occur to them that they might shave a few seconds off if they shaved that ridiculous hair and mustache? (Then again, some of the best runners I know today have hippie hair and Grizzly Adams facial hair ... maybe there's something to all that ...?)

I don't get the obsession people have with simplifying things. If you don't want to follow a rigid plan, then don't follow a rigid plan. But don't deny that it doesn't work for some people. If you don't like GPS devices, modern fueling and hydration options, or technical gear, then don't use them. But don't deny that some people don't use them with great success. If you don't care to be bothered with VO2, LT paces, and running economy, then don't buy the books. But don't deny that these principles are a scientific reality and can be used as a training tool. Everyone wants everything to be simple and easy. You want to take running and reduce it to a glib slogan: "run lots; mostly easy; sometimes fast." Print it on a t-shirt and make bumper stickers. Run by "feel" not by a schedule. Pain isn't pain. Fast is easy. Oh, and ridicule anyone who takes a more structured, scientific approach. That's a load, in my opinion. Physiology is a science, and there are scientific methods to become faster, stronger, and better. Running is hard; its the hard that makes it great.

Bullshite. Well except the last sentence. The overwhelming current on this board is not toward simplifying but toward overcomplicating running. A few of us (not hard to see myself in the bulls eye since I actually HAVE the fast is easy quote in my sig line) offer up the alternative view that it really doesn't have to be that complicated. And it doesn't. A GPS device is not a training tool. It's a data collection device. If you like collecting and analyzing data about your running, then yes you can use it with great success. If you just want to become a faster runner and more importantly a better racer, it's basically useless. The same is true for VO2, LT and running economy. Interesting if your goal as a physiologist is to explain why a workout works, but not at all necessary if you just want to become a faster runner. Simple doesn't mean easy. Structured doesn't mean scientific. I have no illusions about running being easy, but it is simple. If you don't believe me come for an early-morning tour on one of my regular routes, preferably on a Wednesday or a Sunday. Training is not a laser-guided, surgical strike. It's a blunt instrument. I don't want to take running and reduce it to anything. I want to elevate it to what it is; the simplest and purest sport on earth.

But ' How is working harder than everyone else and focus on fundamentals, not training? I think it is training. Clealry our definitions of the word don't match.

Nope. I think it is training. I think the mocked mantra: "Run lots. Mostly easy. Sometimes fast." is training. It's hard training. It's what all training actually is. I think you explained it pretty well and highlighted the crux of the non-debate debate: a lot of people get so focused on LT and VO2 and TRIMP and HIIT and MAAF ... that they forget that at the end of the day, it still boils down to the same thing. I think the reason people like Scout - putting words in his mouth now- explicitly say "keep it simple" is that all that stuff is a distraction for some people. The people you hear talk about it do tend to be new runners, and there's a risk they'll get overwhelmed and quit. Conversely, if you told all of them: Go have fun, run lots of miles, mostly easy ... well, you'd end up a year later with a bunch of runners with a good base, ready to explore some of the details. Nothing wrong with the details, by the way. There are plenty of good places for them. If you're elite and you're looking to shave tenths of seconds, you gotta look at it all. Or if you just really enjoy dissecting your running - don't we all do that sometimes? And then there's newbies who really truly can't figure out how to run at "conversational" pace - so giving them an HRM and saying keep it below 140 ... seems to work well.

Using a quote from a 40 yr old 2:11 marathoner as advice for the rest of us in the middle of the bell curve,,, trying to make a team,, or trying to reach a goal (don't train) seems silly.

Sorry. You tossed up a softball and I had to swing. I couldn't resist. I remembered that guy saying exactly the opposite of what you said, in pretty much the same words. You did make a pretty broad generalization there ... and I think its easy to point to some very, very good runners - good enough to make any varsity team - who have a similar philosophy to whats-his-name 2:11 marathoner. But it really is mostly semantics. If you take somebody who relies on all the gadgetry and gizmos and math and really looked at their training, it would fit perfectly into the supposedly "simple" philosophy. And you could go backwards, too. If you strap and HRM on one of these "simple" runners, I'll bet you find their heart rates are right where they would be if they were doing it the supposedly "complicated" way.

But as you said,, you have all the experts on one side of the debate,,, and well for me I guess 'not much' on the other.

Actually, I'd disagree. You can find tons of experts touting all sorts of complicated stuff. The problem is they're all selling books. Which makes it no different than all the other stuff you see on infomercials ... weight loss stuff and muscle building stuff and learning a language programs. They all have "special formulas." But in the end, its all really the same, if it works. Want to speak French? Practice. Want to build muscle? Lift heavy stuff, recovery, repeat. What I really think - and this won't make people happy - is that the debate in this thread is exactly backwards. The "complicated" people aren't complex; they're the ones trying to artificially simplify. They want a mathematical formula, x miles at y heartbeat followed by 6 x 800 @ z time. What that really is is simple. The complicated way is approaching it as both art and science, and understanding the science will take years to understand and the art will take a lifetime to master. No program in a book can teach that, yet when you talk to all the experienced runners ... they all seem to have that same philosophy. MTA (yes, more, shut up):

Training is not a laser-guided, surgical strike. It's a blunt instrument. I don't want to take running and reduce it to anything. I want to elevate it to what it is; the simplest and purest sport on earth.

Not surprising that Mikey came along and said what I was trying to say, but better. Makes sense that he could say it better ... he has decades more experience and is exponentially faster, yet still "simple" whatever that means. I love that last line. When I first came here, I was full of all the mumbo jumbo. Half my questions had VO2 or LT or something similar in them. One day I asked a question - a pretty good question I thought - full of good acronyms. Lots of science and stuff. I wanted to be faster and I was desperate to understand all that stuff that seemed kind of overwhelming. Mikey replied with, at most, two sentences. They were (I'm close to quoting here): "Yeah, that's great, but you're only running 20 miles per week. Forget that stuff and go run more." But ... but ... I had websites. I had books. I had research. I was right! Technically, sure. The slick book of the month said so. But in reality ... I couldn't be more wrong. The answer was: run more. Mostly easy. Sometimes hard. Make it part of your life. Have fun. That answer is never going to change. ------------------- And that "blunt instrument" bit has been pretty instrumental, too (pun intended). Because he's right: just running more and running easy chops big old pieces off your times, and keeps you healthy. At some point, it'll be time for the surgery, but for a shlub like me, that's years in the future. For now, the "glib" t-shirt phrases are where its at. (Not that I don't love my little Garmin graphs, of course ...) ------------------ Does Ryan Hall work hard? Is he complex enough? Does he train for maximum performance? Here's what he thinks:

Hall listened to some of them speak about their training and absorbed the ideas of famed coaches Percy Cerutty and Franz Stampfl. He was particularly taken by Cerutty's philosophy of what training should be about. "I kind of adopted Cerutty's thing about not wanting (training) to be so scientific that you take the beauty out of it and just make them boring workouts."

The answer was: run more. Mostly easy. Sometimes hard. Make it part of your life. Have fun. That answer is never going to change.

It pains me deeply to say this, but I totally agree with you. MTA: I've been running and racing since I was 17 and have tried a gazillion different things in training, but I get better only when I increase my mileage, do at least one day of faster running a week, take easy days easy, do a long run, and maintain consistency. If it begins to feel like a job, I take a break. That's the science that's always worked for me.

Does Ryan Hall work hard? Is he complex enough? Does he train for maximum performance?

Strawman argument. One of the first things I learned when I got all scienced up in running is that you don't follow some elite runner's training plan and expect it to work for you. But since all these folks are name dropping in this thread, lets think about Ryan Hall's statement. The fact he describes his program as unscientific implies two things: 1. His program works for him, but it doesn't make it the best approach for everyone. 2. His program is probably a lot more scientific than he cares to admit. I find it very hard to believe that Ryan Hall is just sent out on the roads to "run lots, mostly easy, sometimes hard." His coach plans his runs, and I bet his coach knows the science, even if Ryan doesn't. So if either 1. or 2., or both, are true, then the "simplicity argument" fails. By fails I mean "doesn't apply to everyone" not "has no validity." That's all I said in my first post: simple is fine, but complex is fine too.

That's all I said in my first post: simple is fine, but complex is fine too.

I agree with this statement, Berner. The trick is that the simple must be mastered before undertaking the complex. I see too many beginning runners on this site running <20 miles per week worrying about lt/vo2max/shit when they should just be running more. the alphabet soup won't be of any value to someone who hasn't built a proper base. or put differently, you can't have the icing (technical speedwork) without baking a proper cake (easy base mileage) first. trust me, if you've ever read much of my posts, i have a tendency to concern myself with the technical aspects of running. but i have made a conscious decision to let go of most of that thinking until i can finally get my miles north of 40 a week for a sustained period. because lt and vo2max training won't do nearly as much good for me as consistency. simple is fine. complex is fine, too. but making the complex simple? that's an art. mta: i agree that the "simplify" crowd's mantra isn't the right answer for everyone. but it really seems to be the answer for most. llike i said, i'm running simple now, but once i get more miles, i will look at more specific training and might actually sweat some of the details. miles="" per="" week="" worrying="" about="" lt/vo2max/shit="" when="" they="" should="" just="" be="" running="" more.="" the="" alphabet="" soup="" won't="" be="" of="" any="" value="" to="" someone="" who="" hasn't="" built="" a="" proper="" base.="" or="" put="" differently,="" you="" can't="" have="" the="" icing="" (technical="" speedwork)="" without="" baking="" a="" proper="" cake="" (easy="" base="" mileage)="" first.="" trust="" me,="" if="" you've="" ever="" read="" much="" of="" my="" posts,="" i="" have="" a="" tendency="" to="" concern="" myself="" with="" the="" technical="" aspects="" of="" running.="" but="" i="" have="" made="" a="" conscious="" decision="" to="" let="" go="" of="" most="" of="" that="" thinking="" until="" i="" can="" finally="" get="" my="" miles="" north="" of="" 40="" a="" week="" for="" a="" sustained="" period.="" because="" lt="" and="" vo2max="" training="" won't="" do="" nearly="" as="" much="" good="" for="" me="" as="" consistency.="" simple="" is="" fine.="" complex="" is="" fine,="" too.="" but="" making="" the="" complex="" simple?="" that's="" an="" art.="" mta:="" i="" agree="" that="" the="" "simplify"="" crowd's="" mantra="" isn't="" the="" right="" answer="" for="" everyone.="" but="" it="" really="" seems="" to="" be="" the="" answer="" for="" most.="" llike="" i="" said,="" i'm="" running="" simple="" now,="" but="" once="" i="" get="" more="" miles,="" i="" will="" look="" at="" more="" specific="" training="" and="" might="" actually="" sweat="" some="" of="" the=""></20 miles per week worrying about lt/vo2max/shit when they should just be running more. the alphabet soup won't be of any value to someone who hasn't built a proper base. or put differently, you can't have the icing (technical speedwork) without baking a proper cake (easy base mileage) first. trust me, if you've ever read much of my posts, i have a tendency to concern myself with the technical aspects of running. but i have made a conscious decision to let go of most of that thinking until i can finally get my miles north of 40 a week for a sustained period. because lt and vo2max training won't do nearly as much good for me as consistency. simple is fine. complex is fine, too. but making the complex simple? that's an art. mta: i agree that the "simplify" crowd's mantra isn't the right answer for everyone. but it really seems to be the answer for most. llike i said, i'm running simple now, but once i get more miles, i will look at more specific training and might actually sweat some of the details.>