Yesteryear Training. (Read 1358 times)

...a quick check on my Garmin, and I have additional factual data that can help refute or corroborate the feedback from "feel" -- collectively allowing me to make smarter training decisions ...

The brain is not factual. Your brain is not factual. Use a machine to refute your brain. Follow the advice of a machine and a schedule. Brilliant. It's smarter.

When it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of a training program Obsessor said it best, "Races count. That's about it." They don't give you any extra points for using one method over another or for running dazzling workouts that are never duplicated on race day.

and thank you again, Jim2, for yet another one of your many useful and interesting contributions. I forgot to mention last time that I commented on your post on another thread that "The Complete Runner" was one of the first running books I ever read, and it might have even been the first. It was either that or "Running With Lydiard." I liked them both a lot.

It really does come down to: --Train consistently with lots of volume. --Mostly "easy". --Some "hard". These are all reasons that I think that, in focusing on the fundamentals and not trying to dictate "one size fits all" detailed schedules, the 1974 article offers something that most of today's training guidelines lack.

You know, I felt bad for contributing to the revival of this thread today - since I think it should have focused on what you posted. But reading the last couple pages since the last time I checked, there's lots of good stuff here. Just on this page, there's a lot to learn from from you and JimNumbers (his new official nickname, since Jim24315 is way too hard), and Obsessor. I agree with whoever else said that Tanya (a.k.a. She Who Must Be Broken) maybe said it best and simplest:

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.

I've seen her trophy wall, and know a bit about her running career ... and have sadly very recently been on the receiving end of her still formidable talents. If it works for her, its good enough for me. I love this bit from Obsessor, too, which he apparently borrowed from some Elliot or other:

"Many runners use science as an excuse to avoid doing that training they know they should do." -Herb Elliot

That was me. I wanted answers. I wanted specifics. What I didn't want to hear was - go run. But that's what I needed to do, and what I need to do way, way more of. My recent big week - and it was just one little week - gave me a hint of what's possible. But the thread winner has to go to Gordo, who captured it all perfectly:

This whole thread reminds me of Rocky IV where Rocky trains in the barn, pulling wagons, trowing rocks, running in snow, etc.; while the Russian is the gym with all the computers and scientists helping him out (oh yeah, and shooting him up with steroids). Still this thread reminds me of that...

Me, too, Gordo.

I hereby deny that anyone uses a GPS device "with great success." And "technical gear" too, while I'm at it. Prove me wrong. I could be wrong, but I have not seen it yet.

In your profile pic you are wearing some "technical gear" on your wrist. I don't think anyone would argue that a stopwatch is NOT a training tool (as someone earlier said of the GPS)? The stopwatch only measures time, what about distance? You either use a GPS or someone went out and marked it out for you or you drove it in your car or rode it on your bike, or you used the RA mapping TOOL - all training tools. The only runner I ever saw without some kind of tech gear was Forrest Gump - he just ran till he hit a ocean, then turned around and ran till he hit the other one. The simplistic method worked for him as he was a runnin' fool.

In your profile pic you are wearing some "technical gear" on your wrist. I don't think anyone would argue that a stopwatch is NOT a training tool (as someone earlier said of the GPS)? The stopwatch only measures time, what about distance? You either use a GPS or someone went out and marked it out for you or you drove it in your car or rode it on your bike, or you used the RA mapping TOOL - all training tools. The only runner I ever saw without some kind of tech gear was Forrest Gump - he just ran till he hit a ocean, then turned around and ran till he hit the other one. The simplistic method worked for him as he was a runnin' fool.

I thought the "tech gear" referred to so-called tech. fabrics. You can run as fast in cotton, linen, leather, rubber, and wool. Modern tech fabrics offer increased comfort, durability, and light weight for equal amount of cushion (shoes). If I said that running tools were not useful, that was a mistake. I specifically think that the HRM is of limited use, and is certainly not required (your thumb and a stopwatch work, too. See, I just saved a hundred bucks.) And the GPS - absolutely you can do without it. It might be fun. It might record data. It might show interesting data if there's an altimiter and it shows an approximate distance. (no - it's not as exact as you might think.) But I still deny it makes anyone a great runner. You can be just as fast without the GPS. It is unneeded and an unneccesary expense. It really does not make you faster, and if you have to rely on it to pace yourself - you are not learning to pace yourself. You are learning the opposite of pacing. If you want to learn to micro-manage pace, and learn exactly how it feels, head to the track with a stopwatch. Look at your laps, and only look at the watch once per lap. You should be able to, in one session, easily learn to keep your lap times + or - less than a second. With practice, you can be within .1, maybe .2 sec/lap precision. Get good at pacing, then do it for every 4 laps. You should be able to get within 1 sec./mile over 4 laps. That's good pacing work. Absolutely, I wear a stopwatch during most races, all marathons, and on the track. I contend, however, that you don't need that most days. You can look at the wall clock, go for a run, and come back and look at the wall clock if you like. Or run for time over no particular known course. Or just go run a somewhat known course, no watch, no time, no nothing. Once you learn to pace, and with many miles, you can gain that freedom and still keep data. With a stopwatch alone I can tell you within about 1/10 of a mile how far I've run, if it's under 10 miles. Occasionally I backcheck with a map, but really, does it matter precisely how far and in what time I've run? If it does, I head to a track or a precisely marked or known course. But it rarely matters. If you love the HRM, GPS, and every latest piece of technology - go for it, that's cool. But it doesn't make you a better runner really, does it? Just a runner with more stuff. And it certainly will not help you achieve greatness, whatever that is.