Yesteryear Training. (Read 1358 times)

Dang, jim2, those are the exact definitions I use. Weird.

Good post spaniel. Different strokes for different folks. Doesn't make it wrong. Come race day, I am trying to beat the non-garmin wearers just as much as the garmin wearers.

Breaking my self-imposed exit because you make it too easy. And because you get so smug thinking you have the final word.

Consistently = without extended interruption.

Define "extended." Define "interruption." In chart format.

Lots = as much as one can schedule without incurring injury, overtraining, or compromising quality workouts.

How many miles is that, exactly. In chart format. Please give me answers applicable to runners of a wide-variety of experience and running base.

Mostly = more than half.

51%? 99%? That's a 48% spread. Please provide a specific answer for every workout, in every week, for every training program from a 5K to a marathon. All answers must be applicable to runners of a wide-variety of experience and running base.

Easy = not hard, generally below 80% HRmax, can converse while running.

How should I determine HRMax? Define "converse"?

Some = not none.

1%? or 99%? That's a 98% spread. Please provide a specific answer for every workout, in every week, for every training program from a 5K to a marathon. All answers must be applicable to runners of a wide-variety of experience and running base.

Hard = not easy, generally above 80% HRmax, can't converse while running....or, at least, don't want to.

See above.

Any other silly questions?

Any other incomplete, useless, or anecdotal answers? Seriously Jim, I can keep going with the questions, and you can can keep trying to show me up with little glib answers. But eventually I'll get to the minutia of LT paces, stride rates, VO2max intervals, HR reserve and the like, and eventually you'll have collectively written a very complex guide to running. And then my point will be proven: the simple is only simple until you start asking questions.

Oh. Snap.

In your honor, I'm renaming the "simplicity crowd." Henceforth you are the "simple minded." It fits you perfectly.

Berner, Define "define". I mean, seriously, you're being ridiculous. You are asking for things even you and your ream of running books cannot answer. OK, scientifically prove to me that the LT or VO2 paces in any of your literature are valid for YOU. In actuality, most of these values are predicted from broad generalizations -- they tell you to determine your LT/VO2max etc, but in actuality unless you go into a lab and get hooked up on a treadmill the values you are using are generalized guesses at best. Like 220-age for HR. This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. You have fooled yourself into thinking that there is a formula, that each of these numbers have concrete meaning and impact on your results. It's like saying 58% is different from 62% when your confidence interval is plus/minus 10%. You are so focused on all this data, however, that you are missing the real purpose of your workouts. It is NOT to hit some HR or pace, but to get faster. Some days this will mean your HR will vary outside your pre-conceived zones but that is ok if you are not fixated on an arbitrary number. It really IS simple. If you run MORE, do most easy and do some fast stuff when you feel like it, you'll get 90% or more of what someone who knows what they are doing will -- as a newbie even. Once you are experienced you'll get 100% plus because you can personalize your plan and not be limited by preconceptions and generalized information. So share with us what kind of progression all this data analysis and number crunching has led to for you. It should be very impressive if it is so important. It's not wrong, but you're really telling us it's necessary and now called us simple-minded for taking such an approach. I could have called you a weak-willed sucker for marketing, but that would both be untrue and uncalled for....just like your jab.

In your honor, I'm renaming the "simplicity crowd." Henceforth you are the "simple minded." It fits you perfectly.

About a year and a half I changed the way I train to something similar to the following ......

--Train consistently with lots of volume. --Mostly "easy". --Some "hard".

I have a Garmin but use it just to log my runs. I barely look at it while out running, I just run by feel. Oh, and I dropped about 10 pounds, too. This year I have run 5 races and have 4 PR's. The reason the 5th isn't a PR is because I beat it 3 weeks later. The results speak for themselves. The time may come when I need to look at the "technical" aspects of running in order to keep improving, but I doubt that will be any time soon. First I'll try adding mileage ... I have much room for growth there. So go ahead and lump me in with the rest of the simpletons here. I'm OK with it.

I mean, seriously, you're being ridiculous. You are asking for things even you and your ream of running books cannot answer.

Actually, the answer to every question I asked would be found in either Daniels or Pfitzinger's writings. Give me any runner of any experience level, and between Jack & Pete's books I could give them a daily training schedule based on proven scientific principles for any goal race from 5K to marathon. Would it necessarily be the "best" program for everyone? Of course not. But it would work extremely well for a lot of people. That's my point.

OK, scientifically prove to me that the LT or VO2 paces in any of your literature are valid for YOU. In actuality, most of these values are predicted from broad generalizations -- they tell you to determine your LT/VO2max etc, but in actuality unless you go into a lab and get hooked up on a treadmill the values you are using are generalized guesses at best.

Unfortunately, true. Gas and blood testing just aren't available or feasible for the average Joe like myself. If they were, I'd be on it in a heart beat. So you are correct that for LT VO2 values, and HRMax for that matter, we can use only estimates. But the researches know of these limitations and have tested the correlations between race results and physiological metrics. Daniels didn't pull his VDOT chart from thin air; even if it can only provide an estimate, there's at least a very sound foundation there.

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. You have fooled yourself into thinking that there is a formula, that each of these numbers have concrete meaning and impact on your results. It's like saying 58% is different from 62% when your confidence interval is plus/minus 10%. You are so focused on all this data, however, that you are missing the real purpose of your workouts. It is NOT to hit some HR or pace, but to get faster. Some days this will mean your HR will vary outside your pre-conceived zones but that is ok if you are not fixated on an arbitrary number

Huh? Sorry, but I haven't fooled myself about anything, and I assure you that I know the precise purpose of every one of my workouts. I know my target in terms of distance, pace and effort before I step on the sidewalk. I know exactly why I'm doing each workout, and I know exactly what physiological system each workout is designed to stress or recover. I know why I'm doing particular workouts on particular days, relative to other workouts in the same week, month or training cycle. In other words, I not only know that they are in fact making me faster, I know why. If you truly think I'm messing up my training, then point out where you think I'm making mistakes. My log is public. The workouts all come straight from Pfitzinger, with pacing information supplemented by Daniels and McMillan. Oh, and don't say, "you're slow." I know I'm slow. My goal isn't to get fast because that will never happen. My goal is to get faster than I was. I think I'm on track, even with all my gadgets and science. If you think otherwise, post it here. MTA:

It's not wrong, but you're really telling us it's necessary and now called us simple-minded for taking such an approach. I could have called you a weak-willed sucker for marketing, but that would both be untrue and uncalled for....just like your jab.

Let's be clear about two things. First, I am the one who has been saying different strokes for different folks since page 1. I am the one who has been saying that simple works for some and complex works for others. I am the one who has admitted the merit of both approaches since the beginning. Let's look at what I actually said in this thread:

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.

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

Agreed. Different stroke for different folks. I would never offer up greater complexity as the cure for someone's running problems unless the facts met the need.

I don't think I can make the point any clearer. Second, the jab was absolutely not intended for you or for any of the mature contributors to the debate. You have done nothing but post intelligent, well-reasoned points since the outset. Others in this thread, however, have chosen to take the low road, and my snark was intended for them. I don't think I need to single them out; those worthy of the "simple minded" label know who they are. You, I assure you, are not in that crowd.

Shut up, Scout.