Yesteryear Training. (Read 1358 times)

I would not say that a few cursory looks at your log would let me know if your "complex" system is working for you. It very well might. If I did not think it stood a chance, I would have said so and not said it's ok to do that. My issue revolved more around a generalized observation that when newer runners get involved, they are steamrolled by the gadget, book, and shoe marketing machines and assimilated to believe they need thousands of dollars to participate in what is really the simplest and most straightforward sport on the planet. Might someone at the highest peaks of their ability benefit from precise scientific control of every facet of their training? Perhaps. Even probably. Most newer runners, however, becomed absorbed in finding the perfect combination of HR, training program, MAFF, VDOT tables, GPS mapping, and star alignment that will make them faster when the simple and brutal reality of this sport is that 70% of your speed is a factor of time-on-feet, 20% what you do with that time, and at most 10% everything else. Telling someone they need to work up to running more (and consistently), running some stuff fast while making sure they take time to recover, is pretty much all they need to progress for a long time. If you are only going to run 20mpw, no amount of gadgeting is going to do much for you...certainly not as much as moving to 30mpw. I had the luck to develop as a runner when a stopwatch was the only gadget available to me. By the time the others came into general use, I already knew what worked and bought them to see if they added anything. The benefits were marginal at best. I take great joy in getting people started in this wonderful sport, and I hate watching people go down a dead-end track. I've got no problem at all with reading Daniels/Pfitz and other reputable sources, but blind application is suboptimal. Using gadgets to make up for learning is suboptimal as well. I'm not sure it really HURTS a whole lot of people (though I've known a few), but I always want to remind people it is absolutely unnecessary. I just had lunch with a coworker (in his late 40s/early 50s) who I started on a training program in December. He'd decided to run a 5K this October and wanted me to train him. He sat me down with a list of all the fancy gear, gadgets, and books his family had given him for Christmas to get him going. He was VERY intimidated by it all. I told him to forget it; most of the clothes were useful, I suggested the bare minimum to run through the winters here. Read the books if he wanted on work trips, but don't fret about how to apply them yet. I told him he did not need the HRM or GPS, though he could use it to log distance if he was interested. I said what he needed to focus on was 1) running some 4-5 days a week and working up to 6, 2) doing most of it easy but incorporating some strides and farleks as he progressed, and 3) gradually getting in more volume. At that point, he could not run a mile. Now, despite 90 degree heat, he can bang out 5 miles and get a good few sprints in at the end. He is already faster over 5k than his initial goal with nothing but shoes, winter clothes, and a stopwatch. It IS intimidating to be new to the sport, but joining a running club or talking to more experience acquaintences is going to shorten the learning curve much faster and cheaper than trying to interpret reams of data.

Using the Garmin, however, I can do my repeats anywhere anytime.

Except for the treadmill. That would be frustrating as hell with a Garmin.

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

You are right. My response to you was a bit glib. But that was because I took your questions to be glib and figured that, if you were having a little fun with me, then I could do the same with you. Apparently, I was wrong. But this is the first time I have been accused of being "simple minded". Seriously, I don't disagree with you concerning "different strokes for different folks". Serious runners should become educated about VO2max, LT, running economy, aerobic vs. anaerobic metabolism, mitochondria, capiliaries, etc. With knowledge of the science involved comes control over and optimization of training. One can better understand the purpose and benefits of various forms of training/workouts. However, to blindly follow cookbook training "guidelines" that reflect averages of many people and tell yourself that you are training optimally is kidding yourself. An example....Dr. Jack Daniels' says that threshold training should be done in the range of 83-88% VO2max (88-92% vVO2max and HRmax). However, those ranges represent averages for well-trained runners. Less trained runners and some well trained runners, such as some elites, may reach LT at a lower or higher level of intensity. In "Better Training for Distance Runners", Dr. David Martin and Peter Coe say, "Depending on heredity and fitness level, the threshold pace may vary from about 75% to as high as 90% of VO2max pace. This may represent a heart rate from 80% to as high as 90% of its maximum value in men, often higher in women because of their smaller hearts." I have heard another exercise physiologist say that the lower end of the range for very untrained runners can be even less than 75% of VO2max.....70% or lower. Telling someone whose LT is reached at 75% of VO2max to train by Daniels' guidelines will result in less than optimal training.

All answers must be applicable to runners of a wide-variety of experience and running base.

That is your problem you want answers and numbers and graphs that apply to all runners at all times and there are no such answers. Have you ever heard the saying "you can't see the forest for the trees" - that's what you're doing. Regardless of which running book you read you will see the same themes over and over and over and it really does all boil down to "run lots, most easy, some fast" - if you can't see those themes perhaps you are the simple minded one Those things WILL mean different things to different people and some experimentation will be necessary to find out what proportions work best for each individual runner - again no one right answer for everyone. The books and the different pre-made taining plans are guides at best and are not meant to be followed to the letter, without listening to your body and being able to adjust when something isn't going just right they aren't worth the paper they're written on. It is great that you know exactly what each workout is supposed to accomplish and you know what distance and paces you want to do for the day, but what happens if it is really hot, or cold or you had a little less sleep than usual? Do you still try to hit the pace or do you allow that not every run will be in ideal conditions, which is what all those paces are based on? If you base your training paces off a current PR do you know for certain that the course was accurately measured if not you are probably training to slow or fast, or maybe your fitness level is better or worse than when you set that PR.

Breaking my self-imposed exit because you make it too easy. And because you get so smug thinking you have the final word. Define "extended." Define "interruption." In chart format. 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. 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. How should I determine HRMax? Define "converse"? 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. See above. 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. In your honor, I'm renaming the "simplicity crowd." Henceforth you are the "simple minded." It fits you perfectly.

Wow. You have less self-esteem than common sense. Your post is unbelievable. If anyone else would have written it, you'd mock them openly, no? You need a chart, do you?

Good points regarding newer runners. I assure you I didn't jump into Pfitz or Daniel's training until I had 40 mile weeks and several HM's behind me. It did work wonders on first full, though, so I still think that a "new-ish" runner can definitely benefit from the structure provided by book plans. I want to throw in one more benefit of GPS devices: they allow folks without access to a track to run interval workouts using standard track metrics. In my case, there is no good running track available unless I were to drive to it. Using the Garmin, however, I can do my repeats anywhere anytime.

I used a tape and spray paint to mark off 100m intervals on my local road. That track is open all winter long. Cost me $4.39, and about 40 minutes. But then again, I am a simpleton.

I've come back twice to read this threat, and both times I finish reading I feel, well, dirty. Can't we all just get along. We are all runners. We are all on here to look for and perhaps give advice to become better runners. Whether that means running faster, farther, or smarter. I also know that there is a lot of fun poked back and forth between those on here who know each other well. However, if I were a new comer to RA I just might be afraid to post something in fear of being ridiculed. There is a ton of good information in the thread, if you can read between the lines. I'm just sayin...