running by feel...what did I do wrong? (Read 1495 times)

I've never had a problem until I tweaked my left hamstring when I tripped over something during a warmup before a softball game. The run felt easy. I'm chalking it up to I either had a good day or my base speed has increased (which wouldn't be hard). The hamstring could be explained by the fact that even though my base speed has increased, the faster pace still stressed it earlier (and the hilly course didn't help).

So the hamstring WAS a separate issue, injured during a WARMUP, and not even training for running. This was what I read in between the lines. A HRM would have done nothing to help this, clearly. The run felt easy. Then it WAS easy, or at most moderate as some's perception of easy before they are very experienced can be a little warped (no offense intended!). I would agree with your conclusion on the reasoning, that is very likely. Berner, while speed and good running advice do not always go hand in hand I'm curious what exactly you think is bad about my advice except that my koolaid is cherry and you only drink grape. I did not SELF-train myself from a 34:18 college 10K PR to a 30:57 by being a moron when it comes to knowing how to train. The training of elite may be one thing as they start with freakish talent, but I started with 27min 2-milers. Many of the lessons I learned are quite applicable to the masses. I used to have the 23-24min 5K PRs too.

Spaniel, how long did it take you to shave 8 to 9 mins from your 5K time? If you're willing to sell that particular kind of kool-aid then I'll buy it.

A better question might be how many pairs of shoes did he wear out to shave 8-9mins off his 5k time.

Since you seem inclined to take a personal shot at me, allow me to clarify. The "hippy" reference is an inside gag in the 2000 Mile group, of which many of the "running by feel" posters are members. If you haven't spent time reading that group's forum, the reference might be lost on you. In any event, its not a terribly inapposite label, considering that we're talking about science-based rigid training schedules, on the one hand, and experience-based run-by-feel training philosophies, on the other hand. (If for some reason you consider "hippy" to be a personal insult, that's your own personal politics at play, and I can't really be held accountable for your sensitivities.) As for the "kool aid" comment, well, I consider that pretty appropriate as well. The whole "running by feel" thing on this message board shares a lot of elements with classic cult culture: the group displays zealous and unquestioning commitment to its belief system; questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished; the group is elitist; the group's beliefs are supported by experiential or anecdotal evidence, and scientific review of the group's beliefs are discouraged; the group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality. Admittedly an overly dramatic comparison, but enough to make me chuckle. For the record, I don't actually think you folks are "hippies" or cultists. I just have a different opinion on how a newer runner can optimally train than you do.

No, running by feel isn't a cult anything. Sorry if folks are required to go out and buy a sometimes expensive piece of technology to avoid be labeled as a 'cultist' by the likes of you. I supposed reading a newspaper is also cultist because surely a person should be able to roam around with a laptop hooking into wireless connections and getting their news that way, rather than reading from (GASP!) a paper. Hey, if you can take a global shot at folks, be prepared to be shot at.

Don't be hatin' the hippies.

Berner, while speed and good running advice do not always go hand in hand I'm curious what exactly you think is bad about my advice except that my koolaid is cherry and you only drink grape.

Why do you get to be cherry and I have to be grape? Everyone knows cherry is better. In all seriousness, you asked an honest question and I'll give you an honest answer. But its not going to be a short one. First, I have never said that "running by feel" or "simple" training or whatever you want to call it is bad advice. Re-read any of my posts. Seriously; going all the way back to the Yesteryear thread, I have always stated that the best approach is the approach that works best for each individual runner, and that approach is going to be different for each individual runner. Second, I have also stated that I think "complex" or "science-based" or "cookie-cutter" type training approaches can be extremely effective and efficient training, especially for runners looking to peak for a goal race. I have also stated (in this thread) that a "complex" approaches might be more productive for a newer runner. I will explain why below. Third, although it is interesting that some of the more experienced (and faster) runners post on this site in support of a "running by feel" approach, this is actually predictable and in no way changes my view that newer runners may benefit more from scientific-based approaches. I will explain why below. So, why do some more experienced (and faster) runners advocate a "simple" approach to training, and why do I think that many (perhaps most) newer runners would benefit from a "complex" physiological training plan? My reasons are as follows: The single greatest difference between a newer runner and an experienced runner is where they're current fitness is likely to found on a potential curve. For illustrative purposes, our newer runner might be running at only 30% of his genetic/physiological potential. By comparison, our experienced runner is likely to be running at closer 85% of his potential. This premise is consistent with the anecdotal observations that runners tend to show significant improvements in their first 5-7 years, with gains trailing off afterward. Our brand new runner started at 0% potential, and quickly moved up the scale by simply getting out there moving. Now after a hypothetical year of haphazard training, we find him at 30% and looking to make a breakthrough. Do more experienced runners stop trying to improve after 5-7 years? Of course not! Its simply that after 5-7 years (give or take) they've already achieved the substantial percentage of their inherent potential, and additional gains thereafter (e.g., going from 85% to 90%) require an exponential investment in physical training duration and intensity. Our hypothetical experienced runner at 85% potential is a seasoned marathon veteran, and posts impressive race times and impressive training miles. But its an undeniable fact that moving up the potential scale gets harder and harder. With the stage set, let's explore the reasons why a newer runner might benefit from a more scientific, planned approach than an experienced runner. 1. Consistency. For the experienced runner, consistency in his training is a reflex. He knows that running regularly helps maintain his fitness level. The experienced runner already runs consistently, so there are no gains to be found here. By contrast, our newer runner does not run consistently. If our newer runner followed a training plan, he would gain the benefits of improved consistency simply by doing the workouts listed on a pre-prepared calendar. Our newer runner doesn't need a schedule to become consistent, but in many cases a cookie-cutter schedule is exactly what sets newer runners on the path of viewing their training as "training" and not "jogging." 2. Pacing. Effective training requires that you stress the different systems, and to a great degree, that means doing targetted training at the right paces. The experienced runner is skilled in pacing, and needs neither watch nor GPS to hit his proper pacing targets. However, our newer runner lacks this skill. Without guidance, our newer runner could easily go out too fast, or too slow, ending up with junk miles at best, injuries at worst. With a GPS and a HR monitor, however, the newer runner has valuable tools to help him hit target paces and target effort levels. These technologies may also be useful to the experienced runner, but they are absolutely not needed to train effectively. For the newer runner, they can easily make a huge difference. 3. Recovery. Experienced runners tend to know when to ease back, or even when to take a rest day. Newer runners typically lack this ability, and very often need to be told to slow down or rest up. Experienced runners know the benefits of recovery, and don't need to be persuaded to back off. Newer runners often fail to grasp the importance of recovery, or due to ego, think that they can do without it, inevitably leading to over-training and injury. However, if our newer runner followed a well-design cookie-cutter plan, then some level of recovery will be built in to the program by design. Our newer runner avoids the guess work, sidesteps the ego problem, and gets more out of his overall training. 4. Knowledge. Our experienced runner has read (or knows something about) Daniels, Pfitzinger, McMillan, Lydiard, etc. etc. Our experienced runner has possibly followed one of their scientifically-based training plans in the past. Our experienced runner may (also) have been coached in high-school, college or afterwards by a coach with knowledge of these physiological training approaches. Our experienced runner could probably write down a cookie-cutter training problem from memory/experience, and it would be pretty close to one of the published offerings. So, even if our experienced runner does not follow one of these plans to the letter, is it likely that his everyday training decisions are knowlingly or unknowingly influenced by his knowledge? By contrast, our newer runner has no such knowledge. If there is any merit in the formal structure offered by these plans, our experienced runner might yield its benefits (knowlingly or unknowingly) but our newer runner cannot and will not unless he actually reads the books, understands the principles, and follows the plans. 5. Training Design. Our experienced runner, either because of past reading, personal experience, or both, knows how to ramp up and taper for a goal race. Our experienced runner needs no guidance in deciding how often to run at tempo pace, how far to run long, how frequently to do tune-up races, or when to taper. Experience has already taught him these things. Our newer runner perhaps knows about LT runs, and intervals and strides, but doesn't know how to string them together. If there is any benefit to periodization, our newer runner will miss out. Our newer runner will taper too early or too steeply. Our newer runner is at risk of training too hard, too easy, too little or too much. A structured plan will mitigate (not eliminate) these risks and give our newer runner the best opportunity to complete an effective training cycle healthy and ready to toe the line for the goal race. 6. It Just Doesn't Matter. Assume for purposes of argument that a rigid, scientific approach will lead to a 20% improvement over a runner's current fitness level. Assume that a "run by feel" approach would yield an impressive, but lower, 15% improvement. Now, take two equivalent experienced runners who follow the two approaches, respectively. Because these two runners are already so far up their potential curves, the experienced runner following the rigid plan might see a 1m:30sec improvement on a hypothetical half-marathon time, while the "run by feel" experienced runner might see a 1m:05sec gain. (I'm obviously making up the numbers to illustrate the point; this is a comparative exercise, not a mathematical prediction.) Twenty-five second difference? Big woop; essentially a rounding error. Little enough difference that for the experienced runner, it just doesn't matter which approach they choose. 7. It Really Really Matters. By contrast, using the same hypothetical with our newer runner might yield a gain of 10m:00sec for the cookie-cutter runner, and 6m:15sec for the "run by feel" runner. In other words, there's a lot more opportunity for notable gains for the newer runner because they're starting out lower on the potential curve. 8. It Just Doesn't Matter Redux. Our experienced runner knows that for him, 90% of racing is 100% mental toughness. The gains to be made from harder and harder training are slight; the gains to be made from HTFU are still there. Our experienced runner can get mentally tougher whatever his physical training approach; it just doesn't matter. By contrast, our newer runner could also use some more HTFU, but his opportunity for bigger gains still lie with his physical conditioning and peak training. Although everyone can benefit from more mental toughness, our newer runner will benefit more from a training regime designed to stress his body. Phew...I don't think I've even listed all the reasons that I've run through my mind, but I'm honestly exhausted at this point. Maybe I'll think of some more while I go out and run this evening (my workout, of course, being dictated by my beloved Pfitzinger schedule). I don't really mind or care about being called a "troll" because, as evidenced above, I have given this whole thing a lot of thought and have a basis for my opinion, for whatever that's worth on the internet. That being said ... This is just my opinion. My listed reasons are fraught with unprovable assumptions and unrealistic hypotheticals. There is no scientific or faith-based way to know what training method is best for you (or you, or you over there in the corner). I hope no one will be foolhardy enough to respond point-by-point because I listed these reasons as discussion examples, not as a mathematical proof. But, I do think taken together these points suggest there's a kernel of logic -- and dare I say, truth -- in my viewpoints. The newer runner and the experienced runner are not the same, whether from a physical, mental or (duh) experience standpoint, and the right advice for the newer runner could very well be (and is, in my opinion) different than for the experienced runner.

I'm exhausted.

Pace yourself. Read by feel. I got all the way to "cherry and grape", thought I was keeping a reasonable reading pace, checked my HRM and decided to take a permanent break from this thread.

Assume for purposes of argument

Let's not. As much as one likes to promote a 'scientific' approach to be better, it makes little sense to base the results on assumptions. If you're going to simply assume the scientific approach yields greater improvement (20% vs 15%) in pace, then there's not much point including science in here at all. I can just as easily assume running blindfolded and being chased by wild dogs over broken glass yields a 76.455% improvement in pace while following a top tier collegiate coach at a mountainous training facility yields a 38% percent pace improvement and thus conclude being chased by wild dogs over broken glass while blindfolded is superior to being trained by a top tier collegiate coach. Simply 'assuming' the results means d-all. And yes I know you've cavaeted this whole thing by saying the points are just exemplary and not meant to be precise. As far as HRM are concerned, a runner still needs to translate those numbers to something. It's still a learned thing. Handing a runner a HRM and saying use it isn't very useful without some way of relating the feedback to their training. It's still a matter of relating easy/moderate/hard to a number instead of a more physiological cue, like breathing and effort level, and those numbers are unique to that runner. I'm not advocating either way so try not to label me as a proponent of one or the other. I'm not. Whatever gets you there is fine by me but at least be honest in the discussion and drop the commentary and assumptions. If the OPs statement of his hamstring issue is what brought you here to comment on, and use it as evidence that run by feel didn't work (at least in this instance), you should have at least read what the OP said. Nobody jumped on it because it was already indicated it was a separate issue and not specific to that run.

About 4.5 miles in my hamstring (separate issue) started to twinge and I slowed way down and wrapped it up at 5 miles. ... It wasn't until my hammy started hurting at 4.5 miles that I realized I was running too fast (I can usually get at least 8 miles before it starts to tweak).

What part of 'separate issue' and 'usually get to at least 8 miles before it starts to tweak' didn't you understand?

If you set out for an easy run, and ended up injuring yourself or pushing yourself to the edge of injury, then you had a bad run. "Running by feel" did not work out well for you on that day. Period. All apologies to the hippy crowd, but seriously...if a runner has to cut a run short because he ran too fast and injured his hamstring, lets call it what is was: a failed experiment. ... Since you didn't elaborate on how severe or chronic this hamstring injury is, and since I haven't seen you comment as to whether it affected your subsequent workouts, hopefully it was a one-time thing. I do hope that you take it easy and don't risk aggravating the hammy issue. Whatever type of training philosophy you follow, injuries suck. Whatever and whomever's advice you decide to follow, train well and stay healthy.

Yikes.