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

I totally agree. And I am serious. I got to say that when the posts go over 2 paragraphs, I lose interest and don't even bother reading them with the exception of several posters (Jake is one of those several).

"Humor is the only real path to running success"---Some Random Hippie.

Be careful with that hamstring, Jay. They're really hard to heal. If it's painful in the upper hamstring, you might try to find a tennis ball to sit on during work or in the car. Seems to help me. Also, for what it's worth, you should go back and read mikey's post. It's easy to get caught up in each individual run, comparing them one to the other, but progress in running is more about consistency over weeks, months, and years. Live to fight another day. It's an endurance sport after all--it's the running, piles of it, that will get you there.

Nice job, Berner!

Be careful with that hamstring, Jay. They're really hard to heal. If it's painful in the upper hamstring, you might try to find a tennis ball to sit on during work or in the car. Seems to help me.

Yeah, the pain is high...up towards the, uh, glute. Hard to heal is an understatement. I half-jokingly asked my boss if I could bring a trainer in to ride while I work. I don't even have enough room under my desk to extend my leg straight. I'll give the tennis ball a go.

How many miles and shoes to take 8-9min off a 5K? Well, I only have data from 2000 forward. So I could figure out miles/shoes for the past 8.5 years....I think the mileages were around 3000-3500-3700-4000-3700-3800-4000-2900 thru 2007. My PR was in 2006, the last 4000 mile year listed. My PR at the beginning of 2000 was 16:13. So in the time between 16:13 and that 15:18 (equivalent to sub-14:50 if it had been a 5K and not the 2nd half of a 10K) I ran about 23,750 miles it looks like. Now that isn't really representative, things are rarely linear in running. I progressed steadily from 2000-2003, but then plateaued (iron-deficient anemia it turned out) from 2004-2005 before reaching peak form in 2006. (Note my two best years race time-wise were both 4000 mile + years). To go back further, to when my PR was in the 22:XX range would be 1992. I was probably running only 1000 miles or so a year back then. I'd guess my mileage from 1992-1994 was only 1000 mpy, then 1995-1996 about 1500 mpy. 1997-1999 was college so 2000-2500 mpy. So 13,000 miles from 1992-1999 to go from 22:XX to 16:13. So I'd guesstimate about 37,000 miles total over 16 years to go from 22:XX to 15:18 (14:50ish shape). Note the rapid progression despite apparent diminishing returns after many years of running when I cranked the volume. Pairs of shoes? I have put exactly 700 miles on each pair before retiring them since about 2001. Before then it was less, so say I have averaged 600 miles per pair of shoes overall. 37,000/600 = about 62 pairs of shoes, most of which are still in my mud room ;D

So I'd guesstimate about 37,000 miles total over 16 years to go from 22:XX to 15:18 (14:50ish shape). Note the rapid progression despite apparent diminishing returns after many years of running when I cranked the volume. Pairs of shoes? I have put exactly 700 miles on each pair before retiring them since about 2001. Before then it was less, so say I have averaged 600 miles per pair of shoes overall. 37,000/600 = about 62 pairs of shoes, most of which are still in my mud room ;D

kewl, what shoes do you race in?

Berner, I like your post (the LONG one) and you have some decent points. However, you are taking a big leap off a tall cliff to claim "your" method is somehow the "scientific" one. You make a ton of assumptions, then go forward and train that way without testing any of your hypotheses. That is in no way scientific.

No debate from me on this point. As I said in the "Yesteryear" thread:

So, ironically enough, it comes down to the fact that I have "faith" in Pfitz (and his science).

Unfortunately, there seem to be so many variables and the applicable systems appear to be so complex that I don't think anyone has -- and perhaps never will -- do a scientifically rigorous examination to identify the true "optimal" training methods. So in the absence of an obtainable definite answer, I do what we all do ... I conduct an experiment of one. I see what works for me, and I try very hard to understand why it works for me. Then I try to understand, scientifically and anecdotally, which elements of what worked for me might have more universal impact.

You, on the other hand, completely dismiss running by feel. It appears your words are more appropriately directed at yourself than me. I own a GPS and HRM, use the GPS almost daily and the HRM occasionally. When was the last time you left both at home and just ran?

Will I lose credibility if I admit that my Garmin sits on the table for the majority of my runs? That even when I do wear the Garmin, I hardly ever use the HR monitor anymore? Will I be pilloried if I concede that I'm getting good enough at self-pacing to run most of my workouts at my target paces with only the help of an old Timex watch? Truth is that when I say these things are tools to help a runner, that's truly what I mean. They're not crutches, and they're not magic talisman either. That being said, I'll give you one real-world example of what I like about training under a cookie-cutter schedule with all my gadgets. Yesterday, my legs were tired. If I had followed my body's signals, I would have done a slow, short recovery run and called it a bad day. Instead, I looked at my beloved Pfitzinger schedule and did the interval workout listed (6x1000) for the simple and exclusive reason that it was on the schedule. From reading, I knew it was an important workout, I knew how it fit into this week's training cycle and how it fit into my current mesocycle leading up to my Fall marathon. So it didn't matter how I felt; I just went out and did the damn run because that's what Pete said to do. Schedule > feel. In this instance. But further, understand that I don't have a track accessible to me. So how to do an interval workout? GPS technology to the rescue. I simply programed the intervals into the Garmin, and my normal running path became my track. Instead of having another excuse or barrier to complete the workout, the technology provided a means to facilitate my training. Further still, Chicago is known to have its fair share of windy days, yesterday being no exception. Self-pacing can be tricky in strong winds, at least in my experience, especially when the winds are gusting and swirling as they tend to do near the lakeshore where I run. Had I tried to run my intervals solely by feel, I have no doubts that the winds would messed up my pacing severely. Instead, with my trusty Garmin, I was able to hold consistent paces through every interval (+/- 3 seconds) regardless of the winds and regardless of my fatigue level or body feeling. So, in this one example, rigid adherence to plan + effective use of gadget = successful quality workout. ETA: Jeff, Mishka - thanks!

How many miles and shoes to take 8-9min off a 5K? Well, I only have data from 2000 forward. So I could figure out miles/shoes for the past 8.5 years....I think the mileages were around 3000-3500-3700-4000-3700-3800-4000-2900 thru 2007. My PR was in 2006, the last 4000 mile year listed. My PR at the beginning of 2000 was 16:13. So in the time between 16:13 and that 15:18 (equivalent to sub-14:50 if it had been a 5K and not the 2nd half of a 10K) I ran about 23,750 miles it looks like. Now that isn't really representative, things are rarely linear in running. I progressed steadily from 2000-2003, but then plateaued (iron-deficient anemia it turned out) from 2004-2005 before reaching peak form in 2006. (Note my two best years race time-wise were both 4000 mile + years). To go back further, to when my PR was in the 22:XX range would be 1992. I was probably running only 1000 miles or so a year back then. I'd guess my mileage from 1992-1994 was only 1000 mpy, then 1995-1996 about 1500 mpy. 1997-1999 was college so 2000-2500 mpy. So 13,000 miles from 1992-1999 to go from 22:XX to 16:13. So I'd guesstimate about 37,000 miles total over 16 years to go from 22:XX to 15:18 (14:50ish shape). Note the rapid progression despite apparent diminishing returns after many years of running when I cranked the volume. Pairs of shoes? I have put exactly 700 miles on each pair before retiring them since about 2001. Before then it was less, so say I have averaged 600 miles per pair of shoes overall. 37,000/600 = about 62 pairs of shoes, most of which are still in my mud room ;D

I still can't get my head around 4,000 miles a year. That's just a phenomenal number. Even if I could physically log that many miles, I don't know where I'd find the time. I think time is the biggest hurdle I have now to increasing my mileage. In the six years where you averaged over 3,500 miles a year, how did you stay healthy? Did you struggle with any injuries during that period?