Too Much Mileage (Read 2475 times)

I know some of you dont buy into the whole "Periodization" thing but I think there is something to be said for building each system on top of the other for a synergistic effect. Right now I am in a phase where I don't do any anaerobic work, but I am definitely getting quality in. I am addressing the most glaring weakness I had in my training last year - not getting enough of those middle miles (running at a pace between tempo and marathon pace). My weakness is in the longer races and I think running a lot of bell curve runs, long tempo intervals, and long tempo runs will help fix this. I will add a month of hills in March, then VO2 max in April and faster pace Intervals in May.

I would say it accurate that I have not found much use in strict periodization, but I certainly shift the emphasis of training significantly through most of the classical periodization phases.

Most distance runner intervals, if they are not being run too fast, are not really anaerobic.  However I do limit intervals primarily to abour 4 months out of the year...a couple months in each of two buildups typically.

Those long "tempos" and fast-finish long runs can make you tough. 

I know some of you dont buy into the whole "Periodization" thing but I think there is something to be said for building each system on top of the other for a synergistic effect. Right now I am in a phase where I don't do any anaerobic work, but I am definitely getting quality in. I am addressing the most glaring weakness I had in my training last year - not getting enough of those middle miles (running at a pace between tempo and marathon pace). My weakness is in the longer races and I think running a lot of bell curve runs, long tempo intervals, and long tempo runs will help fix this. I will add a month of hills in March, then VO2 max in April and faster pace Intervals in May.

I would say I'm more like spaniel (and most semi-serious road racers I know by the way) in that I don't practice strict periodization but I do shift the emphasis based on the calendar and my racing goals.

The most important thing to keep in mind about the various energy systems is that they don't exist--at least not as separate and distinct entities that can be isolated and trained one at a time.  The only system that really matters is your running system.

A lot of this comes down to semantics and how much you want to geek out about running.  There's nothing wrong with doing so just so long as your realize that's not what matters.  Your training is solid either way, and that's what matters.

 

 

The most important thing to keep in mind about the various energy systems is that they don't exist--at least not as separate and distinct entities that can be isolated and trained one at a time.  The only system that really matters is your running system.

  

Sigh.  It really is that simple and that complicated at the same time.  Now if only our "friend" Richard got this.

What I believe Lydiard hit on that has stood the test of time is not so much that training has to be strictly periodized, but that certain types of adaptations last longer than others, which creates a rational way to structure training.  He may not have been looking at it this way but since it seems he developed his method through experience I think the two things converged.  An enlarged left ventricle and cardiac muscle, muscles, and muscle capillary density take a long time to build but also degrade slowly once training them has stopped.  Some things, like mitochondrial density, are more intermediate in duration.  Finally others, like enzyme levels, are relatively short in duration.  Lists not all-inclusive

However, there is overlap in what type of running activity trains what, so you can't come remotely close to isolating one thing.

A good base builds cardiac conditioning and output, muscular strength, musculoskeletal resilience, and capillary density.  These things are not going to suddenly go away when you switch emphasis to something else because a) they are relatively long-lasting, and b) whatever else you are doing is likely still training them to some degree.  Then hills build muscular strength and tempo/aerobic work builds mitochondrial density.  Finally, hard intervals put the cherry on top by priming enzyme levels, something that you can acheive quickly (hence the quick payback in fitness from intervals) but will go away about as quickly once you stop working them.  Obviously this picture is greatly simplified but I think it really helps illustrate how a periodized program is supposed to work....and why a lot of us don't think strict periodization is necessary.

Not to mention that we are all an experiment of one, and I tried it.  It did not work so well for me.

Ahh by bored I mean I am so tired of the stinking cold it is wearing me out.  You guys are right.  I know I can do the mileage thing and I am already ahead of the schedule I made for myself distnace wise.  I need to keep to the schedule I made and add in that speed work.  I have a half in late Feb and I should be working towards that goal.  I just know I tried to take it easy for one week and that was the worst I have felt in a long time.  So it pissed me off and two 70 mile weeks followed that we supposed to be in the 50's.  I think that is out of my system now. 

Any suggested treadmill speedwork? 

What a great thread. Thanks!---quite affirming.

 

Maybe they don't like running shorter distances? After all - we run because we like it right? Why start with the 5k Jeff? Wouldn't it be better to start with some 800m/1500m work - then move up to the 5k, that would make a better 5k runner. Only then should they move up to the 10k right? And then to the 1/2M right? Yawn.

One of the primary reasons not to jump into the marathon right away is that your body takes time to develop.  Your bones and muscles and ligaments take far longer to strengthen than your cardiovascular system does.  Jumping into marathon training can lead to injury far quicker than anything else, for the simple reason that the body is being subjected to too much load at a time.  I agree with Jeff that taking things in a stepped approach is probably safer and leads to better improvement later on.  I think there's a reason why great runners started out in HS running the 5k and don't move on to longer distances until after college.

I agree that it's about goals.  And for most people, they have accepted that they will never be "fast", so they go longer in an eternal quest to be "good" at something.  I've seen it many times.  "I'm not that fast, but I can run forever, so I'll do marathons."  For some people, that's fine.  But that ends up limiting you.  You get comfortable with distance, and never learn how to push the effort.  This is a similar trap as the "go faster all the time" one.  Neither are correct.

Like Mikey and spaniel said, it's one big system, with lots of sub-systems that work together.  The hardest part is to find the points of leverage within your own system to see what gives you the biggest bang for the buck.  When you are new, it's easy; everything provides improvement.  Initially, you have to separate things up more.  Develop more miles, build up the body.  Then bring in the hard stuff later.  But as you develop, the system adapts to what you're doing, and you have to re-evaluate your training, look for new leverage to get better.  It ends up being a combination of stuff, keeping those harder workouts for longer periods.

And I'm sure Nobby will chime in at some point, but I want to point out that even in the Lydiard training, he kept harder workouts even in the base phase.  If you look at the effort levels, he has 3/4 effort runs once or twice a week.  So he had a more integrated approach than most people give him credit for.

Yes, I find training for marathons much easier on the body than training for 5k's and such.  It's racing marathons that's the real bitch.