I know the answer, I just need to hear it... (Read 380 times)

The ass in the boat must be busy frolicking in the snow, so I'll fill in for her.

^^^^^^^

 

So people around here don't like Jack Daniels or the 180 spm theory?

On the contrary I like Jack Daniels and Jack Daniel's. And I'm okay with the 180 spm theory. It was more of an observation than a theory, anyway.

Don't mind us, it can get weird around here on Fridays. Especially when the whole east coast is bracing for snowmageddon or whatever they're calling this one.

I can't speak for anyone else but I would say any minor disagreement I have with what you've said would boil down to this:

While there's nothing wrong with reading up on the biochemical processes that take place in training or racing because you find it interesting, you haven't indicated how any of that actually informs your training. Trying to describe the biochemical responses to fatigue that go on inside a runner's body doesn't do a better job of answering the OP's basic question.

Why is it a bad idea to go out too fast in a race? Because you'll blow up later in the race and wind up running much slower overall than if you'd held back and paced yourself better. There really isn't a better answer than that, imo.

^^^^^^^

 

So people around here don't like Jack Daniels or the 180 spm theory?

Oh, I think they do just fine. And I think a lot of us have gone through and read through a lot of that stuff. It's nice to know that there is a physiological basis for doing some of the stuff that we do. It can be fun to know it too. But ultimately we just need to run a lot, figure some stuff out on our own, run some more. Put on the shoes and get out the door every day. Or something like that. Ooh, that just reminded me of a page in Jeff Galloway's book. Here's a snapshot someone took of it. From what I remember the next page explains the five stages of a runner. Someone on the internet has copied it here. I would argue that you and I are probably somewhere in the middle still obsessed with figuring stuff out and getting faster. I think understanding this progression is helpful in some ways to see what we are moving toward. Here's a nice site that demonstrates someone that has run many a mile and, from my estimation, has reached the final stage, The Runner.

Jack Daniel's reminds me too much of college.

Yeah especially when chased with Piels.  So many better options than JD for sure.

 

I am an advocate of both quicker cadence and more powerful stride.

Yeah!  I'm an advocate of just running faster too!

Though a quicker cadence would imply a more powerful stride by itself assuming all other things were equal in your experiment.  We are being strictly scientific here and only changing one variable at a time right?

I also like Jack Daniels and Jack Daniel's.   I currently live in northern Alabama (just outside of Huntsville) and the distillery is about an hour away.  There's a HM every year called Oak Barrel put on by the people of Lynchburg, TN and the JDD.  Fun race.  This year will be my second time at it in April.  Theres a big hill they call Whisky Hill on the course which is pretty challenging.

So to answer your question: "you haven't indicated how any of that actually informs your training".   As I explained in my other post from earlier this morning, I also had the same thoughts as the OP.  So how has the science part helped me?

I know to do more easy runs or slow down.  I run with a group every Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday morning.  I run more miles than anyone.  Why?  Cause my personal thirst to educate myself through reading lead me that my long run should be 25-33% of weekly mileage or else I will get hurt.  I train for marathons as such many in my running group.  A few even train for ultra's.  Yet, my measly 60 miles a week almost doubles the next best guy in my group.  Do people in my running group get hurt?  Yup!  I am one of the few that hasn't gotten a serious injury yet.  These are people that run 20 and even 22 mile LRs on only 40 maybe 45 mpw.  I personally don't feel that is enough mpw to support such a LR.  Also, when I do run, I try to be concious that only a small percentage of my weekly runs is of harder intensity  (80/20 Fitzgerald philosophy) and most of my running should be easier conversational running (Daniels and others).  I know that if i want to work on my aerobic system  I shouldn't train harder than conversational.  If i want to work on LT then I know to run comfortably hard tempos, and I have an understanding as to why that is important because I read about the science of that.  I do pick-ups, but I have yet done any real speedwork (what Daniels would call repeats and intervals or what Greg McMillian calls speed workouts and neoromuscular workouts). A lot of times when these coaches describe how and why to do these workouts, they will throw in fancy science terms.  And what did I do when i first heard these terms?  Google and read and study.

I am one of the more speedier folks in my running group and there is like 5 of us that like to run together and the front man usually sets the pace and everybody just follows.  Many of them just like to go out hard all the time (easy to do when you only run 20-30 miles a week) when I may have a specific workout or pace in mind.  I know the pace I should be doing because of the science I learned.  So sometimes, like yesterday morning, I had to just let these guys go off and I just did my own thing after mile 4.  The unscienced alpha male inside of me would have said, hell no...  I am not gonna let these pussies beat me.  I can keep up with them.  The smarter science nerd in me told me, you do that and that will wreck your training for the rest of the week.

So how has science help me not to go out faster at the beginning of a race?  Well as experience tells me, when I do go out too fast at the beggining, I will get really tired pretty quick.  But my inexperience will tell me, but won't I get tired no matter what?  How fast is too fast at the beginning?  What if i go too slow?  Why should I trust what these older farts are telling me?  So me personally?  It was understanding the science behind it all that sold me.  It was understanding lactate thresholds and comparing that to ventilation threshold (nerdy way of saying breathing harder) & fiber types and a bunch of other stuff I learned through reading and trying different things in my training runs at different paces.  So when I put all of this together, I got a better idea or what pace I should shoot for in a particular race distance and tried to work on even splits.  I think it worked for me so far.

 

On the contrary I like Jack Daniels and Jack Daniel's. And I'm okay with the 180 spm theory. It was more of an observation than a theory, anyway.

 

Don't mind us, it can get weird around here on Fridays. Especially when the whole east coast is bracing for snowmageddon or whatever they're calling this one.

 

I can't speak for anyone else but I would say any minor disagreement I have with what you've said would boil down to this:

 

While there's nothing wrong with reading up on the biochemical processes that take place in training or racing because you find it interesting, you haven't indicated how any of that actually informs your training. Trying to describe the biochemical responses to fatigue that go on inside a runner's body doesn't do a better job of answering the OP's basic question.

 

Why is it a bad idea to go out too fast in a race? Because you'll blow up later in the race and wind up running much slower overall than if you'd held back and paced yourself better. There really isn't a better answer than that, imo.

 

Yeah!  I'm an advocate of just running faster too!

 

Though a quicker cadence would imply a more powerful stride by itself assuming all other things were equal in your experiment.  We are being strictly scientific here and only changing one variable at a time right?

Not necessarily.  I have done things like quicker cadence but keeping a foot shuffle to maintain a higher cadence at lower paces.  But yeah, faster paced workouts suggested faster cadences when I look at my garmin data afterwards.  I have a FR-220 and one of the things I like to look at after a workout is cadence.  Unfortunetely, I am only up to around 171 maybe 172 spm unless I am doing a tempo run.

You mean I can't just read about this stuff and then just show up to a race and figure I get a PR?   Well that just sucks.

 

---is it too early to snarky sarcastic comments?

 

That's not really where I was going with that. I'm trying to say that people around here like to focus on the BIG picture, not miss the forest for the trees, take in the physio-babble let it wash over you and then let it go.