General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: FIRST for first marathon

Donovan Rebbechi · 2005-07-07T05:15:48+00:00

Is there anyone who is actually doing this program? http://www.furman.edu/first/2.htm My running partner thinks this is a good idea.. I am not so convinced but that is more because I am a creature of habit and because I like running 5-6 times a week... Looks like an exercise in cutting corners on the base work, and maxing out on the speed. I know some people who show up to my running club's speed sessions who do this -- people who are running about 20 miles per week, and then they show up and do speed work with runners who are doing 40-80 miles a week. They're always getting injured. The speed workouts in this program are fairly advanced. If you can handle these workouts, you can (and probably should!) handle some mileage as well. 5k of intervals is not enormous, but it's not "beginner" stuff either. Most of the people I know who do workouts like these wouldn't do less than ~50mpw for marathon training. Most "beginner marathon programs" are scams. They cut too many corners. If you can comfortably handle 6 days of running a week, you're selling yourself short if you're doing 3 days a week. Cheers, -- Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Started by Donovan Rebbechi · 7 July 2005 · Last activity 9 July 2005 · 12 posts · 336 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postRe: FIRST for first marathonDonovan Rebbechi · 7 Jul 2005 02 / This pagePosts 1–12Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #12Sam · 9 Jul 2005

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 7 July 2005
Last activity: 9 July 2005
Original author: Donovan Rebbechi
Posts: 12
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 336
Views / 30 days: 0
Topics: Taper and peaking

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Donovan Rebbechi
Archived post

7 July 2005, 05:15 UTC #1

Quoted message said:
Is there anyone who is actually doing this
program?
http://www.furman.edu/first/2.htm
My running partner thinks this is a good idea..
I am not so convinced but that is more because
I am a creature of habit and because I like
running 5-6 times a week...
Looks like an exercise in cutting corners on the base work,
and maxing out on the speed. I know some people who show up
to my running club's speed sessions who do this -- people who
are running about 20 miles per week, and then they show up and
do speed work with runners who are doing 40-80 miles a week.
They're always getting injured.
The speed workouts in this program are fairly advanced. If
you can handle these workouts, you can (and probably should!)
handle some mileage as well. 5k of intervals is not enormous,
but it's not "beginner" stuff either. Most of the people I know
who do workouts like these wouldn't do less than ~50mpw for
marathon training.
Most "beginner marathon programs" are scams. They cut too
many corners. If you can comfortably handle 6 days of running a
week, you're selling yourself short if you're doing 3 days a
week.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Report
Doug Freese
Archived post

7 July 2005, 10:32 UTC #2

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Most "beginner marathon programs" are scams. They cut too
many corners. If you can comfortably handle 6 days of running a
week, you're selling yourself short if you're doing 3 days a
week.
Right on. Those programs that cut base and hurry into speed only work in
the short term. Even if one is fortunate not to get injured, you will
make quick strides but plateau and sink real fast.
-DF

Report
george of the jungle
Archived post

7 July 2005, 12:29 UTC #3

Quoted message said:
Most of the people I know

who do workouts like these wouldn't do less than ~50mpw for
marathon training.>
I'd agree, and say that's a MINIMUM amount of miles to do for a
marathon.

Report
frank-in-toronto
Archived post

7 July 2005, 14:16 UTC #4

george of the jungle said:
Quoted message said:
Most of the people I know

who do workouts like these wouldn't do less than ~50mpw for
marathon training.>
I'd agree, and say that's a MINIMUM amount of miles to do for a
marathon.

irrespective of your own personal goal?
really? quite the statement. plenty of folk start AND
finish a mrathon on much less weekly miles. plenty.
my own take on this FIRST method is that, like any other
idea, it's fine to try. It might not work for you. It might.
If it doesn't, you'll lose a year. perhaps that risk is one you want
to take.
Personally, I think that the majoriity of us are just-plain-average
and would do better to start with marathon plans that have been
used by the major marathons to train beginners. hundreds
of thousands of beginners. i'm trying to follow those published
by the NYRRC. There are lots more.
and then, after a few years of marathons, and many many miles,
you can begin to fine tune your training.
....thehick

Report
The Vicar
Archived post

7 July 2005, 14:34 UTC #5

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Most "beginner marathon programs" are scams. They cut too
many corners. If you can comfortably handle 6 days of running a
week, you're selling yourself short if you're doing 3 days a
week.
Right on. Those programs that cut base and hurry into speed only work in
the short term. Even if one is fortunate not to get injured, you will make
quick strides but plateau and sink real fast.
i know this is the conventional knowledge and it's what i've always believed
as well but this guy has done a limited study...did he report an injury
rate? many of his runners were beginner rec runners and i dont remember an
unusually high injury rate. is the defense that these were just "lucky"
people? or maybe the limited mileage and long recovery allowed the speed
work without injury.
Quoted message said:

-DF

Report
bikeme
Archived post

7 July 2005, 18:34 UTC #6

"The Vicar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
:
: "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
: news:[email hidden]...
: >
: > "Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
: > news:[email hidden]...
: >> Most "beginner marathon programs" are scams. They cut too
: >> many corners. If you can comfortably handle 6 days of running a
: >> week, you're selling yourself short if you're doing 3 days a
: >> week.
: >
: > Right on. Those programs that cut base and hurry into speed only work in
: > the short term. Even if one is fortunate not to get injured, you will
make
: > quick strides but plateau and sink real fast.
:
: i know this is the conventional knowledge and it's what i've always
believed
: as well but this guy has done a limited study...did he report an injury
: rate? many of his runners were beginner rec runners and i dont remember an
: unusually high injury rate. is the defense that these were just "lucky"
: people? or maybe the limited mileage and long recovery allowed the speed
: work without injury.
: >
: > -DF
: >
:
:
It's interesting to read what the folks who haven't read the article are
saying. He did report an injury rate. Some runners were beginners, others
were well-seasoned. Going from memory- of the 25 that began the program, 21
ran a race. 1 was injured, one had to deal with a personal tragedy outside
the running sphere and 2 had minor injuries that caused them to reduce
training, though they ran the half-marathon instead of the full marathon. I
could be wrong on the numbers- don't have the article handy at the moment-
but it was something close to this.
The speedwork was customized to each person's abilities and needs.

Report
The Vicar
Archived post

7 July 2005, 18:49 UTC #7

"bikeme" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:%Aeze.149129$sy6.54201@lakeread04...
Quoted message said:

"The Vicar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
:
: "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
: news:[email hidden]...
: >
: > "Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
: > news:[email hidden]...
: >> Most "beginner marathon programs" are scams. They cut too
: >> many corners. If you can comfortably handle 6 days of running a
: >> week, you're selling yourself short if you're doing 3 days a
: >> week.
: >
: > Right on. Those programs that cut base and hurry into speed only work
in
: > the short term. Even if one is fortunate not to get injured, you will
make
: > quick strides but plateau and sink real fast.
:
: i know this is the conventional knowledge and it's what i've always
believed
: as well but this guy has done a limited study...did he report an injury
: rate? many of his runners were beginner rec runners and i dont remember
an
: unusually high injury rate. is the defense that these were just "lucky"
: people? or maybe the limited mileage and long recovery allowed the speed
: work without injury.
: >
: > -DF
: >
:
:
It's interesting to read what the folks who haven't read the article are
saying. He did report an injury rate. Some runners were beginners,
others
were well-seasoned. Going from memory- of the 25 that began the program,
21
ran a race. 1 was injured, one had to deal with a personal tragedy
outside
the running sphere and 2 had minor injuries that caused them to reduce
training, though they ran the half-marathon instead of the full marathon.
I
could be wrong on the numbers- don't have the article handy at the moment-
but it was something close to this.
The speedwork was customized to each person's abilities and needs.
i did read the article and i remember the injury rate. it seemed reasonable
to me. i think we get into these mantras based on "common knowledge" to the
point where we dont let any contradictory information in.
I'm off to the barber to get my blood let; been feeling a bit under the
weather.
Quoted message said:

Report
Donovan Rebbechi
Archived post

7 July 2005, 19:23 UTC #8

The Vicar said:
i did read the article and i remember the injury rate. it seemed reasonable
to me.
3 out of 25 is not terrible, but it's not that good either.
Quoted message said:
i think we get into these mantras based on "common knowledge" to the
point where we dont let any contradictory information in.
In some cases, the so-called "mantras" get proven again and again (and people
still wonder if they're really true or not). One of those mantras -- that
mileage works -- is well established.
I've personally verified it myself, as follows (one day I'll write a long post
about it): first, I observed that I'd made a lot of progress from increasing
mileage. But an obvious question is, maybe I would have made that progress
without any increase. So I dropped my mileage. After a brief tapering effect,
I because slow. Became fast again after ramping back up.
Studies have also looked at this. There's a study Gibbens likes to cite (and
misinterpret) that looked at a number of factors, and mileage/time had a
significant correlation (-0.38) among a group of marathoners.
But it is also well established that you can get mediocre results without
trying very hard. If you get a group of people, and get each of them to do
any old stupid program that has them doing 20 miles a week or more, they will
finish a race in roughly the same order as their levels of innate ability
would predict.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Report
Donovan Rebbechi
Archived post

7 July 2005, 19:27 UTC #9

bikeme said:

"The Vicar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
:
: "Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
: news:[email hidden]...
: >
: > "Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
: > news:[email hidden]...
: >> Most "beginner marathon programs" are scams. They cut too
: >> many corners. If you can comfortably handle 6 days of running a
: >> week, you're selling yourself short if you're doing 3 days a
: >> week.
: >
: > Right on. Those programs that cut base and hurry into speed only work in
: > the short term. Even if one is fortunate not to get injured, you will
make
: > quick strides but plateau and sink real fast.
:
: i know this is the conventional knowledge and it's what i've always
believed
: as well but this guy has done a limited study...did he report an injury
: rate? many of his runners were beginner rec runners and i dont remember an
: unusually high injury rate. is the defense that these were just "lucky"
: people? or maybe the limited mileage and long recovery allowed the speed
: work without injury.
Quoted message said:
It's interesting to read what the folks who haven't read the article are
saying. He did report an injury rate. Some runners were beginners, others
were well-seasoned. Going from memory- of the 25 that began the program, 21
ran a race. 1 was injured, one had to deal with a personal tragedy outside
the running sphere and 2 had minor injuries that caused them to reduce
training, though they ran the half-marathon instead of the full marathon. I
could be wrong on the numbers- don't have the article handy at the moment-
but it was something close to this.
The speedwork was customized to each person's abilities and needs.
My comments refer to the program, as documented on the summary that was linked.
I think customising speed work to an appropriate level for the athlete, but
removing base work, would just result in mediocre performances, but not an
enormous injury rate.
I'll say it again, if you can comfortably manage 6 days a week, you're short
changing yourself if you settle for a 3/week program (and no, cross training
doesn't count. Sorry).
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Report
The Vicar
Archived post

7 July 2005, 19:51 UTC #10

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
The Vicar said:
i did read the article and i remember the injury rate. it seemed
reasonable
to me.
3 out of 25 is not terrible, but it's not that good either.
but wouldnt you have expected a higher injury rate? i would have.
Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:
i think we get into these mantras based on "common knowledge" to the
point where we dont let any contradictory information in.
In some cases, the so-called "mantras" get proven again and again (and
people
still wonder if they're really true or not). One of those mantras -- that
mileage works -- is well established.
i agree...did i use "mantras" wrong? (embarrassed look)
Quoted message said:

I've personally verified it myself, as follows (one day I'll write a long
post
about it): first, I observed that I'd made a lot of progress from
increasing
mileage. But an obvious question is, maybe I would have made that progress
without any increase. So I dropped my mileage. After a brief tapering
effect,
I because slow. Became fast again after ramping back up.
i think that's relatively intuitive and i wouldnt argue with it. i guess we
would have to look at the claims of the FIRST plan...i assume it is not
relavent for elite runners. i read the article a week ago so it's almost
totally out of my head but i believe his point was just what you say
later...personally, i just dont have the time to put in all those
miles...TBR would be all alone in here then...so the 3 days a week was
attractive to me...really though it's a bit of a red herring in that he
calls for two additional days of "hard" cross training which makes it a 5
day a week plan which is pretty good for any fitness program.
Quoted message said:

Studies have also looked at this. There's a study Gibbens likes to cite
(and
misinterpret) that looked at a number of factors, and mileage/time had a
significant correlation (-0.38) among a group of marathoners.
But it is also well established that you can get mediocre results without
trying very hard. If you get a group of people, and get each of them to do
any old stupid program that has them doing 20 miles a week or more, they
will
finish a race in roughly the same order as their levels of innate ability
would predict.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Report
Donovan Rebbechi
Archived post

8 July 2005, 14:30 UTC #11

The Vicar said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
The Vicar said:
i did read the article and i remember the injury rate. it seemed
reasonable
to me.
3 out of 25 is not terrible, but it's not that good either.
but wouldnt you have expected a higher injury rate? i would have.
Maybe, but I think close supervision and coaching staff can help
bring this down. In fact, one of the problems with any "study" that
doesn't use a control group, is that even getting a bunch of people
together, and telling them, "we're going to put you on this special
training program", then caqrefully supervising them, does have an
effect.
Quoted message said:
i think that's relatively intuitive and i wouldnt argue with it. i
guess we would have to look at the claims of the FIRST plan...i
assume it is not relavent for elite runners. i read the article a
In fact, I wonder who it's relevant to.
Quoted message said:
week ago so it's almost totally out of my head but i believe his
point was just what you say later...personally, i just dont have the
time to put in all those miles...TBR would be all alone in here
then...so the 3 days a week was attractive to me...really though
it's a bit of a red herring in that he calls for two additional days
of "hard" cross training which makes it a 5 day a week plan which is
pretty good for any fitness program.
I agree. I don't see what advantages there are in adding non-specific
training over adding specific training, if your volume of specific
training is very low.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Report
Sam
Archived post

9 July 2005, 20:35 UTC #12

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
The Vicar said:

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
On 2005-07-07, The Vicar <[email hidden]> wrote:
> i did read the article and i remember the injury rate. it seemed
> reasonable
> to me.
3 out of 25 is not terrible, but it's not that good either.
but wouldnt you have expected a higher injury rate? i would have.
Maybe, but I think close supervision and coaching staff can help
bring this down. In fact, one of the problems with any "study" that
doesn't use a control group, is that even getting a bunch of people
together, and telling them, "we're going to put you on this special
training program", then caqrefully supervising them, does have an
effect.
Quoted message said:
i think that's relatively intuitive and i wouldnt argue with it. i
guess we would have to look at the claims of the FIRST plan...i
assume it is not relavent for elite runners. i read the article a
In fact, I wonder who it's relevant to.
Quoted message said:
week ago so it's almost totally out of my head but i believe his
point was just what you say later...personally, i just dont have the
time to put in all those miles...TBR would be all alone in here
then...so the 3 days a week was attractive to me...really though
it's a bit of a red herring in that he calls for two additional days
of "hard" cross training which makes it a 5 day a week plan which is
pretty good for any fitness program.
I agree. I don't see what advantages there are in adding non-specific
training over adding specific training, if your volume of specific
training is very low.
Or as Dot noted, the program allows for 2 other days of easier running
if desired. If you add in those 2 days of running you are up to 5 days and
3 are pretty serious.
Quoted message said:
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread