Easy week

Christos Dimitrakakis said:

Thoughts?

Based on your training, I thought you were preparing for a 400m track race.

If you want to be fast at non-sprint distances, you need to back right off
the intensity and run more miles.

Short term, there's not much to be done besides getting to the start line well
rested.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
| On 2007-05-30, Christos Dimitrakakis <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| > Thoughts?
|
| If you want to be fast at non-sprint distances, you need to back right off
| the intensity and run more miles.
|
| Short term, there's not much to be done besides getting to the start line well
| rested.
In addition, try only 3 or 4 days a week of training at slightly longer distances.
If you are older (35+), start with 3 days a week all easy runs, then build on.
For example Mon: 4 km, Wed: 3 km, Sat: 5 or 6 km and rest in between.
When this becomes easy over the weeks, try adding extra km for 1 or 2 runs.
Running every day of the week is a bad idea.

I2Run said:

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
| On 2007-05-30, Christos Dimitrakakis <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| > Thoughts?
|
| If you want to be fast at non-sprint distances, you need to back right off
| the intensity and run more miles.
|
| Short term, there's not much to be done besides getting to the start line well
| rested.
In addition, try only 3 or 4 days a week of training at slightly longer
distances. If you are older (35+), start with 3 days a week all easy runs,
then build on. For example Mon: 4 km, Wed: 3 km, Sat: 5 or 6 km and rest in
between.

Whether older or younger, I'd recommend 3-4 times a week until he's up to a
consistent 40 minutes or more each run, then consider going to 5-6 days a
week.

Quoted message said:

When this becomes easy over the weeks, try adding extra km for 1 or 2 runs.
Running every day of the week is a bad idea.

For him, it probably is. But for more experienced runners, running every day
works quite well. The broader principle is that doing exactly the same thing
every day is bad. There needs to be some variation in daily workload. Noakes
has a study that links lack of variation to injury (measured by coefficient of
variation which is standard dev divided by the mean) . I can't remember whether
he looks at short (daily) or mid (weekly) term variation though.

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Elflord said:

For him, it probably is. But for more experienced runners, running every day
works quite well. The broader principle is that doing exactly the same thing
every day is bad. There needs to be some variation in daily workload. Noakes
has a study that links lack of variation to injury (measured by coefficient of
variation which is standard dev divided by the mean) . I can't remember whether
he looks at short (daily) or mid (weekly) term variation though.

By variation do you only mean long vs short runs? For example, I
usually run 30 minutes, currently on a 2 days on, 1 day off schedule.
I set my ipod for 30 minutes, run until it tells me I'm at the halfway
mark, turnaround and run back. Does varying where I run count towards
injury prevention? For example, sometimes I run on the hills around my
house (combo of asphalt and sidewalk); other times I run along a trail
that is flat as can be (combo of asphalt and gravel paths) but more
irregular surface.

jen

shinypenny said:

Elflord said:

For him, it probably is. But for more experienced runners, running every day
works quite well. The broader principle is that doing exactly the same thing
every day is bad. There needs to be some variation in daily workload. Noakes
has a study that links lack of variation to injury (measured by coefficient of
variation which is standard dev divided by the mean) . I can't remember whether
he looks at short (daily) or mid (weekly) term variation though.

By variation do you only mean long vs short runs? For example, I
usually run 30 minutes, currently on a 2 days on, 1 day off schedule.
I set my ipod for 30 minutes, run until it tells me I'm at the halfway
mark, turnaround and run back. Does varying where I run count towards
injury prevention? For example, sometimes I run on the hills around my
house (combo of asphalt and sidewalk); other times I run along a trail
that is flat as can be (combo of asphalt and gravel paths) but more
irregular surface.

Yes. For me, variation in where I run definitely counts for injury
prevention. Like you said, varying surface as well as flat vs hills.
I've found the twisty single tracks are really helpful for running
health because of the additional hip action. I will sometimes add some
twists to straight routes if needed or do drills in my yard.

(BTW, this is one of the reasons I prefer the longer runs so I can run
trails besides the ones near the trailhead and get a greater diversity
in surfaces, hills, twists, chills, and thrills. "Designed" trail
systems usually have the easier routes near the trailhead then get more
challenging as you get farther away.)

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

shinypenny said:

By variation do you only mean long vs short runs?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

For example, I
usually run 30 minutes, currently on a 2 days on, 1 day off schedule.
I set my ipod for 30 minutes, run until it tells me I'm at the halfway
mark, turnaround and run back.

Would suggest introducing some variety in duration.

Quoted message said:

Does varying where I run count towards
injury prevention?

Maybe. It might help, I doubt it hurts .

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Elflord said:

I2Run said:

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
| On 2007-05-30, Christos Dimitrakakis <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| > Thoughts?
|
| If you want to be fast at non-sprint distances, you need to back right off
| the intensity and run more miles.
|
| Short term, there's not much to be done besides getting to the start line well
| rested.
In addition, try only 3 or 4 days a week of training at slightly longer
distances. If you are older (35+), start with 3 days a week all easy runs,
then build on. For example Mon: 4 km, Wed: 3 km, Sat: 5 or 6 km and rest in
between.

Whether older or younger, I'd recommend 3-4 times a week until he's up to a
consistent 40 minutes or more each run, then consider going to 5-6 days a
week.

To answer the previous thing, I'm not specifically training for this race.
My main training aim is to be more consistent with running: build a little
bit of speed over a wide range of distances, increase my endurance to a
reasonable point - and keep it at that.

As for the race, I just love running up hills so I thought it'd be a nice
challenge. Though I can run up 50% of the distance fairly easily at this point.

Right now my runs are in the range 30-60 minutes. Long runs are usually
on hills, shorter ones on flats with some speed mixed in. I find the
long speed sessions the most stressful, and the 50-100m sprints the least
stressful (maybe because I am not pushing them hard).

I agree with the increasing days only when I'm a bit
stronger. But I think I could easily handle one run per day if it's quite
easy. I.e. I could run every day for 5 minutes 🙂 - Since my current
runs are at least 30 minutes, I guess I could easily do 15 minutes
every day. Maybe there would be no positive training effect, but I don't
see why I would be injured.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When this becomes easy over the weeks, try adding extra km

for 1 or 2

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

runs. Running every day of the week is a bad idea.

For him, it probably is. But for more experienced runners, running every
day works quite well. The broader principle is that doing exactly the
same thing every day is bad. There needs to be some variation in daily
workload. Noakes has a study that links lack of variation to injury
(measured by coefficient of variation which is standard dev divided by
the mean) . I can't remember whether he looks at short (daily) or mid
(weekly) term variation though.

--
Christos Dimitrakakis
Homepage: http://www.idiap.ch/~dimitrak/main.html
Music: http://olethros.dmusic.com

Dot said:

shinypenny said:

On May 30, 1:52 pm, Elflord <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

(BTW, this is one of the reasons I prefer the longer runs so I can run
trails besides the ones near the trailhead and get a greater diversity
in surfaces, hills, twists, chills, and thrills. "Designed" trail
systems usually have the easier routes near the trailhead then get more
challenging as you get farther away.)

You could go completely off-trail, as I sometimes do. It can be crazy
steep though.

--
Christos Dimitrakakis
Homepage: http://www.idiap.ch/~dimitrak/main.html
Music: http://olethros.dmusic.com

Charlie Pendejo said:

That said, I'd include running in different models of shoes as another
variety factor which can help fight injury. Also different paces -
and even if in a "base" mode without things like intervals or tempo
runs, I think the occasional set of strides or similar quick bursts of
fast running in more of a fartlek-y run are good: they build strength;
they provide some of that variety in stride mechanics (nothing but
unrelieved shuffling slow distance can, IME, be a source of stress
too, even if less so than too much fast running); they provide some
dynamic stretching; they help teach and reinforce good running form.

I do this as a matter of course, because I run to music. So I find
myself running faster during fast songs, slower during slow songs.
I'll find myself deliberately pushing the button to skip past songs,
depending on how i'm feeling. So when I feel like I could run fast, I
tend to choose more fast songs.

Except this week and last - I've been more apt to choose the slower
songs, or run slow and even through fast songs. That's because I'm
making the leap to more frequent running, and the mileage has jumped
too. Still feeling strong (just a little achiness in the knees - it
alternates so it's not one specific knee - and shins - but nothing
worrisome). I'm listening to my body and it's telling me to go easy
and slow and not get too carried away right now with the speed on top
of the additional mileage/frequency.

jen

Elflord said:

Would suggest introducing some variety in duration.

Okay, that can be the next goal.

jen

Christos Dimitrakakis said:

Dot said:

shinypenny said:

On May 30, 1:52 pm, Elflord <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

(BTW, this is one of the reasons I prefer the longer runs so I can run
trails besides the ones near the trailhead and get a greater diversity
in surfaces, hills, twists, chills, and thrills. "Designed" trail
systems usually have the easier routes near the trailhead then get more
challenging as you get farther away.)

You could go completely off-trail, as I sometimes do. It can be crazy
steep though.

Right, but we have a lot of downed trees (waist high to jump over) and
underbrush that's more limiting than the steepness to actually run.
Since parts of some of our trails are over 50% slope, the off-trail
stuff can be steeper, and of course, there's always the cliffs. Before I
retired, much of my hiking was off trail looking at vegetation. (usually
potential mine sites or parks where I had a permit to be off trail)
Our local orienteering meet always comes at a bad time for me to try to
do it, and I don't like driving to the city for the other meets.

These days, trying to be a good trail user, I try to resist the urge to
go off trail (and it's a struggle some days). Which is probably why I
volunteer to help scout new trails.😉

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Charlie Pendejo said:

Also different paces -
and even if in a "base" mode without things like intervals or tempo
runs, I think the occasional set of strides or similar quick bursts of
fast running in more of a fartlek-y run are good: they build strength;
they provide some of that variety in stride mechanics (nothing but
unrelieved shuffling slow distance can, IME, be a source of stress
too, even if less so than too much fast running); they provide some
dynamic stretching; they help teach and reinforce good running form.

I agree. This is where I like Lydiard's approach to use your full
aerobic zone during base, rather than being restrictive like Maffetone
(really restrictive) or Daniels (no man's lands). Benson's pgm that I
started with also used stuff at high-end aerobic (below LT, although it
might include some of Pfitz's LT efforts). Although my 10k race time
didn't show it, I'm feeling much better this year than I did last year.
Just about every week had at least "some" high-end aerobic (or close to
it) or power or whatever. ("some" could be 1 min or just a tad of steep
hills - just enough to remind the muscles - with the amt increasing
later in base) For someone like me (whether it's "me", older, or
female, or beginner, I'm not gonna venture), I definitely benefit from
the strength and power, that some pgms leave out of base.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can run trails besides the ones near the trailhead and
get a greater diversity in surfaces, hills, twists, chills,
and thrills.

Hey Dot, I noticed you are avoiding the spills.

That was actually an oversight, but, hmmm, it didn't come to mind.

Quoted message said:

That's great - keep
it up (and keep upright)!

so yes, I do seem to have improved at proprioception and agility. Thanks 🙂

My experiment of one suggests the way I improve speed is to have a
runner on my shoulder on single track (like last year's 10k) or be
chased by mosquitoes.😉 Not sure where they came from but this is the
first day they've been an issue, and they really were an issue - but got
some nice laps on my favorite slalom course.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Dot said:

Pendejo said:

I think the occasional set of strides or similar quick
bursts of fast running in more of a fartlek-y run are good

I agree. This is where I like Lydiard's approach to use
your full aerobic zone during base, rather than being
restrictive like Maffetone (really restrictive) or Daniels
(no man's lands).

I like it too, based on my experience last fall of gaining a lot from
marathon training which looked a lot like Lydiardian base, and so am
sticking with a broader range of aerobic efforts now. At least to the
extent I feel like it on any given day.

But just for the record Daniels does prescribe strides during his base
phase, and strides are quicker than any aerobic effort. Of course
also short enough that you don't incur significant lactic acid/oxygen
debt, so not really what you'd call "anaerobic" either. And of course
you're right that Daniels doesn't see much point in running between
his "E"asy (1) pace and "T"empo pace, though he grudgingly admits a
few bits of MP work here and there might not be the worst idea if
you're gonna run a marathon.

As you know, I believe several months last fall of weekly MP (where MP
was an aggressive, optimistic estimate...) runs of 6 to 10+ miles (say
40-70 minutes at pace) did me a world o'good. Other stuff too but
there's no doubt in my mind those were some damn effective workouts
that, as your current tagline suggests, built me up without tearing me
down.

Quoted message said:

My experiment of one suggests the way I improve speed is
to have a runner on my shoulder on single track (like last
year's 10k) or be chased by mosquitoes.😉

Necessity is the mother of acceleration?

(1) Though on the third or fourth or fifth hand, it's only fair to
note that his "E" pace is fairly aggressive at least by standards of
us way-way-way-post-college runners, and he's OK with you going
slower, so there is *some* kind of allowable range.

Elflord said:

I2Run said:

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...
| On 2007-05-30, Christos Dimitrakakis <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| > Thoughts?
|
| If you want to be fast at non-sprint distances, you need to back right off
| the intensity and run more miles.
|
| Short term, there's not much to be done besides getting to the start line well
| rested.
In addition, try only 3 or 4 days a week of training at slightly longer
distances. If you are older (35+), start with 3 days a week all easy runs,
then build on. For example Mon: 4 km, Wed: 3 km, Sat: 5 or 6 km and rest in
between.

Whether older or younger, I'd recommend 3-4 times a week until he's up to a
consistent 40 minutes or more each run, then consider going to 5-6 days a
week.

Yes, I think for the next three weeks I am going to take it all
easier. Just some long hill runs or relaxed barefoot strides, but
mostly easy running every other day or so.

After the race I might start introducing some tempo sessions again,
but I think no more reps at the 400-1600m range for the moment - these
seem to be the most stressful.

Elflord said:

I2Run said:

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...
| On 2007-05-30, Christos Dimitrakakis <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| > Thoughts?
|
| If you want to be fast at non-sprint distances, you need to back right off
| the intensity and run more miles.
|
| Short term, there's not much to be done besides getting to the start line well
| rested.
In addition, try only 3 or 4 days a week of training at slightly longer
distances. If you are older (35+), start with 3 days a week all easy runs,
then build on. For example Mon: 4 km, Wed: 3 km, Sat: 5 or 6 km and rest in
between.

Whether older or younger, I'd recommend 3-4 times a week until he's up to a
consistent 40 minutes or more each run, then consider going to 5-6 days a
week.

My plan right now is to run every other day - most of the time easy
(i.e. 70-80% of max HR), once a week on long hills and once a week
throwing in some relaxed barefoot strides. After the race, I think
I'll try and add a somewhat harder medium run, i.e. in terms of
minutes and heart rate, heart rate 10 @< 75% for warm up and then
20-30 @80-85% and cool down 10 @< 75%

This is more or less what I've been doing up to now, apart from the
occasional shorter intervals, which I guess I might stop, or at least
relegate to a fartlek session, since in some hard parts of the hills I
get a similar anaerobic training effect.

Thoughts?

Christos Dimitrakakis said:

Elflord said:

I2Run said:

"Elflord" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...
| On 2007-05-30, Christos Dimitrakakis <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| > Thoughts?
|
| If you want to be fast at non-sprint distances, you need to back right off
| the intensity and run more miles.
|
| Short term, there's not much to be done besides getting to the start line well
| rested.
In addition, try only 3 or 4 days a week of training at slightly longer
distances. If you are older (35+), start with 3 days a week all easy runs,
then build on. For example Mon: 4 km, Wed: 3 km, Sat: 5 or 6 km and rest in
between.

Whether older or younger, I'd recommend 3-4 times a week until he's up to a
consistent 40 minutes or more each run, then consider going to 5-6 days a
week.

My plan right now is to run every other day - most of the time easy
(i.e. 70-80% of max HR), once a week on long hills and once a week
throwing in some relaxed barefoot strides. After the race, I think
I'll try and add a somewhat harder medium run, i.e. in terms of
minutes and heart rate, heart rate 10 @< 75% for warm up and then
20-30 @80-85% and cool down 10 @< 75%

This is more or less what I've been doing up to now, apart from the
occasional shorter intervals, which I guess I might stop, or at least
relegate to a fartlek session, since in some hard parts of the hills I
get a similar anaerobic training effect.

Thoughts?

That looks pretty good. Not much need to do much speed besides strides at
this stage -- running more miles will make a huge difference.

Don't need to do much anaerobic training unless shooting for short distances.
Distances mile and up are all about your aerobic system, and the 800 is also
mostly about endurance (unless you're sub 2 or so)

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Dot said:

It's a continuous table. Granted, there are probably
smaller regions where the benefits peak (like optimum
levels of fertilizer for plant growth),

Ha!

It took me a minute to deduce that this must be a reference from your
professional world. My first take was along the lines: "Fertilizer?
Why fertilizer? Aha, she's making a funny about how much organic
'fertilizer' we have here in wreck.running!"

Charlie Pendejo said:

Dot said:

It's a continuous table. Granted, there are probably
smaller regions where the benefits peak (like optimum
levels of fertilizer for plant growth),

Ha!

It took me a minute to deduce that this must be a reference from your
professional world.

Yep, but anybody that's ever planted a garden / lawn and fertilized it.
In most cases (assuming using the correct nutrient balance), as you add
fertilizer you get increased growth. When you get beyond the optimum,
there's reduced growth, and possible toxicities. There's response curves
for this, probably like dose / response curves (or whatever they're
called) in medicine or toxicology or CSI. (Overly attentive gardeners
really should get their soils tested. Too much can be toxic. Hmm, a lot
like running - "if some is good, more is better" approach can lead to
injury / toxicity.)

Actually, many biological responses have mound-shaped curves. (shucks,
now there we go with the hills. I'll just quit.)

Quoted message said:

My first take was along the lines: "Fertilizer?
Why fertilizer? Aha, she's making a funny about how much organic
'fertilizer' we have here in wreck.running!"

Hmmm, that too, I guess, but hadn't thought of it.😉

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Dot said:

response curves for this, probably like dose / response curves
(or whatever they're called) in medicine or toxicology or CSI.
[...]
Actually, many biological responses have mound-shaped curves.

Yes, one of the clearest of which for me has always been the "beers
vs. darts or billiards ability" curve.