BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General training questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Unread 04-27-2012, 11:47 AM
FutureisNow FutureisNow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zé Apelido View Post
Things that will improve running time in order of importance. Just my opinion.

1. Pushing yourself in your training. Obvious yes, but if you gotta feel some pain to make progress. Pick the durations that work best for you, in terms of amount of time you have and what you like. If you aren't overweight and can't run a 5K under 20 min, your training can definitely improve.

2. Lose weight

3. Drugs

4. Improve running mechanics.

5. Plyometrics. A little bit can help your "bounce" and improve efficiency. Not too much as it's a lot of impact.

6. Standard weight training....mainly to reduce injury.

Basically, most people just have to learn to train their endurance harder & smarter. Once you've hit diminishing returns on that, focus on the others more.
By pushing yourself do you mean in terms of distance or speed or both depending on the workout?

It seems like a sound recommendation, keeping in mind what Lyle says about volume being essential.

Still this needs to be assessed against one's mentality. It takes a special breed to run 40 miles or more LSD a week, month in and out. If you are never going to contend in your age bracket, I think it pays to enjoy what you're doing. Mixing in some speedwork - long intervals, fartleks or sprints to the finish - on a weekly basis takes the monotony out of it and can help with compliance with those people who aren't natural long distance runners - as the OP appears to not to be.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 04-27-2012, 02:45 PM
Zé Apelido Zé Apelido is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
Re 1: Distance running performance is invariably correlated with the volume of lower intensity running. Not 'going hard'.
correlation isn't causation.

you have to stop reading into what elite athletes do, and have time for. of course if you train hours upon hours each day, then most of it has to be low intensity.

if you have time to train 30 mins a day 3 times a week, doing 90% at low intensity would make you not very good.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 04-27-2012, 03:04 PM
Zé Apelido Zé Apelido is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy View Post
The problem I'm finding out is that those two strategies, "harder" and "smarter," are sometimes opposites. Like you, instinct is telling me to push through and my body will adapt. What I've researched says that isn't necessarily the best thing considering the entirety of my training.:
I'm not saying one should train hard all the time. Smart is more important. Smart is knowing your body, and how to set up a schedule that equally balances a variety of bouts at different intensities with one a week that you really try to push and make 1% progress each time, with sufficient days of rest in between.

If you want to train only 2 days a week, well they have to be harder. 5 days? Most have to be "smarter" and pull back on the intensity. But there has to be a "push" in there somwhere.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 04-27-2012, 03:07 PM
Zé Apelido Zé Apelido is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureisNow View Post
By pushing yourself do you mean in terms of distance or speed or both depending on the workout?.
Whichever you prefer, or can control better. Personally, I try to fix time, and try to improve how much I can get done in that time. That slightly increases volume, but at a controlled rate.

I agree on the variety - I find a day with 3 x 6 min intervals, 1 day of a 30 min steady, and 1 day of longer slow pace is a great mix for pushing, volume, and recovery.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 04-30-2012, 06:36 PM
mprevost mprevost is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 63
Default Endurance

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zé Apelido View Post
correlation isn't causation.

you have to stop reading into what elite athletes do, and have time for. of course if you train hours upon hours each day, then most of it has to be low intensity.

if you have time to train 30 mins a day 3 times a week, doing 90% at low intensity would make you not very good.
Very, very few people are that time limited. How much TV do most people watch? It does not take much time to run reasonably high mileage. You could run nearly 40 miles per week on 4 weekly runs of 1 hour and a long run on the weekend. Easy. And if you are moderately fast, 40+ in that same time frame. Too many people use the "I don't have time" excuse and end up training sub-optimally. Of course, correlation does not equal causation but we would all be fools to dismiss what successful runners are doing. A volume based approach works well, especially for beginners.

In the unusual and unlikely circumstance that someone only has 30 minutes, 3 times per week to train, then I agree, they should run HARD but they should not kid themselves by thinking that this is just as good as a higher volume program.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Unread 04-30-2012, 08:57 PM
Zé Apelido Zé Apelido is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mprevost View Post
Very, very few people are that time limited. How much TV do most people watch? It does not take much time to run reasonably high mileage. You could run nearly 40 miles per week on 4 weekly runs of 1 hour and a long run on the weekend. Easy. And if you are moderately fast, 40+ in that same time frame. Too many people use the "I don't have time" excuse and end up training sub-optimally. Of course, correlation does not equal causation but we would all be fools to dismiss what successful runners are doing. A volume based approach works well, especially for beginners.

In the unusual and unlikely circumstance that someone only has 30 minutes, 3 times per week to train, then I agree, they should run HARD but they should not kid themselves by thinking that this is just as good as a higher volume program.
High volume is "optimal" only if you're doing it right. And by "optimal" I mean it can give you the extra few % gain.

You can get 95% of the gains with less volume. Diminishing returns. My main point was that what is most important is that whatever you are doing, you do it with intention and methodically push yourself and progress. if you can systematically increase your pace while running for 1 hour, go for it. Personally, its easier for me systematically progress when I'm monitoring myself doing 6 min intervals and 20-30 min race pace runs. Then the third day, I run longer, but I'm not at race pace because I wouldn't be able to sustain that week to week (freaking painful). Just too annoying.

The person that progresses on shorter runs will be stronger than the person who runs more volume but with less intention all the time.

On the amount of time, for most people it is simply more sustainable in the long term to prescribe a program that takes up less time. If most people just want to run a great (not "optimal") 10K time, they can get it without high volume. They should add more if they want, but why tell them it can't be done without volume? That's false.

And most people on this forum are pretty into weights, which sucks up time. People can't figure out how to program both. Frankly, I just try to get the best of both worlds by being efficient. And my efficiency has brought results that are pretty darn good, better than most high volume runners and high volume weightlifters.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Unread 05-03-2012, 05:01 AM
cxw cxw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jesse View Post
...Just a note on Brad Hudson- he is a tool. His entire book is based on thread posted on letsrun.com message board by the infamous Coach Renato Canova. Since Renato's english is poor- Hudson's interpretation is flawed out the wazoo, at best. He makes absolutely no sense at all with his "funnel" philosophy. He took what Renato found based on science (he tests his athlets lactait levels etc..) and butchered it into some generic American watered down version and his athletes suck as a result of it.
Dathan Ritzenhein ran a 2:10:00 marathon under Hudson. Since changing to Alberto Salazar, Ritzenhein has improved by 5 seconds (in 3 years). So either:
- A 2:10:00 marathon sucks OR
- Salazar also sucks as a coach OR
- You're being overly harsh on Hudson

In terms of giving runners a book to base their training on, most of them are not going to be in a position to measure lactate levels (I presume this is what you meant by lactait), so that sort of stuff's pretty academic. All that matters is the question as to whether the training advice makes people quicker.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Unread 05-03-2012, 08:50 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cxw View Post
Dathan Ritzenhein ran a 2:10:00 marathon under Hudson. Since changing to Alberto Salazar, Ritzenhein has improved by 5 seconds (in 3 years). So either:
- A 2:10:00 marathon sucks OR
- Salazar also sucks as a coach OR
- You're being overly harsh on Hudson
Fourth option: he was at his genetic limits and wasn't going to get much better no matter what he did. I suppose that falls into the third option sort of.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Unread 05-03-2012, 08:51 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zé Apelido View Post
correlation isn't causation.

you have to stop reading into what elite athletes do, and have time for. of course if you train hours upon hours each day, then most of it has to be low intensity.

if you have time to train 30 mins a day 3 times a week, doing 90% at low intensity would make you not very good.
They have done intervention studies on this: either replacing volume with intensity or vice versa. And you're playing a game of excluding the middle. As if the only training options are:

20 hours per week or 1.5.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Unread 05-03-2012, 09:18 AM
Not Sure Not Sure is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cxw View Post
Dathan Ritzenhein ran a 2:10:00 marathon under Hudson. Since changing to Alberto Salazar, Ritzenhein has improved by 5 seconds (in 3 years). So either:
- A 2:10:00 marathon sucks OR
- Salazar also sucks as a coach OR
- You're being overly harsh on Hudson

In terms of giving runners a book to base their training on, most of them are not going to be in a position to measure lactate levels (I presume this is what you meant by lactait), so that sort of stuff's pretty academic. All that matters is the question as to whether the training advice makes people quicker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
Fourth option: he was at his genetic limits and wasn't going to get much better no matter what he did. I suppose that falls into the third option sort of.
The type of training that gets people "faster" when they can already run 26.2 under 2:30 is different than the type of training that gets people "faster" when you're talking about breaking 3:30. IMO the latter has more practical implications from where I'm sitting (not an elite and not likely to be training elites).

When you're training someone in the top 0.1% of speed/strength/endurance/whatever, it's a lot harder to evaluate training methods. Progress is much slower and genetic potential has more impact on the results.

The discussion of measuring coaches of the elites has its own problems. Often the results of their athletes are more a product of their marketing and recruiting than a product of their training methods. Lots of Div I S&C coaches have really dumb lifting programs, but because they get to recruit the best of the drug-enhanced high schoolers and genetic freaks (or those that are both) by virtue of their prestigious institutions, their "results" look good from the outside.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.