What's the Risk of Training Old School

Why do you think it's 'old school'? Nothing has changed.

malmo wrote:

Why do you think it's 'old school'? Nothing has changed.

If you'd spent most of high school and college listening to people defer to T paces and thresholds and X% increases in mileage, supplemented with plenty of aqua-jogging and core work, you might view the "old school" as something profoundly different. I was nearly kicked off of my high school team for attempting to exceed 40 miles per week during cross country season. I've seen colleges with similar mindsets.

Nothing has changed about the human body, or the requirements to get it to cover as much ground as quickly as possible, but (some) people's attitudes and ideas about how to do so are very different.

"Lacing them up and running by feel for a few months" is a great experience, especially since you believe you "have natural talent." Failing to go for it will be a regret of your life and there's no point in having such regrets.

"The risk," as you ask, is not running by feel and ignoring worsening injuries because you put a set number of miles or workouts per week as the main driver of your training. That's where pool running comes in handy. It lets you train with old school intensity and frequency, then rest the injured area without losing aerobic fitness.

Doubles are great for orienting your focus toward running seriously, plus, of course, they accelerate your adaptation to running faster times, which is the whole point of training. Give you body the chance to adapt to harder, longer, and more frequent training. It's the only way to find out how good you can be.

Good luck.

It is as simple as this:

Get in 2 quality workouts and a long run each week. On your other runs get in as much mileage as you can without compromising the quality workouts and long run. Get in a good mixture of quality workouts. Do this week after week and month after month and you'll be very good in a few years.

Call it old school, new school, whatever, it works and has for decades.

Nothing has (or should have) changed from that. The only improvements to that have been in better understanding what types of quality workouts to do and why they work. But trial and error told Lydiard, Bowerman and other great coaches that decades ago.

Most all errors are made when not following these basic principles.

For example:

people trying to increase their mileage to quickly so they are compromising their quality workouts

or

Doing the same workout type over and over again expecting different results.

or

Taking months off or extended periods of very low mileage

The pricniples are aren't difficult and they work. Just follow them consisnetly. Use your head and make sure you are following them and be patient and you'll be very good. There is no short cut but the sooner you start and more consistent you are at following these principles, the quicker you'll get there.

risk = you might improve dramatically

Risk:

You'll get tired, hungry, and within 4 weeks - faster.

Nothing has changed about the human body, or the requirements to get it to cover as much ground as quickly as possible, but (some) people's attitudes and ideas about how to do so are very different.

One thing certainly has changed: humans continue to get faster. Does that have nothing to do with "attitudes" and "ideas"? Would the same progression continue if training never changed? (hmm...)

I think my favorite "old-timer" may have been Mark Nenow, who trained the majority of his career just running a roughly 45 minute and 75 minute run (he called it a 12-14 mile loop) everday plus a long weekend run. He was obviously very good by the time he was a sophomore in college (not to mention the raw talent he demonstrated in high school despite the short prep career), but he had no detailed plan, no HR monitor, no track workouts. Just went out and ran, much of it quality, most of it over the same loops. Even ran at night, a lot of it on the road.

Still the fastest American "white dude" over 10,000, though I suspect that will end this year. Two hours a day. Pretty simple stuff. Of course, Nenow was what... all of 5'6" and probably barely 100 lbs? Makes a difference.

You have most of that right. He won the MN State Champs in his first season of running, even though he joined the team after Labor Day, to prep for wrestling. In Spring he ran 4:22y/9:17y in his first crack at it. Winning the State 2-mile.

He was more like 5'8"/130 in his prime. I don't think America has ever had a top 3k/5k/10k/marathon guy who was close to 100lbs. Ritz is very petite and he was 5'7"/117 in HS and about 5'8"/122 now.

The lightest guy I can think of is Laban Rotich (the "Human Hydroplane") who is 5'1"/99 lbs or something. 5'6"/100 is lighter than someone with a tiny skeleton like Shalane Flanagan.

I know man, I'm exaggerating, but, still, I think the smaller frame is less prone to injury ON AVERAGE and more able to take the pounding, even with proper adaptation. That may explain the sheer depth of African dominance as well as anything aside the fact that it's an old-fashioned numbers game, and minimalism, practiced by Africans as well as "old-timers," is back in vogue along with volume. Two hours a day in two runs and one run on the weekend. Simple formula, if you can hack it for a number of years.

Personally, I would "periodize," maybe running no more than one marathon a year after a base at altitude, then lower the volume (perhaps after another short stint at altitude) and hit the track/cross. But Nenow and Virgin both showed altitude wasn't necessary. Perhaps it's even a hindrance to devoting more mileage to cultivating proper running economy.

Sagarin wrote:

I think my favorite "old-timer" may have been Mark Nenow, who trained the majority of his career just running a roughly 45 minute and 75 minute run (he called it a 12-14 mile loop) everday plus a long weekend run. He was obviously very good by the time he was a sophomore in college (not to mention the raw talent he demonstrated in high school despite the short prep career), but he had no detailed plan, no HR monitor, no track workouts. Just went out and ran, much of it quality, most of it over the same loops. Even ran at night, a lot of it on the road.

Still the fastest American "white dude" over 10,000, though I suspect that will end this year. Two hours a day. Pretty simple stuff. Of course, Nenow was what... all of 5'6" and probably barely 100 lbs? Makes a difference.

Actually, he's more like 5'8", and he did run the occasional track workout.

what was the name of that thread about Oregon where you posted some logs?

oh yeah, "Old School Oregon Training."

Don't forget Derek Clayton. Look up some of his training young lad. Lot's of fast continuous and hilly long runs. Mega mileage. He was injured alot but he was a pioneer and paved the way for alot of runners.

Ignoring advances made in the more recent decades and missing out on the advantages they have enabled.

jjjjjjjjjjjj wrote:

what was the name of that thread about Oregon where you posted some logs?

oh yeah, "Old School Oregon Training."

--YOU DO NOT EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WANT TO TRAIN THE "DELLINGER OREGON WAY."

--YOU MAY WELL GET GOOD RESULTS BY TRAINING THE "BOWERMAN OREGON WAY.

'Get in 2 quality workouts and a long run each week' Im suprised you didn't mention throwing in a few strides

The elite are doing more than that nowadays with some sort of workout nearly every day:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~peterg1/run/aths.html