| 726252572819 |
| ||
|
How do you know which works better for you? |
| Guppy |
| ||
|
High mileage trumps high intensity for the vast majority of runners out there. If you read what the best runners over the years have done this is obvious. Guys like Lagat are exceptions. I know which works for me because my coaches have always tried to force a lot of intensity on me, which always resulted in me not running very well. When I run on my own, I do more volume with less intensity and run better. The difference for me was ~14:00 for 5k vs ~15:00 for 5k. Unfortunately, coaches seem to care more about giving orders and such than actually getting their athletes to run well, and I was never able to convince any of my coaches to let me train more my way. |
| BRG/253 |
| ||
|
For mid-distance, intensity is far more important. For long distance, I have no opinion. |
| sdlmsdkl |
| ||
|
¿Porque no los dos? |
| ukathleticscoach |
| ||
|
'High mileage trumps high intensity for the vast majority of runners out there.' No, most elites do both. But then they don't have to work! A good coach should always listen to the athlete. You can't train all the same either They can sometimes learn more of them than other coaches Charlie Spedding started off on Lydiard type training but only improved he said when he started to do some speed work all year round because he lacked basic speed (1:56+ 800m) even for long distances compared to other runners. He reckoned it was ok for someone like Snell to concentrate more on endurance as he was naturally very fast. Spedding still did spells of 100m + per wk though and trained at altitude |
| Rick |
| ||
|
Intensity trumps mileage. (If you want to run fast) |
| Nah nah |
| ||
Ditto. And you get more time to do other things with your life. |
| virginia runner |
| ||
Ditto. And you get more time to do other things with your life.[/quote]more time to things because you'll be injured, or at least I would. Different approaches work for different people. |
| Nah nah |
| ||
Then you're doing high intensity wrong. What are you calling high intensity? |
| Misfit |
| ||
|
Si yo creo que tu tienes razon! I think you are totally correct. This is the way really the top runners (like Bekele) have been training for some time now. They have doing this adaptation for a really long time. This really bean with Emile Zatopek (developed this concept) and then was carried on by Ron Clarke |
| mileageleaderboard |
| ||
|
High mileage all of the way. High volume for track sessions worked better for me than increasing the intensity for shorter intervals. Of course if you know your body well enough you can structure some high intensity runs into your training, but recovery days are high volume and easy. |
| dkap |
| ||
|
Both are equally important. Keep the two components in balance and build as much of each as you can handle. It should never be an either/or between mileage and intensity, otherwise growth stagnates. (There's no shortage of personal accounts of promising early returns with either extreme, only to fall flat shortly thereafter.) Dan http://www.VOQTraining.com |
| Guppy |
| ||
|
High mileage yields relatively more structural adaptations (increased left ventricle size, angiogenesis, increased efficiency due to one's body becoming more "wired to run" for lack of a better term, etc) which are relatively permanent, whereas high intensity yields relatively more metabolic adaptations, which are shortlived. This is why you spend months putting in base work but only a few weeks doing sharpening workouts. This also explains why Lydiard's athletes did so well as I recall he wouldn't even begin to coach someone until they'd run 100mpw for a year. The ceiling of adaptation is much less limited with structural changes than metabolic ones as well, which is why high volume leads to long term improvement. The best runners and programs out there capitalize on this knowledge by putting in a lot of miles without overdoing intensity. One may sacrifice performance a little bit the first year, but they will reap the benefits in years to come. The mean age for lifetime PRs for distance runners (1500m and up) is around 27. It is no coincidence that the heart reaches peak ability around the same age. Bottom line, if you want quick short term gains, do intensity. If you want long lived gains that will not only help you now but in years to come, do volume. As for whether one should do both is an individual thing. Most people cannot do both without overtraining or getting injured. It is better to put in the miles the majority of the year, then put in the intensity at specific times when getting ready for key races. This is pretty standard knowledge. |
| Rtype |
| ||
The universe is neither black nor white so why would one assume that anything else is? To believe otherwise is a simpleton’s view. Each of us is utterly and completely unique. For this reason you will not find your ideal training plan from a book, a coach, or a philosophy: Unless, however, that particular philosophy is of your own making. Each of us is tasked with the odious challenge to sift through reams of information and craft a plan that works for exactly one person: YOU! |
| dkap |
| ||
That's where I disagree with conventional thinking. In my opinion (and experience), injury risk is the greatest when focusing on either extreme. If mileage and intensity are *properly* balanced throughout the year, adaptation remains high and injury risk is quite low. Dan |