| mass clown |
| ||
|
My teammates think that training doesn't matter at all. As long as you run hard a few times a week, whether that means 10x200m every workout or a long hard run every workout, the results will be the same. On a scale of 1-10, how much do you agree with that? This is a D1 university team in case anyone was wondering. |
| Tooth Decay |
| ||
|
Yes, training does matter (obviously). Their method might make them fast, but they won't have any control over WHEN they run fast. October? Early September? Who knows. |
| Kiribati Expat |
| ||
|
0/10 |
| mass clown |
| ||
I assume you think they are as stupid as I do. |
| hmmmm |
| ||
|
0 |
| I got this |
| ||
|
Training, as with size and troll ratings, DOES matter. EOT |
| law of diminishing returns |
| ||
|
Training matters, but 10% of the effort will give you 90% of the result, so you can train like crap and still run decently if you have a reasonable level of base fitness and some talent. To reach your full potential, you have to invest a lot of energy, blood, sweat and tears into a smart training plan. |
| badabing! wit a pipe |
| ||
This is so true and what im struggling with right now in college. Training at a level higher than in the past, clearly in better shape, but not racing faster. |
| Hil Repete |
| ||
|
Training your dog does. Way too many dogs romping around eating peoples pet snakes. |
| My Dee Pee |
| ||
Training your bee does it all. Be there to see your bees, open your snatch, and come see the bee. |
| Hil Repete |
| ||
|
What? You make no sense. I do like bees though. |
| Snarkster |
| ||
|
Runners spend more time designing training plans that actually running. Physiologically, aerobic sessions like LSD, tempo, fartlek, long track reps, hills plus all the myriad other fad sessions all do EXACTLY the same thing, so from that standpoint it really doesn't matter which you do. Psychologically, obviously, it does matter, but many runners attach way too much importance to difference in training effect between them. |
| quanka |
| ||
|
Training is fun, but winning is what matters. Within the confines of running and competing of course. You can't win a training session but you can win a race. See my point. *shows point* P.S. Bees are totally awesome! |
| whaaaaaaaat |
| ||
|
training absolutely matters. the type of workouts you do matter a lot. thats why its possible to have crappy coaches who burnout their runners, because they have them do 200s every workout in XC or something stupid like that. Or do anaerobic workouts for mid-d guys the entire season without any tempo or VO2 max workouts before hand to build up endurance. Thats how you get burned out or peak half way through the season and then plateau. The idea that training or types of workouts doesn't matter is stupid. Anyone who has ever done serious training knows it does matter. The only way it wouldn't matter is if you didn't care what event you peaked for, when you peaked for it, and that your peak wouldn't be the best it can be. In other words, training doesn't matter only if you don't care about your performance. |
| Crowd-sourced training |
| ||
|
I would agree that precise training plans don't matter all that much. In fact my friend and I have been testing this premise by running only random workouts from random runners we know or bump into at the track. The result? In 6months of training we are within 10secs of our college 5k PR's and a sub-15 5k. We've even documented the whole project on our website: sub15minutes.com |
| random knowitdude |
| ||
That mostly just shows how crappy your college training was. While it is true there are many ways to accomplish the same thing, different types of training accomplish different things and will produce different training adaptations, which in turn will lead to different performances. You aren't going to run well in the 10k or marathon if you do nothing but short fast reps @ mile pace or faster, just like you're not going to run well at 800m if you do nothing but long tempo runs. Whether you do 2x2miles at threshold pace or a 4 mile threshold run is not going make a large difference however. I don't have a website, but I am a 14:0x guy. I was a 14:5x guy when I ran for a coach who pulled workouts out of a hat each week. |
| InWyo |
| ||
I've been following the sub-15 blog and think it's a hoot. That being said, I think since it's crowd sourced, and the goal was stated (withing 6 months) other than a few notable exceptions (eg. repeat 100s really early on), I think you two have selected submitted workouts that attempt to segment your time-line. There were videos requesting fartleks and tempos early on, and there was the killer hill session about a third of the way through, now you're on the track for nearly every workout. I don't know if this was a conscience effort or by luck but I think they have generally followed a progression that makes sense for a 5k. When I clicked on the thread, I was expecting to hear arguments about talent and work. I know of quite a few sub-15 high school kids who's coach didn't have a clue, and they only ran during the cross county and track season and played basketball or swam in the winter. The difference that training makes is how close to your ceiling you can get. I also think that the sciences is extremely complicated and different people respond to different stimulus even within the same event. I would agree that the only absolutely proven element to training is volume and how hard you work, and that will get you to about 90% of your ceiling. |