Ritz has raced two ten milers, a 20k and a 5k since August. Greg Meyer has given him some advice and he has reviewed Greg's training logs and it appears he is taking some of it to heart. Like racing more and doing some workouts at faster than marathon pace. I see your point though, this non racing stuff I just don't understand.
let us make a difference between elite runners and regional heros, between those who can handle big mileage and those better on low mileage. last but not least: everybody is different. for example: one of the best runners in my club is running just 4 sessions per week, almost all sessions quite long and fast. and its all there: interval, tempo, long run. but every attempt to run more ended up in long term injury. on the other side those who have tried to copy his training have stopped to do so, they failed.
personally speaking i know no successful runner who has not incorporated tempo runs in his training schedule.
i am a better runner since i have started to make my long run faster and to extend the distance of running fast on my long runs.
Interesting ideas and interesting site. I'm intrigued by the information on ketogenic diets.Although he once says tempos are ineffective, he also clarified that tempos can be effective but just not always the most effective.Maybe one flaw is attempting to say the goal of tempos is to improve lactate threshold. I prefer a practical Lydiard-like definition, where the goal is to build stamina, and train your body to sustain running fast under high lactate conditions (like in a race).One study he used as support in his footnotes compares two programs of ratios of LSD/Tempo/HIT training comparing 65/25/10 to 80/10/10, where 80/10/10 was better for good athletes, and subsequently amateur athletes.Not a bad study, but the study tried to support an 80/20 rule -- that elites usually use 80 % slow runs, and this is somehow optimal, and not really looking at tempos per se. You could also conclude that 10% of tempo is better than 25% for these athletes in the study running about ~50-55 mpw.But clearly a 65/25/10 ratio looks to me like too much intensity and too little recovery. I wonder how a 75/17/8 distribution would do? I always thought there was an inverse relation between intensity and the volume you do it. Higher intensity requires less volume of it, and more recovery.I also would hesitate to make any generalizations, because way too many variables. For example,- if you call MP pace tempo ( some do), you can do more volume than Jack Daniels T-pace intervalsThese ratios, besides depending on the relative intensities of each category of training, also depend on total mileage:- if you increase your mileage, a higher proportion will likely be slower- if you decrease your mileage, like in FIRST or other HIIT programs, the workouts will, and should, take higher proportionsAnd finally, training changes if you periodize. Optimal off-season training will not have the same distribution as peak racing season.For me, the key, after you find what works best for you, is striking the right balance between the volume of intensity, and recovering from it. That will be unique to each athlete.
Mind... Blown!!! wrote:
I came across this gentleman's site awhile back and was blown away by some of his claims. Starting with this one:
He makes a few other fun claims too, on different threads. Among them are...
- Running 3 or 4 days per week is optimal, even for elites (in his marathon training program comparison where he decides RUN SMART is one of the best choices because of this)
- HIIT is king
Anyway, I thought I'd throw this out there for you piranhas
Funny, when western athletes try Canova's approach they end up overtrained and run terrible in the marathon. The US has just over 30 runners break 2:20 so far in 2015 and most try to do long runs at marathon pace. Go back to the 1980's and we had over a 100 running sub 2:20 and none of them did their long runs at marathon pace. Virtually racing a marathon in training is not training for a marathon. Canova's methods only work if you have a little something extra in your back pocket and it's no GU.
That isn't true at all. Western athletes try to do Canova's Specific Phase without the build up training that precedes it. As a consequence they are poorly prepared to handle it.
It's not a case of Canova's approach not working for Western runners its a case of western runners not understanding Canova's approach and only doing part of it.
This guy has blogged on Canova's specific phase and how/why it doesn't work if you aren't fit enough in the first place!
A tempo is supposed to be run at, or very close to, lactate threshold (~1 hour record pace). A steady run is a run at any challenging pace from ventilation threshold (4-5 hours record pace, 90-95% MP) to lactate threshold.
Interesting study, but I don't agree with his conclusion, or the premise of the guy we are discussing, both of which imply that a 10k race is anaerobic and uses lots of fast twitch fibers.
I ran essentially the same times for 3, 5, and 10K one year when I was running 40 mile weeks with 4x400 when I felt like it, and two years later when I was running 100 mile weeks with tempo, long run, long intervals.
Most runners make their training too complicated. Elites have to add complexity to eke out marginal gains but, the majority of sub-elites and hobby joggers just need to run adequate mileage plus a couple of track sessions each week.
Running a distance workout where you run even pace for around 30 minutes is an important skill to develop. After your tempo do 4x200 @ 1500 effort with 200 jog.
You don't just run 25x400 with 60 second rest and then you're good to lace up your super shoes and race. Running steady is important part of training. People don't like it because it's not glamorous, neither is high mileage. If you do your tempo run correctly you won't feel exhausted.
I ran essentially the same times for 3, 5, and 10K one year when I was running 40 mile weeks with 4x400 when I felt like it, and two years later when I was running 100 mile weeks with tempo, long run, long intervals.
I can believe this. Although the author is likely a clown, I suspect most of us non-elite runners can run at or pretty darn close to our potential without doing tempo runs.
I do tempo runs because I enjoy them and feel like they keep me in decent shape, particularly during base training without much risk. I have no doubt though that just doing easy mileage, strides and adding a hill workout and another session of 5K paced intervals will work pretty effectively for most runners up to at least 10K.
Most runners make their training too complicated. Elites have to add complexity to eke out marginal gains but, the majority of sub-elites and hobby joggers just need to run adequate mileage plus a couple of track sessions each week.
Not even a 'couple' track sessions per week. Most of us are just too fat and running too few miles for all the specific work outs to matter much.
I ran essentially the same times for 3, 5, and 10K one year when I was running 40 mile weeks with 4x400 when I felt like it, and two years later when I was running 100 mile weeks with tempo, long run, long intervals.
I can believe this. Although the author is likely a clown, I suspect most of us non-elite runners can run at or pretty darn close to our potential without doing tempo runs.
I do tempo runs because I enjoy them and feel like they keep me in decent shape, particularly during base training without much risk. I have no doubt though that just doing easy mileage, strides and adding a hill workout and another session of 5K paced intervals will work pretty effectively for most runners up to at least 10K.
I have a hard time believing the other guy didn't improve, he was either overtrained or doing it wrong