I totally agree. It's seems very foolish to believe that all runners will benefit from the same training, diet, rest, etc. We should realize people are different. And coaches especially should utilize this fact, rather than overlook it for some "team" aspect. But coaches are of course never wrong, and suggesting that you require something different than they think would probably be foolish on the athlete's part, unfortunately.
Axis Austin wrote:
But coaches are of course never wrong, and suggesting that you require something different than they think would probably be foolish on the athlete's part...
You're DAMN right!
Wow MF, go crawl under a rock and heal up from that beat down
ponytayne wrote:
It is possible, in fact, probable, that in college I was running those workouts too fast. I was trying to keep up with more talented runners all the time. I was probably running them too fast. After I got my hands on Daniel's books - after college - I realized I was probably running them too hard. Yet, even in following his training paces, my running suffered. I had even tried giving as much as two recovery days before and after those days, and it just didn't work for me.
And yes, in spite of your smartassness, we all do react differently to training. The basic physiology is the same - mitochondrial enzyme activities increase, mitochondrial numbers increase, slower phenotype of myosin in the muscle, more myoglobin, greater hematocrit, greater capliarity, etc. However, the immune system is very complex and its reactions to stress differ from person to person - even in those with the same immune type (of which there are 16 known types last I studied). As well, the HPA axis in each person reacts differently to stresses - emotional and physical, including athletic training. I have a phd in physiology. I damn well know the adaptations to training, and I also know that NO form of biological science is as black and white as you imply it to be. Everyone does not react the same to all types of training.
Bruce Lee method... use what works, strip away what doesn't.
marathonfantasticgotowned wrote:
Wow MF, go crawl under a rock and heal up from that beat down
Does your mom know that you talk dirty?
idiot alert wrote:
marathonfantasticgotowned wrote:Wow MF, go crawl under a rock and heal up from that beat down
Does your mom know that you talk dirty?
I shoulda spelled it out MF is short for marathonfantastic, sorry for the midunderstanding.
Couple (I guess more than a couple) things (1) not everyone is the same, whether you can see the difference (body height for example) or not (muscle fiber type, tendon connections, cardiac muscle, for example). (2) The basic difference between scientists and coaches -- Scientists learn somethng through research and conclude that if you do such and such, there is a PROBABLE chance that this or that will result. Coaches (and many athletes) like to think that if you do such and such, this WILL BE the result. (3) If you try something and it never works, may as well try something else. And if the coach says you must do this and it doesn't work for you (assuming you didn't try to make it not work just to irritate the coach), then you and the coach need to adjust your thinking or you need to get a new coach. (4) If you tend to know of a particular strength, which is associated with good performances, and weaknesses that you feel you need to improve upon, work on the weaknesses early in the season and take advantage of your strengths when it is time to perform well. (5) Do what makes you feel good and for goodness sake avoid what leads to injury. Always remember that the best way to treat injury is to avoid it.
jtupper wrote:
The basic difference between scientists and coaches -- Scientists learn somethng through research and conclude that if you do such and such, there is a PROBABLE chance that this or that will result. Coaches (and many athletes) like to think that if you do such and such, this WILL BE the result.
I know that you've long been both scientist and coach, but I'm still a little surprised to read this from you. My impression is that many "scientists" -- mainly, bad scientists armed with Ph.Ds -- have an unwarranted certitude about what works and what doesn't. (For example, running more than 70 mpw is a waste of time, because lab studies show no additional increase in VO2 max.) In contrast, the better coaches are fundamentally pragmatists -- figure out what works and what doesn't, and leave the physiological explanations for others.
The problem with many studies in exercise physio. is their
duration. You cannot compare a certain training regimen
that last a few weeks and long-term development used by
coaches in practice. This is probably the reason why most elite runners do significantly more than 70mpw and yet
there is no gain in VO2max over 10 weeks (or whatever).
Of course, there is no real contradiction with sports science and the knowledge of coaches.
bump
xxx wrote:
Of course, there is no real contradiction with sports science and the knowledge of coaches.
Except that sports science is a million years behind and will never catch up.
defender of the bashed wrote:
You're not going to find someone who reached a high level in this sport doing only mileage and tempos.
Mark Nenow reached a high level.
Weider wrote:
defender of the bashed wrote:You're not going to find someone who reached a high level in this sport doing only mileage and tempos.
Mark Nenow reached a high level.
Don't forget Rev Norm Green, who set a bunch of national age group records in the 80's:
M- 10
T- 7
W- 10
T- 7
F- 5
S- 15
S- 7
All runs at 5:45-6:00 pace, or about 30-45 seconds slower than race pace.
I would say that you may not be recovering enough. During the workout, and after. If you are running 6 minute pace for your base and then start doing 2 w/os a week,you need to start running slower on your regular days or youll be fried. also, it is possible that you are running too fast during base. I know I personally run only high 6's for base(14 flat 5k pr), and I feel very fresh going into the start of a season, strong as hell, but not even close to race fitness. Base should be EASY, and overdoing it will hurt your season once intervals start. Also, 80mpw of base is not equal to 80mpw with two interval sessions. that load of work is much more, and you shud build up your mileage with intervals. start with 60 mpw and 2 workouts, or maybe 70mpw and 1 workout.
just some theories.
And while every athlete is different, people are over rating how different we are. We are all human and the basic laws of the human body apply to all. The physiological benefits of intervals is fact.
Who is marathonfanastic supposed to be? Are you saying that's me? Wrong. And a lot of other posters have backed up the OPs assertion, as well as mine. Besides, jtupper backed up our thinking, too.
It's cool we got jtupper to post on this thread.
ponytayne,
Don't misunderstand -- someone was giving you props. Go back and read the first page. On the first page, "Marathon Fanastic" basically said people like you think your special and don't really know what they are talking about, and you wrote a great reply, basically saying you did -- i.e. he got "owned" by you.
bump
Ah. I see what happened.
Thanks Ray-San
For me it was the opposite. During the pandemic I started jogging and built up to 60-70 miles for a few months with some tempos at 6:40 and ran 38:15 off this in my first ever race. After that I cut the mileage down to 40, started doing intervals for the first time (400m repeats) and then 2 months later ran 37:40. Then with longer intervals it went down to 37:01, still on 40 miles. It seems that polarized training works for me but I enjoy tempo runs a lot more. I wonder if I could get the same effect by doing strides in the tempo run.