Your body must be able to withstand the high mileage Frank ran. He said in one group speech he ran around 140 miles per week at his peak. His body is also very thin. His legs are like pencils. Remember, any coach will tell you, that the light/strong runner is optimal. They want you like licorice. Elastic, light, with some strength. But many people can not handle high mileage.
Timdog wrote:
Has anyone ever trained with the simple plan that Shorter used? 2 workouts a week, one fast and one strength, as many easy miles in between, a long run, make your hard days hard, and your easy days easy. I like it because it's so simple, but was wondering if anyone has actually tried this?
It was much harder back then too. Didn't he have full time job too?
Here's a verbatim quote from a professional runner of today:
We'd sleep in, go to practice, get a massage, get lunch, take a nap, wake up again, run again and have a late dinner,"
None of that for Frank. He probably couldn't even afford a massage.
Notshorter wrote:
Your body must be able to withstand the high mileage Frank ran. He said in one group speech he ran around 140 miles per week at his peak. His body is also very thin. His legs are like pencils. Remember, any coach will tell you, that the light/strong runner is optimal. They want you like licorice. Elastic, light, with some strength. But many people can not handle high mileage.
Really? I thought the best runners were fat, inflexible and weak. Thanks for bringing me this new valuable info!
Denver Runner wrote:
I actually find that I need three harder workouts a week for HM and marathon training.
...
What? Honestly, this just means you don't have enough of a base. If you do enough aerobic running, the pace naturally drops at the longer distances and you don't lose fitness that fast! If I needed three hard workouts a week for HM training, I'd take up another sport.
it is impressive wrote:
Timdog wrote:Has anyone ever trained with the simple plan that Shorter used? 2 workouts a week, one fast and one strength, as many easy miles in between, a long run, make your hard days hard, and your easy days easy. I like it because it's so simple, but was wondering if anyone has actually tried this?
It was much harder back then too. Didn't he have full time job too?
Here's a verbatim quote from a professional runner of today:
We'd sleep in, go to practice, get a massage, get lunch, take a nap, wake up again, run again and have a late dinner,"
None of that for Frank. He probably couldn't even afford a massage.
I don't think he ever had a full time job for very long if ever. He was a grader for a while at CU's business school. He was in med school briefly, then law school but I can't recall that he ever practiced law. Once he was out of school I think he was pretty much a runner and not much else.
kinda but really not smart wrote:
bingo wrote:I find it easy to run my own tempos at the right pace . . . and impossible to coach my runners to run tempos at the right pace.
The difference is the group setting tends to foster competition. And sending them off to do a tempo on their own lets the slackers do what they do best, which is of course slack, while the overachievers try to overachieve.
Ugh.
You're exactly right. Groups bring out the best in the slackers, but tend to bring out too much for most of the group. Yet, especially for high schoolers, letting them run a good hard effort on their own often means it's unmonitored to the detriment of the vast majority of them.
The easy conversion for high schoolers, in my experience, is 25 seconds slower per mile than one's 5k time. This for a 20-30 minute tempo run. I've also heard it explained that one should be able to hold a conversation, but one should have to take a breath between every two words or so.
For more experienced runners, the best way I've heard it explained is where one can run another two miles at the same pace or faster. This is easier the longer one is going - for a ten miler, run it at HM pace.
I was onedering when you are feeling amorous, do you whisper in the other half's ear: one would like to give one one?
From memory in his book frank suggested doing interval work after a year of aerobic work only. Can anyone confirm that please?
Stout wrote:
Ya, my base phase is pretty much exactly what he described. I'll do one long tempo or fartlek, and then either 200 repeats or hill reps, and other than that it is just lots of easy miles.
I've had fantastic results training like that, not really because it is tons better than other base phase plans, just because it is very easy for me to execute. I don't need to think about it as much, so I find it much easier to get in solid training without really worrying (I can be a bit of a head case when it comes to the nitty gritty)
The first time I specifically tried to follow the Frank Shorter Philosophy was after my senior year in HS, I ran a 4:44 mile, showed up at college 11 weeks later and ran a 4:31 at XC tryouts. I credit the increased mileage that I was able to put in.
I'll repeat there isn't anything special about the plan from a physiological standpoint, it is just very easy to go out and run this properly.
Did you get on your team with that 4:31? Also, I've never heard of a 1 mile XC tryout. School and year?
yadot wrote:
Don't try it. Simple can't work. It has to be complicated to work; so complicated, in fact, that you need spreadsheets, GPS, HR monitor, $175 sunglasses, and a hyperbaric chamber to make any progress.
Exactly. Without a $500 watch a sub 4 hour Marathon is impossible these days.
Timdog wrote:
Has anyone ever trained with the simple plan that Shorter used? 2 workouts a week, one fast and one strength, as many easy miles in between, a long run, make your hard days hard, and your easy days easy. I like it because it's so simple, but was wondering if anyone has actually tried this?
How is this any different from Deek Training?