ADVICE REQUESTED: Please Help a Stagnated Distance Runner in His Last Season

High School Distance Runner,

Dude, I'm going to give you the hard truth:

You can't run competitively for a D1 school. If you had just started and really hadn't trained much, I'd be more open to thinking you could, but you are extremely injury prone for such a young runner and with a 3200 time of just 11:19 (set two years ago at that), that just isn't going to cut it. I don't mean to sound harsh, and on this message board there will always be people who will tell you that you can do it no matter what, even if your 3200 PR was 30 minutes.

You need to have a 3200 time about a minute and a half faster than that 11:19 of yours, and then hope from there that you can put in a lot of training miles and stay injury free.

As I see it, you've got two options:

1) Go to the D1 school and run for recreation or fitness or to set your own PRs.

2) Go to a DIII school and still expect not to score points for your team (though you might if your team sucks hard).

I'm all for dreaming and going after your dreams, but sometimes you just have to be realistic. You're no where even close to considering being able to run D1.

Good luck.

High School Runner,

It's all about power to weight ratios.

Dude, you are 33%heavier than you were in 2003.

That makes a big difference. That would be like my 175lb turning into 230-ish and me still trying to be faster.

The proportional weight gain was working against you, and the injuries very well have occurred because of the change.

If you gained 3 inches, you had 1.4 lbs per inch (60"/82lb), you should have gained 4.2 lbs. You gained 26.

I agree with dropping the races until the fall. Re-focus on 6 week cycles of aerobic work and a week of reduced mileage for crosstraining on the 7th week. This will give you three good cycles of aerobic base improvement to buile on this summer and fall.

Screw the guys saying you suck.

But, look long-term. Being short sighted will just increase the to injury potential.

It'll pay off.

And if you don't know, it's damn hard to be patient.

But, it's easier when your confident in your decision.

If you have the maturity to match your work ethic, we'll read about you here in a couple years.

Growth Spurt wrote:

If you have the maturity to match your work ethic, we'll read about you here in a couple years.

What a load.

HSDR:

Your lengthy replies in response to the multiple advice provided to you is indicative of your hard-headedness. You are smart and have clearly read enough to know the nomenclature, but I'm not so sure you're listening. Here's my summary of your thread:

You: must run hard to run faster, why am I slow, everything seems easy, I work hard, need to work harder, must run faster...

Everyone else: you are tired, you are tired, back-off, try something new, what you're doing is too much, rest, you are tired, what you're doing is not working, you are overworked....

How much longer can this go on?

I think your replies are redundant. Stop for a moment and dispense with your perceived justifications of your training and consider a new approach to your training.

Stop your interval work. Stop your LT runs. Stop your strides. Stop all of that.

Focus instead and almost exclusively on your aerobic fitness. Are you sure you are aerobically fit? How can you talk about LT workouts and the like if you don't know?

Have you considered running with a heart rate monitor?Perceived effort is woefully subjective - you might be feeling a lot better than what your body is actually exerting. On my very first run after acquiring my HRM, I was surprised to find out what I thought was easy was actually 93% of my max.

A HRM does not lie, your perception will. My advice is to go purchase a cheap one - a very good Ironman 100-lapper can be purchased on ebay for $70. Others are even cheaper than that.

Figure out your HR max (absolutely do NOT use the age formula) by doing this test (courtesy of Pete who posts here, but seems to me a modified Hadd test):

800 all-out, rest 30s, 400 all-out. Highest HR observed is your max.

For several weeks, steadily build mileage by doing nothing faster than 80% of your HR max. If that means 10 minute miles+, so be it (the idea is that as you get fit, your pace will drop with the same level of intensity).

If this all sounds familiar to all of you, well then here's the obligatory Hadd thread link:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=91048&thread=91048

This is important, if you intend to read - read all of it. You won't get the whole picture, if you read only parts of it. Also, I hesitate to give this to you because it is for those over 17 and requires high mileage. That said you should read it to get a sense of what a good aerobic base will do for you. You should be able to adapt the core principles to your training as I have.

I don't run more than 50 miles per week, but I have certainly improved for the better.

Never in my life would I imagine running as slow as 8:20 pace, but that's what I did for over a month (I ran 6:15 for my LRs in college). Now as my fitness has turned the corner, I am now running as fast as 7:05 for 18 miles at the same HR as when I did those 8:20s. I am still improving and that pace will drop even further.

Finally, ignore everyone that says you can't run on a D1 team. Every team needs a 7th man in CC. Ours could barely break 36 min in the 10K. We weren't a great team, but that's not the point. If your dream is merely to run on the team. Keep working on it and you may get there. Don't mistake running as your career - just learn to run and love it - no matter how fast or slow you are.

Flome,

You are a troll.

Take your glass is half-full, jaded, cynical comments, write them down, put them in a box, mail them to yourself and stuff them in your ass.

The postage you will spend will save us the time of continuously having to put you in you place.

Mr. Flome:

There was someone on this thread (I believe he posted as "ttc") who said with slower PR's than mine in HS he ran DI.

So I respectfully dismiss your notion of "realistic."

Even for someone like Haile Gebrselassie, it would not have been "realistic" to think of World and Olympic titles at any young age.

Running DI in college is much less an honor than that, but still something worth trying for. So, as I said to someone else, you can help or you cannot, but if not, why bother with the effot to speak?

The math for that ratio seems untenable.

If, for instance, I grew from 5'4" to 6'0" (unlikely) and maintained 1.4 pounds per inch, I would be 115 pounds at 6'0". If I wasn't dead by then, I would be soon after.

At least, the number I was given was more. I honestly look very similar to when I was 5', 82 pounds. I am slightly taller, but everyone else has said I retain the look of a distance runner (thin). So hopefully, gaining weight (and I did not try to do it; it happened with me even when increasing mileage) did not hamper me so badly.

Thanks for the advice anyway.

i've concluded that you will never be successful. you're convinced that your way is the right way even though it isn't working. and you have argued against the input everyone on this board has given.

so i'll tell you what you want to hear. you're not working hard enough. you should be doing 10x150 every day. threshold runs 3 times a week. and you should bump up your mileage to 90/week. sure, you may get injured, but you'll start running the times you want by subscribing to this plan. good luck.

I stop for 6 seconds during some easy runs after running continuously at a somewhat faster pace and take my heart rate. It isn't as accurate, but even Hadd mentioned in his giant thread that the Russians used to do this in lieu of purchasing more expensive equipment (and I have no job, so there is little way of me obtaining a HRM).

But I do know more or less what my maximum HR is, even not using the age formula (from taking it after VERY hard workouts immediately and after prolonged sprinting, I would say it is right around 210).

I could be wrong, though, as I did a 2,000m time trial one summer with mono (in hindsight, not a bright move, especially considering it was 90+ degrees) and my HR, at least by taking the pulse, seemed to register north of 230. I have heard that this is possible (higher than 220) but rare.

Anyway, the reason I protest that it IS easy is because I am not like many a runner (high schoolers in particular) who haphazardly does the training.

I do know what my effort is and the heart rates that correspond (I might be able to guess the blood lactate levels if requested, at least at all paces below the lactate threshold).

And to a degree I follow the basic advice of Hadd, at least as far as really taking the easy days EASY (and I go uncomfortably slow if I have to).

But I do not have a coach to monitor charts of heart rates over months and track my progression.

And, because I am slower than many that Hadd coaches (if not all), I would think I could improve with normal training, even taking care about easy days, before starting a program like that.

hfhgf wrote:

i've concluded that you will never be successful. you're convinced that your way is the right way even though it isn't working. and you have argued against the input everyone on this board has given.

so i'll tell you what you want to hear. you're not working hard enough. you should be doing 10x150 every day. threshold runs 3 times a week. and you should bump up your mileage to 90/week. sure, you may get injured, but you'll start running the times you want by subscribing to this plan. good luck.

That isn't true.

As we speak I have done this very week what nearly everyone has suggested and dropped the workouts and done only easy runs.

I am not at all convinced my way is right, particularly considering I have directly admitted it is wrong (i.e., not working).

HSR,

My ratio was not meant to be taken empirically. I was trying to illustrate a growth spurt that was evident when I read your post.

In other words, there may be a good reason to disregard your previous poor performances (changing mechanics, power, rhythm etc).

Glad to hear you have taken on some of the advice though.

High School Distance Runner wrote:

As we speak I have done this very week what nearly everyone has suggested and dropped the workouts and done only easy runs.

I am not at all convinced my way is right, particularly considering I have directly admitted it is wrong (i.e., not working).

Good. The chorus is deafening.

One of the last things you learn achieving adulthood is to accept counterintuitive wisdom.

You read Hadd and still did that kind of training? I think I am moving to that camp that believes you see what you want to see. You do what you want to do.

With all that you have read about Hadd and if you subscribe to it, why have you done all that training? If you are going to believe in something, then follow the course. Your training shows a gross and comprehensive misunderstanding of Hadd's philosopy. It is a complete bastardization of Hadd's training irrespective of whether you take your easy days easy. I can only shake my head.

In the past 4 months I have done almost all my runs at 155 or under (81% of max), most at 150 or under. Once a week, I run a marathon pace run at 165 HR (88% of max). What has happened in 4 months? My time has fallen from a 1:24 20K (Oct) to a 1:22 Half (Jan). Absolutely no strides, no intervals, no tempo runs, no fartleks, not even Hadd's 200/200s. This isn't exactly a controlled experiment, but do you get the idea?

I'm no where close to completing my base phase yet and my times are coming down fairly dramatically.

Fair enough about the expenditure - I thought it was a bit of a luxury item myself until I started using it. Just keep in mind that the pulse thing for 6 seconds is extremely inaccurate. You might be counting 16, but since you are counting in 10s, you essentially are rounding down. Hence your HR might be closer to 170 which is your HR threshold for an easy run. Additionally, the instant you stop (even slowing down), your HR drops almost immediately. I have done this test many times. The instant I stop, within a sec or two, my HR can slow 5-15 beats. Put that together, if you're counting anything higher than 15, you could be running too hard.

I would ask what your pulse counts are on your easy days, but I am skeptical whether you will provide an honest number and at this point I really don't care.

Final word: go back and reread Hadd, Renato, Kellog, Lydiard - no, don't pick the portion that you think pertains to you - read them in their entirety, understand them in their entirety, and then apply. The common link among all of them is you need a rock solid aerobic base which typically takes months, sometimes half a year.

If you achieve this rock solid foundation and are still running those times, you may then want to reevaluate your goals.

No need to call me "Mr." Flome. I see my comments to you as helpful. I would not have provided them otherwise. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, so if you want to hang your hat on that, go ahead. I would say though that you are even further in the hole than most who see big progress after high school simply because you've already done some decent training with just very modest success. People think I intend to slam when giving such advice. Nothing is further from the truth. Perhaps you will be great at something else. So far, running hasn't proven to be it. There's nothing sadder than seeing someone foolishly chase a dream that isn't meant to be (see American Idol contestants or the movie "American Movie"). As many exceptions as there that ran D1 after being no good in high school, there are many more who sucked in high school and still sucked after high school. I never ran a 3200 in my life as slow as your PR, and while I could have, I didn't run D1. Go do something that involves your strengths. You'll get way more people here telling you to go for it, because they all have this little voice in the back of their heads saying "If you just train, you can do it." I'm here to tell you that NO, you can't. Talent is a HUGE limiting factor, and you've given your talent enough time to shine through and so far you've got a 5:14 1600 and an 11:19 3200. In the words of Simon Cowell, "It simply isn't good enough - sorry."

HSDR:

This is out of the blue, but might you have EIA (exercise induced asthma)? Your mention of allergies brought it to mind. One of the symptoms, in runners, is an inability to improve after a year or two of running, despite all efforts. Wheezing (not just breathing hard) during runs is another sign. If you feel like your breathing/oxygen intake is the limiting factor, rather than leg strength/endurance, in your races, this might be another sign (i.e., what do you feel limits you in races, your ability to breathe or your legs?).

This is not to negate any of the good advice you've received here re your training. When you posted your last four weeks of training, my first thought was that you had way too many hard runs in there. Glad to hear that you've eased up on yourself. With your history of injuries (quite a list for a young runner) and frustrating progress, I think it's good that you're giving another approach a try.

Good luck.

I never ran a 3200 in my life as slow as your PR, and while I could have, I didn't run D1. [/quote]

It's always all about Flome, isn't it. He could have run D1 but didn't. And he was way faster than "stagnated" runner. So it must be impossible for "stagnated" to run D1.

Well, I'm going to make this post about me, and draw a different conclusion than you, Flome. I ran D1. And there were times when I was overtrained and would have awful races--4:30 mile, 8:50 3k. Once I got out of those periods I would immediately return to the norm, which generally hovered around 4:05 and 8:10. So if stagnated is truly overtrained, it's possible that he's ripe for some big imporvements once his body is rested.

Another point: there were some members of our team who ran as slow as 16:30 for 5k. Coach liked walk-ons provided they worked hard.

just a thought in another direction here...

have you had a thorough physical with blood work testing for all of the usual issues that make you too tired to run?

you don't mention fatigue but if you were anemic, hypothyroid, etc...you may not even realize that you are tired and are continuing to train on through it which is going to break you down and cause injuries.

You remind me of a kid I coached a few years ago. He ran 19:15 for 3mi XC, Mile: 5:27, 880yds: 2:20, 2Mile: 11:49. He ran all his runs at around 7:00/mi pace after which he would be totally tired. This kid was 6’2” and 117lbs and always getting sick and broken down.

When I started coaching him after XC season I had him slow down to around 8-9:00/mi and build up to 60mi/wk (he was doing 35-40mi/wk before). All he did was long slow distance and a couple of times a week I would have him do 6-8 accelerations of around 20 seconds within his run, fartlek style. When January came around I introduced threshold work once a week in the form of 2X 2400M at current 5K +1:30 which was 19:15 (he ran 18:45 on a New Years Day race) however all other workouts stayed the same. From mid February to the end of March we added 3X 1000M run by accelerating each 200M starting at threshold (the goal was to breakdown the pace: 0:45, 0:43, 0:41, 0:39, 0:37) with full recovery one to two times a week and the mileage was reduced by 15%. If he had a race then one or both 1000M sessions were dropped in favor of the race however it was understood that he would do some substantive running after the race.

In April we began to focus the work towards maximizing his performance for the league championships. The main two workouts are one session of sharp speed: 12X 100M with relaxation while moving fast being the goal and 800M Trial however the volume is still around 40-45mi/wk.

His times at the end of the season were:

800M: 2:14

1600M: 4:55

3200M: 10:53 (only ran twice)

Here you are very simple training for progression. I think that you have fallen into a trap that many runners encounter which is excessive analyzing the training plan. Sure knowledge is good however it is good to understand the basis for each training session. For example threshold paces in mediocre or untrained athletes is only slightly faster than their aerobic pace. However you hear especially on this site, runners who focus on this element or others of the training rather than the plan and reaction to the training in the plan.

I hope this helps and good luck with this season.

I did not say that I followed HAdd's plan exactly.

I have no doubt it can work for a distance runner, but for a high school runner within external time constraints, it is not possible for me to spend months running at 9:00 per mile pace and little else (which is close to what my pace might be at 140 HR).

Also, I am not sure whether his program is ideal for a miler. For a half-marathoner, certainly. For a miler, not so much.

What I took from it was to slow down the easy days.

I have read material from all those coaches you mentioned. As stated earlier, it is not that I am unwilling to do it properly, but that apparently (according to everyone who has read my training) I lapse into doing the training incorrectly.

So I find your harsh indictment of my "failure" to do the Hadd method (which I never professed to doing in its entirety) somewhat unnecessary.