the430miler wrote:
please describe your track "intervals"
LOL cuz this guys is gunna help
the430miler wrote:
please describe your track "intervals"
LOL cuz this guys is gunna help
I have to say I agree with British athlete on this one, I do not think it is difficult to get down to 30 minutes for 10k for somebody of reasonable ability, I certainly don't think you need in depth coaching to achieve that kind of level, it is hardly earth shattering.
There are too many people in the Uk who see coaching as the magic formula when in essence the emphasis should be on the athlete doing the right things. I would say that most of the things the average coach suggests are 'one percenters', in other words there is a hell of a lot you can do before it is necessary to get involved or advice from somebody who is very clued up. Coaching is overemphasized by coaches in my opinion, there is too much of the 'my athlete' mentallity in the UK and coaches looking for recognition on the back of their athletes performances, most of the best coaches you will never have even heard of.
People should look at some of the best mot consistent athletes in the world, Ramalla for example, 34 years old, 10 years at the top, does all of his training on a 2 mile loop, every run. No lactate testing, no scientific back up, doesn't even have a physio, just works hard consistently, and guess what NO COACH! Says he gets most of his ideas from magazines and books he has read like 'Running with the Legends'. Intelligent guy with simple ideas and lots of success, the secret is not the coach, it is the dedicationa nd long term goals.
That's all fair comment - tho' 'reasonable ability' is a moving feast depending on who is assessing it - I've heard GB guys in the 27.30s/27.40s put themselves in that category.
Current UK lists suggest getting sub 30 isn't that easy.Several dedicated intelligent well advised guys with GB marathon vests in the last couple of years haven't yet gone sub 30.
Your 'one per centers' comment seems a sound call, and without either talking up coaches or putting down athletes, I'd guess that if Runner A reckons that Coach B can guide them with 5 x 1 percenters at a given stage of their development then that's a significant added value.
Certainly I think better value than the '100mpw for all' mantra.
The fashion for brit training these days seems to be regular track sessions plus a medium amount of mileage, with little regard to whether we are really improving our endurance.
Weekly mileage is not a good measure of endurance fitness. Nor is 6x1000m @ 5000m pace.
Hypothetical Marathon pace is probably the best measure of a 5k-10k runner's endurance, and this is a weak area of fitness for most british distance runners.
Barry Norman wrote:
I have to say I agree with British athlete on this one, I do not think it is difficult to get down to 30 minutes for 10k for somebody of reasonable ability, I certainly don't think you need in depth coaching to achieve that kind of level, it is hardly earth shattering.
There are too many people in the Uk who see coaching as the magic formula when in essence the emphasis should be on the athlete doing the right things. I would say that most of the things the average coach suggests are 'one percenters', in other words there is a hell of a lot you can do before it is necessary to get involved or advice from somebody who is very clued up. Coaching is overemphasized by coaches in my opinion, there is too much of the 'my athlete' mentallity in the UK and coaches looking for recognition on the back of their athletes performances, most of the best coaches you will never have even heard of.
People should look at some of the best mot consistent athletes in the world, Ramalla for example, 34 years old, 10 years at the top, does all of his training on a 2 mile loop, every run. No lactate testing, no scientific back up, doesn't even have a physio, just works hard consistently, and guess what NO COACH! Says he gets most of his ideas from magazines and books he has read like 'Running with the Legends'. Intelligent guy with simple ideas and lots of success, the secret is not the coach, it is the dedicationa nd long term goals.
I agree with nearly all of that. As an example how often do we hear about speed work, specific track sessions, weights sessions, drills etc. etc. etc. Maybe there 5% top be had from a magical combination of these things. Personally I don't see the point wasting time with this stuff before you have the first 95% (i.e. the many months and years of drudgery) correct. What would be more useful to most of us? 2 hours extra out on the roads and trails a week (i.e. 20 miles more per week) or these same two hours spent in the gym/suana/weights room? It's a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.
I'm looking for a training partner
1% improvement for a 30 minute 10k runner is 18 seconds.
5% improvement for a 30 minute 10k runner is 1 and 1/2 miutes - this would represent another level of performance (30minutes to 28-30).
IF the weights, plyos, drills or coaching make the improvements that have been suggested then maybe they are not so useless and I would imagine that a lot of 30 minute 10k guys who have been training hard for a good few years would benefit from these things.
Your 95% corresponds to what Tim Hutchings once said: "95% of coaching is common sense. Then it's about getting that last 5% right."
Obviously as an athlete approaches their peak getting that last 5% correct becomes more and more vital. (And making cock ups in the 95% is always going to show through big style)
Tim's comment also ties in with what Bob Ashwood said in a completely different context. "It's just common sense... but then there's nothing common about sense these days."
Some guys out there are clearly beasting themselves on training that is excessive (either in intensity or quantity) or inappropriate.
Have a look at the piece on Kenyan training methods with Moses Kiptanui and Paul Koech on this page:
http://www.sports-fitness.com/coach/sf/uk/list/coaching_articles
If you have been running at a good level for 5-10 years and you still don't know the basics of what works for you then you are either stupid or have never read or listened to anything about training. If you are continuing to make the same mistakes then the vast majority will change things, people will only bang their head against a brick wall for so long, unless of course a highly regarded coach (and there are plenty of them on that list like this) is telling them to do so!
There is a book called 26.2 which is a rather wide view of the marathon, there is a small piece in there about the Hudspith brothers, the author seems genuinely taken aback by their dedication and level of training, she asks them if they spend much time cross training, in the gym, do anything specific with their diet and one of the brothers says people's better time would be better spent getting in a two hour run, Simon's earlier post is spot on. People want short cuts and magic formulas (have you seen the stuff you can buy in Running shops these days!).
You can do all the lactate testing, VO2 tests, bleep tests, diets, Hypoxic tents, barefoot running you like but if the foundation is not there then the structure will crumble. Unfortunately too many UK athletics do not have that foundation, I think that is evident in the amount of time a lot of our better runners spend injured.
Hearts of Oak wrote:
If you have been running at a good level for 5-10 years and you still don't know the basics of what works for you then you are either stupid or have never read or listened to anything about training. If you are continuing to make the same mistakes then the vast majority will change things, people will only bang their head against a brick wall for so long, unless of course a highly regarded coach (and there are plenty of them on that list like this) is telling them to do so!
There is a book called 26.2 which is a rather wide view of the marathon, there is a small piece in there about the Hudspith brothers, the author seems genuinely taken aback by their dedication and level of training, she asks them if they spend much time cross training, in the gym, do anything specific with their diet and one of the brothers says people's better time would be better spent getting in a two hour run, Simon's earlier post is spot on. People want short cuts and magic formulas (have you seen the stuff you can buy in Running shops these days!).
You can do all the lactate testing, VO2 tests, bleep tests, diets, Hypoxic tents, barefoot running you like but if the foundation is not there then the structure will crumble. Unfortunately too many UK athletics do not have that foundation, I think that is evident in the amount of time a lot of our better runners spend injured.
Thankyou! Do we think that there is anyone in the UK who has got the first 95% right yet? I am by no means stupid and have got the 5-10 years of hard training referred to above. I have certainly not maxed out the first 95% yet but am continuing to try. Unfortunately time and energy is limited and given the choice I am certainly not going to twat about in the gym for an hour when I could be outside getting the miles in.
A final word. At a conference at the GNR recently when asked about diet Jon Brown's reply was "diet is overrated".
In 1999 I ran 800m in 1.53. My coach approached Norman Poole for advice on how I could improve further, specifically asking about the importance of weights and diet. His response was "get him running 70mpw minimum first and then we'll consider the other things". That was for 800m. 7yrs later I'm still failing to run 70mpw regularly, hence I haven't improved!
good reads below...
http://www.geocities.com/ewen_99/r2000_02.html
http://www.team-bennett.com/news.php?newsArticle=39
http://www.canadarunningseries.com/crs/news/jun_14_04.htm
apparently Brown enjoys the odd beer and lives a relatively normal life, he does no gym work from what I've read, and doesn't bother with piggy backs!
Jon Brown? You mean the guy who's mostly injured?
What? Jon Brown? The only male endurance runner in the country who's been anywhere near successful on the world stage in the last decade?
leeds is a good one for a quick 10km before the years end. Ribble valley is competitive. Brighton is a quick course and is the SEAA champs this year. Rob Denmark ran 28:59 there 13 years ago. Eastleigh is a good one in March, as is Dewsbury
Im eastleigh till i die!
hahahaha (whispers LJD)
very clever Mr Beattie. I am not eastleigh till i die, and if i was i would be hoping for a very quick death!
However, back to the matter at hand...eastleigh 10k is a very good race always competitive and a quick course. (Tromans ran 28.30something a few years back.) Totton (in southampton) is an even quicker course a few weeks later but doesnt have the same depth as Eastleigh
Simo, have you read Max Jones' recent pieces on S+C in AW? I'd be really surprised if you'd find a decent enduro coach who'd disagree with the principles of what he says, and I think that's because there is no robust case against it. For sure, people have run some scorching enduro times without ever doing any S+C but I think MJ is right to say that one way or another they'd have run faster (or in slower races, closed faster, badly explained but you get my point I hope) if they had - on top of all the carefully structured mileage etc - been stronger, and everything else equal.
As a smart fella, I think you'll agree that saying that Elite Whippet X ran 27.?? and never set foot in a gym isn't per se a valid argument against S+C.
It's not a provable theory but many elite enduros who never do/did any formal S+C will have, in various ways, gained a lot of relevant and 'transferable' strength through physical activities during childhood/adolescence. Baldini and his farming family an eg, numerous Kenyans in agriculture/light-medium industry type stuff. Invisible training. I'm being v superficial here but I think folks higher up the performance cred ladder would endorse this. In fact i know they would as I ask them about these half arsed ideas.
I'm not suggesting S+C is worthless. Far from it. I just don't see the point of putting the icing on the cake when you are only 3/4 of the way to maximising the effects of other parts of your training (i.e. the running bits!)
Basically, worry about the minutes before you worry about the seconds.
personally i think the sessions are the icing on the cake. Milage and s+c and tempos etc are the 95 % then quick stuff on the track is the 5.