Ryan Hall takes full day off

wtf________ wrote:

seems about as arbitrary as the number of days in a week

By your "logic" you may as well train 24 hours a day seven days per week then.

That is what I was talking about the trade off between volume and intensity.

Do you play dumb in real life or just on the internet?

if there were 8 days in a week would you suggest taking off every seventh or 8th?

wtf________ wrote:

if there were 8 days in a week would you suggest taking off every seventh or 8th?

Brilliant point! You win!

Mzuuungu wrote:

Ooooooooooh... I'm implying it now? Haha... is that just your way of admitting I didn't actually SAY it?

I said the maximum balance between intensity/volume will be a trade off.

I said that taking on e day off/week allows greater intensity.

I said that MOST Kenyans take Sunday off.

I DIDN'T say anything other than that...

Honestly, my main issue is that I don't understand the offensive, pretentious tone you've taken the entire thread. The entire thread you've berated people, claiming that you are trying to inform all the "closed-minded people" who "don't know what they are talking about." When someone says that it's possible to recover while running 7 days per week, you say:

Mzuuungu wrote:

Why don't people who haven't achieved anything in the sport insist that they know more than people who have?

So yeah, you implied that your way is the only way. Anyone that says otherwise, you insult as being uninformed and unaccomplished (Why don't you share your credentials with us, since they're so pertinent?). Or the hilarious accusation that someone doesn't know what a "hard day" is, because of how he structures his training.

Obviously you can train harder the other six days if you take the seventh off. That's not rocket science. But training through cumulative fatigue doesn't mean you aren't training as hard. Plenty of world elites train seven days per week. Plenty train six days. Neither one implies harder training.

I answered you respectfully and fairly every time you said something. I did not do that to people who were rude or condescending to me. If you can find a place where I was rude to you, please point it out (and, I am talking about BEFORE you started telling me what I was "implying.") I clearly stated that neither method implies harder training (just a shift between intensity/volume). And, with all due respect - some of the earlier posters on here did make it abundantly clear that they had NO idea what they were talking about with regards to elite athletes. I hardly think that it was pretentious to point that out to them (while they were trying to tell me how little I knew)? As for sharing my credentials - should I also jump into a lions den? Or stick my head in a shark's mouth? Plenty of elites and managers read these boards, but we don't post our names because it is not worth the hassle.

You have yet to respond to the logs I have posted...

haha YO wrote:

You have yet to respond to the logs I have posted...

Because they don't contradict ANYthing I have said. Do you really not understand that???

I have not said that training 7 days/week cannot work. Do you hear me yet???

Didn't seem to have a negative impacy on BYU boys Ed Eyestone and Doug Padilla? From what I understand they had to take 2 years off during mission??

To allow for adequate recoveries from this intensive training, one rest day or week is built into the schedule. No doubt those who are hooked on high mileage or massive volumes or low-intensity work will see only an extra 52 lost training days in addition to the end of season lay-off that very few take yet is so essential. Always remember that under-recovery is effectively over-training and that excessive distance running at any pace will end in injury. Success at the top level in modern middle distance racing requires a lot of very hard and intensive speed and speed endurance work. Without an adequate maintenance programme using great care and proper recoveries, break-down will occur even quicker.

-Peter Coe

I dug out some of my "How They Train" books and looked at the profiles of 83 runners whose careers were at their peaks between 1900 (Nurmi, Ritolla, Johnny Hayes, etc.) and the early 80s.

Seventy three of them ran seven days a week. Seven had a day off, Hayes had four off, and three were unclear. If we assume all of them had a day off it's 73-11 for the seven day a week runners.

I'd bet heavily that if you looked at the training of most people who get into the annual lists of top fifty or top hundred times you'll see more of them run seven days a week than six. But you'll also likely see a good representation of six day a week people.

There's probably not one right answer. Shorter and Rodgers reallydidn't rest much at all unless they were hurt. Hill never missed a day but had two stretches a year of 4-6 weeks each where he only ran 30-40 miles and thought it was the rest periods that got him to international class.

Emil Puttemans ran seven days a week but had something like 3-4 weeks at the ebd of the year where he didn't run at all.

If you need rest, take it. But there are various ways of doing it. There's nothing magic about scheduling a weekly day off.

runnrgrl wrote:

YES!

I was just scrolling through and about to write a reply about the whole "less is more" philosophy for the US in the late 90's. Yeah, turns out it doesn't work.

The resurgence of American distance running can be attributed to paying attention to international coaches like Lydiard, Canova, etc. and running more miles and workouts that integrate longer intervals.

There's no such thing as "less is more." Hard work = results. Also, many more people think they are "overtraining" than actually are. You're just tired. Get over it, wussy.

This has nothing to do with low vs. high mileage, idiot. You can run the same mileage on 6 days/weeks as on 7.

However Hall is not getting to rest as much in between runs. If you he's running 2x a day 6 days a week then he not getting as much daily rest as running 1 x a day 7 days a week.

Every training program should have a 'rest day' for Geb it meant just doing one run instead of two. For Hall it may mean not running at all.

As long as the mileage and intensity is there on the other 6 days it shouldn't matter.

Mzuuungu wrote:

haha YO wrote:

Why don't people understand that you can recover without taking the day off?

Why don't people who haven't achieved anything in the sport insist that they know more than people who have?

Let's see, you seem to be implying that I don't know anything about the sport because I think it is possible to recover without taking the day off. This suggests that you feel that one day off a week is neccessary. I show you some logs of some very, very high level athletes who don't take time off yet you come back and say "Well I never said you cannot run well by running every day" Bull$hit, what do you call above?

In my original post, I was not calling out the 6 day a week people as being wrong, only saying that it is very possible to get in good recovery while still running. That is what works for me and works for a lot of very top level athletes. Nothing revolutionary there. Yet you come back with some pompous, arrogant reply which seems to be standard for you to others on thread and wonder why everyone is bashing you. Hmmmmmm

haha YO wrote:

If you can't run 7 days in a row without getting injured you are doing something wrong in your training. Sorry, that's the way it is. Most likely you are running your easy days too hard or hammering workouts. My point before was that you can recover and still run in a day, not a revolutionary concept and one that will pay off more divedends for your running down the road. How do you get better at something? By doing it, a lot, everyday. Running is no different.

No that is not the way it is.

Where does this naive belief that you can recover more by not running at all than you can by running easy? There is no appreciable difference in how much you recover between the two but the latter has benefits for your overall running.

Oh Brother wrote:

haha YO wrote:

If you can't run 7 days in a row without getting injured you are doing something wrong in your training. Sorry, that's the way it is. Most likely you are running your easy days too hard or hammering workouts. My point before was that you can recover and still run in a day, not a revolutionary concept and one that will pay off more divedends for your running down the road. How do you get better at something? By doing it, a lot, everyday. Running is no different.

No that is not the way it is.

Tell me why not then.

You are delusional.

clearing the bs up wrote:

To allow for adequate recoveries from this intensive training, one rest day or week is built into the schedule. No doubt those who are hooked on high mileage or massive volumes or low-intensity work will see only an extra 52 lost training days in addition to the end of season lay-off that very few take yet is so essential. Always remember that under-recovery is effectively over-training and that excessive distance running at any pace will end in injury. Success at the top level in modern middle distance racing requires a lot of very hard and intensive speed and speed endurance work. Without an adequate maintenance programme using great care and proper recoveries, break-down will occur even quicker.

-Peter Coe

Yes, but you are clearly overlooking the fact that ha ha YO is far more knowledgeable than Peter Coe.

The only thing that would make this thread even more enlightening would be for Sprint Geezer to start giving us his opinion about rest days.