van aaken

An injury was the spur that got me interested in trying some of his ideas. I developed a heel bruise and possibly plantar fasciitis about a month after a marathon. I discovered that I could jog slowly, particularly on grass, but any reasonably fats pace ( relative to my ability ) caused very noticeable pain in the injured areas.

So far it is working. My last three long runs went like this:

21 miles in ~4:24

20.83 miles in 3:20

21.5 miles in 3:20

I noticed that the heel pain was lessened the day after the first two long runs. The blood supply may be relatively poor in that area, but all that time on ones feet seems to bring some benefit to that area.

Your progress is great, anytime you are running an hour faster for a route that is .5 longer that is progress. Are these done on road, trails, grass loops, etc? How hilly are the courses? You must now be with another running group as it is unlikely that an entire group made the same progress. What is your target time? If this is putting too much pressure just tell us (those of us on the site) that it is personal- most will understand. Weight changes? Weekly mileage? Any race enroute? Any speed sessions? Do you live in an area where you can run without the elements forcing a change in your routine? Best of luck and if you have a bad day look back in your diary and see where you were at the beginning.

I'm often asked by 3:30-4:30+ marathoners how to improve. I usually suggest they run more, slow down a little, blah, blah, blah. In general, I've been frustrated in my attempts to assist. People have not shown the improvement I had hoped they would or that I thought they should. I can't relate to running a marathon at that speed because I was fortunate to be done much earlier but I did do a few ultras so I know what it's like to be out there that long.

Recently, after reading Ernst's Van Aaken's books and after re-reading one of Tom Osler's old books, I mapped out a marathon training schedule for a 59 year old friend whose marathon PR was 4:40. Basically, I took what he was already planning on doing and modified it. The strongest suggestion I made was that if the longer run exceeded 2:15, then insert walk breaks. When he did his 20 milers, he ran 20-25mins, and walked 5mins - I got the time intervals from Tom Osler. I also had him to the 350/50's when I thought he was getting a little beat up. Anyway, he ran 4:07. Had it not been for a few health problems he had going in, I think he could have even done better. he also set a half marathon PR along the way.

My question to you guys is this: Do you have any idea how Dr Van Aaken would have trained runners at this level? How would you train them based on what you know? If a runner does 5K at 8min pace, you can't really slow them down to a 12min mile in training although I guess you could try. Do you know how Dr Van Aaken handled the middle age beginner?

Sorry to babble on a bit. Hopefully you see what I am getting at. Any info would be appreciated.

All the best.

Where was Jeff Johnson coaching at when he did this? [quote]

I got this story from a friend who is also a very good friend of Jeff's. I believe it was something Jeff has always done and I believe he did it when he was coaching the Farm Team. But I can't swear to any of this and I will ask him and relay the answer, though he had been following this thread at one point and may chime in.

Also, along the topic of walking, I was talking with Peter Snell a few years back and he told me that his own running involved running for about 400 meters and then walking a bit, I think something on the order of 100 meters. He wasn't familiar with Jeff Galloway's training approach, but thought it was a good approach when I explained it to him.

While Peter is a firm believer in endurance training, he believes that you need to do it intensley enough to use glycogen rather than fat as fuel and that for an older runner, it's hard to go fast enough to make that happen on an extended run. Therefore, he likes the idea of putting in some walks as it allows one to go faster without increased effort. That would sort of dovetail with what PDF (PFD? sorry if I've got it wrong) did with his 59 year old friend.

That said, Peter seemed to think that you needed to be doing something close to a 7:00 pace to activate your glycogen burning system. I wondered about that as I would have thought that what you use as fuel is more connected to effort level and heart rate than to an absolute speed, but when I asked him he said that he thought the 7:00 pace was sort of hard and fast.

The progress is misleading as I am recovering from an extremely sore right heel. The long runs were on roads. The first was probably the hilliest and the last was probably the flatest.

The first long run was with a group that ranged from 4:20 marathoners to 5:20 marathoners. The second was alone. The first 8 miles of the 21.5 miler was alone as was the last 3.5. The middle 10 was with the group I trained with the past 14 months or so. 3:12 to 3:49 was the approximate range of that group.

Reach time goal on 4/29/06 is 3:20.

Weekly mileage since the day after Atlanta Marathon is a bit over 50. High week was 64.3. Low week was 4.16.

No speed work as it kills my right foot.

Weighed 2 or 3 pounds less on last long run than at Atl Marathon.

HRE (Rich?) - Do you know why Peter Snell wanted to activate the glycogen burning system? How fit was he when he considered 7:00 pace "sort of hard and fast?" Like you, I figured fuel usage would be based on relative intensity. Just trying to get an idea of how fast 7:00 pace was relative to what Peter could do at the time.

Thanks very much for your contributions.

Paul

Rich it is.

I never felt satisfied with the answers I got when I asked Peter about this, not because he didn't answer completely but because he seems to have drawn a sort of srbitrary line at roughly 7:00 as "glycogen burning" time regardless of how fast or slow you are. He said that when he did his long runs during his base phase in his best years they'd start at about 7:00 and work down as the weeks went on. Now, in a much les fit state, he still seems to consider it a "training pace" and seems to aspire to doing his running at it even if he needs to walk parts of his runs.

As to why he wants to activate the glycogen burning system, it's because he says you need to deplete your alow twitch muscle fibers of glycogen, which happens after about 45 minutes if you run intensively enough (which he seems to think is about 7:00 per mile or better. Once the slow twitch fibers are depleted, you use your fast twitch fibers to continue running. This is supposed to help the fast twitch fibers become involved with distance running so you can actually train those fibers without running at very high speeds or intensities.

I did try to get a better explanation about running at an effort vs. running at a particular pace, but really, I was just not getting it and felt after a while, that I would become sort of a pest if I just kept hammering at this, so I let it go.

Thanks Rich. I guess I'll let it go too. Probably a little over my head anyway.

Cheers,

Paul

I think I'm in over my head as well with something like this. I will say that Lydiard never thought that any one pace was magic and always wanted you to run at a fast, comfortable effort regardless of what specific pace you'd get.

Maybe I'll check around with a few other folks I know who might have some ideas about this. Or maybe someone knowledgeable here will kick in an idea.

For that matter, Vladmir, did Dr.vA ever tell anyone that theyw ere running too slowly?

So how would Dr Van Aaken deal with this?

Let's say you've got a 25-26min 40mpw 5k runner who is preparing for a marathon. They are running 5k at 8:00-8:30 pace and want to run a marathon in the 4:00 - 4:30 range. There are zillions of people like this - maybe not at this web site - but they are out there. How should they train? If you go to a typical pace chart, it will say to do your long run at 10:00-11:00 if you race a 5k at 8:15 per mile. Then the marathon training schedules tell you to work your long run up to at least 20 miles. So there are hordes of runners working up to training runs that last at least 3 1/2 hours at an effort 25-30% slower than 5K race pace. Actually, they end up running much faster than that because most find it nearly impossible to run close to 11 mins per mile.

Maybe this is how the Galloway method was born - who knows. Regardless, it seems that this is a formula for disaster. After having tried to help runners of this level for the past 7 years, it is my observation that everything starts going downhill once the runs get over 2-2.5 hours. The post-long-run recovery just becomes too difficult. They are beat by the time they hit the starting line. When you look back, you realize they were in better shape when they set out on their first 2.5+ hour run. I find it frustrating especially because I can't draw on personal experience.

I intuitively feel that Dr Van Aaken would have had an excellent system for training the average Joe. If anyone has a clue I'd appreciate it.

Thanks very much - sorry so long-winded.

Paul

For what it's worth, in "Marathoning" Steffney has a chapter about how to run under four hours. He starts with tha assumption that the runner is already doing about 35 mpw. He recommends starting with three weekly runs of an hour, progressing to 3 or 4 runs that length with an occasional 6 mile run thrown in and eventually getting a weekly 15 mile run into the mix. He recommends a time of 2:20 for the 15 mile run. Eventually, you get to this schedule:

Mon. 2x6 miles in 57 minutes, 20 minute break (15 minute warm-up jog.)

Tu. Rest

Wed. 1 1/2 hours of easy endurance running

Th. 15 miles on the road in about 2:20

Fr. Rest

Sat. 1 hour easy run

Sun. 3 hour forest run with a 5 minute break every hour if desired

This is supposed to be done three weeks out from the marathon. So there's only ONE three hour run in the mix. Everything else is never longer than 2:20. I'd guess that for someone looking to go in the 4:00-4:30 range you'd go less than 15 miles in those 2:20 runs. That's as close to van Aaken training for a 4 hour marathoner as I can find.

For my part, I agree with you. I think that 2 and half hours of running for someone at this level is generally too much. This is perhaps where my Lydiard orientation shows up. Arthur found that sending slow runners out for his weekly 20-22 miler had them out there slogging along for three or four hours at a pop and that wasn't what Arthur had in mind. So he switched over and had people run for time rather than distance and made 2 hours or a bit more the long run.

If I were advising a runner looking to get into the 4:00-4:30 range, I'd emphasize an overall increase in their running, pretty much on a daily basis with some increase in long runs.

There, I've matched you for long windedness.

In Lydiard's first book, he advised variance in effort, daily. He did not say you should run fast distance every day. I believe he later made statements without precision which made as if he was saying one should run fast every day during distance runs. In his first book, he stated that going slowly would take years to develop the kind of endurance needed to reach top form (fitness).

Now, let's look at the Van Aaken's method. *I think it is fair to say that first glances can be deceiving. Although the major emphasis and introduction to the Van Aaken method (in his book) appeared to advise people to just run long distances slowly - and that would be enough to make a runner fast in races - a closer look revealed that he integrated faster running regularly; though as a small percentage (about 5%).

I have been contacted by runners in the past who asked me why the Van Aaken method wasn't giving them good race results. I asked them if they had done the tempo running (500m to 2000m) that Van Aaken recommended. Almost every time the answer was this: "Uh, no, I thought Van Aaken wanted us to run long distances at 130 pulse." Thereafter,I advised runners to go ahead and add the 5% of each days run at a quicker speed, just as Dr. Van Aaken said, and within 4-6 weeks most runners report that they are running much faster in races - quite a bit faster, actually,in some cases.

I mention this because I think Van Aaken is misunderstood in some cases, just like Mr. Hadd was / is. Slow running (only) isn't the whole answer - not for Lydiard or for Van Aaken. A purposive blend of easier and faster running is the key to implenting their stategies well.

I really like both of their approaches. Both have value. Both will work if implented as advised.

Tinman

HRE and PTF in particular. I am barely above the level you both are referencing so I have some personal experience at training at or near that level.

I think that I am recovering okay from two consecutive 3:20 runs on the past two Sundays. We will see this Sunday.

There may be better ways to train than what I'm doing and I am very aware that you two plus Vladimir and many others on this particular thread are or were much better runners than me.

Peter Snell's theory on burning glycogen to exhaust ST fibers so FT fibers can be activated may be valid. However, I have recently been training with the aim of burning as much fat and as little carbohydrate as possible in hopes of being able to manage a decent, for me, pace in a marathon.

Recall the old bromide....'There is more than one way to skin a cat'.

HRE, Tinman, Bob - Thank you very much for the considerate responses. Excellent information. Very helpful.

Bob - have you been taking walk breaks on your long runs?

Tinman - great point about overlooking the details. It reminds me a little bit of the strides you put in your training schedules. It doesn't seem like much but after a few weeks, you really start to notice a difference in coordination at higher speeds - especially during a base-type period.

HRE - that's a very good schedule. I can see how it could work. Probably the only limiting factor is time since most of these people have jobs, families etc..

Again - thanks!

Paul

There were walk breaks no less than every four minutes in the first long run.

Walk breaks in the second long run were as needed. Probably none until around mile 10, then every mile for a couple of miles then about every 1/2 mile.

No walk breaks in the last lomg run with the exception of four water stops.

The schedule that HRE posted from Manfred Steffny's Marathoning book, circa late 70's, did build up to a lot of minutes. I got the impression that van Aaken, Lydiard and his own experiences were the chief guides for that book.

I take a few days from the thread and there is so much to cover. I once asked him how slow I could run his workouts (I had met a lady and wanted to do some of my distance running with her) and his only requirement was as long as I could keep a running motion. For me this is about 6:00 (or ten minutes miles). Any slower than that and I was no longer keeping a running motion. Remember this was just for me. I know another runner who would run at 12:00 per mile and he looked like he was flying (he was about a 2:30 marathoner). Sometime in the 70's I had the honor of pacing Peter Snell for the running leg of a tri (not so much of a pace as a guide to show him the course) in Sacramento. I think at that time he was still a student and I also asked him about training pace required - he also gave me the same 7:00 per mile information. I did press a little harder with 1)some cannot run a 7:00 mile - let alone train at it? 2) how about a hilly course? 3) what happens when you are running at altitude? I received the same 7:00 is the golden time one must hit. Perhaps he felt that only those who can run at this level are training all others are just running. As for Dr Van Aaken being the coach of the masses- I fully agree. The time I spent with him is among the best times of my life. He would also had made an excellent coach of an developing team (bringing college runners into national/internatinal level).

Great thread guys! I'm new to this thread and still trying to read but would like to share this information from Far East.

There was this corporate coach by the name of Isao Sasaki who coached Eriko Asai, a 2:28 marathon runner (female) and a couple of 2:10~11 guys back in the 80s (he passed away about 10 years ago from cancer). He was VERY heavy in LSD. He was an okay runner in college but all the intense training nearly burnt him out completely. When he moved on to a corporate level, he figured the only way he could compete at that level is to build a much broader base (=aerobic base). He found out that the more he ran, the better he got; and he couldn't run too hard if he wanted to go far so he slowed way down... His male runners were running about 10k (6 miles) per hour = 10-minute-mile pace and Asai was going even slower than that.

One of the first things Asai had to do under coach Sasaki was to go out and ran for 2-hours nice and slow. Day after day she ran for 2-hours. At first she got bored...to death! But as she ran (or I should say "jogged") for a long time, her body learnt to run more efficiently. The more efficient she became, the more enjoyable the run became. Their belief was that, if you have any movement imbalance, you cannot run slowly. He was big into barefoot running and, yes, he was more or less a minimalist.

They did 2~3-hour "LSD" quite regularly--like a couple of times a week; they even went as far as 6-hour hiking/jogging up and down the mountains. During the training camp period, they might even do 90 minutes LSD in AM and 120 minutes LSD in PM. One of Asai's famous lines was "I got passed by this old lady this morning!" Their target heart rate was somewhere between 100~120bpm. Asai eventually went on to make the 1988 Olympic marathon team, barely missing to become the first Japanese woman to break 2:30 (Miyahara became the first in the same race where Asai finished as the second Japanese behind her--she started out too fast following Lisa Martin while Miyahara ran her own pace).

Lydiard wasn't too hot with LSD simply because, he said, "it would take longer to develop necessary cardiac efficiency if you run slower (though it helps with muscular endurance)." But if you have time to devote, as Japanese corporate team runners or so-called professional athletes do, it could certainly become a very effective way to train.

Interestingly, he never mentioned Dr. van Aaken--I don't know if he even knew who he was. He knew Joe Henderson though!

One last thing; to support what Tinman was talking about, they did have "faster" elements as well. They liked to do the ladder of 3k-2k-1k as what they called "controlled running".

I've got to ask about the 2:30 guy who ran 12 minute miles. How much volume did he do and what sort of faster stuff?

Also, that's a fascinating story about your encounter with Peter. It puts a whole new perspective on my chat with him.

Nobby,

Arthur did know EvA. We discussed Dr.v and Arthur was actually very, very complimentary towards him and as you know, hearing Arthur be complimentary toward another coach was not something that happened every day.

Nobby - thanks for the info. Very interesting story. I shouldn't have read that before going to sleep because now you've really got me thinking. Obviously, Ed Whitlock has navigated his way to a similar system; daily 2-3 hour runs at relatively slow paces with regular injections of racing at a variety of distances. I don't believe he ever heard of Ernst Van Aaken and I believe him when he says he ran slow simply because running fast aggravated an achilles injury.

I think one of the most fascinating mysteries - at least it's a mystery to me (along with most everything) - is the therapeutic nature of very slow running. I think when people get hurt or are beat up, they usually think; rest, time off, maybe run less, maybe slow down a little. Rarely does a 15:30 5K guy think a 2hr run at 9min pace will help. But I think you can actually heal yourself this way. Not always - but often. I've sort of stumbled on this myself through trial and error but I've never really understood why it worked.

I can only hypothesize that we are incredible endurance creatures with enormous capacity to cover great distances. Maybe the slow running suits us. Maybe it suits only some of us. Maybe with all our pushing, and striving and craving the easy peasy running helps restore some sort of balance.

Sorry to ramble. Getting late. Thank you all again for the valuable contributions.

paul