I think the idea of being able to isolate your core with planks, crunches, etc. is pretty dumb and ineffective. Core strength is really a product of doing complex movements that engage your core muscles. But the goal is not to have strong core muscles. The goal is to activate the kinetic chain and engage all the relevant muscles. A one legged Romanian deadlift is a great example. You engage everything from your foot to your shoulder and your core is at the center of the movement.
My hill to die on would be trying to manufacture changes in running form. Good running form comes from getting faster. As you run faster, you naturally get more forward on your foot when you strike the ground. Whether you get to the point that you only strike with your forefoot and your heel barely touches the ground or whether you strike with a flatter foot and your heel hits the ground is more a matter of biomechanics that your are born with. While it is possible to alter those mechanics, it really doesn't do much and most people will see their mechanics improve just by training and getting faster.
I think I disagree with both your paragraphs because not everyone will work out their weaknesses simply by focusing on the big picture. A weak core or poor form could even be what's holding back a runner from progressing more effectively. Whether that be through causing inefficiencies or injury. There's a reason we do form drills and core exercises.
I guess you could say the hill I'd die on is that not everything will work itself out in the long run. You need to be deliberate in correcting your weaknesses or else you'll just adapt around them and will be held back.
This especially applies to weight/weight loss.
It's entirely possible to pack on the pounds even while running the highest mileage.
If a coach talks too much about science when explaining a workout, I assume they are not a great coach. Does science matter? Sure, but communication to runners needs to be simple and easy to understand so they can execute and achieve the purpose of the workout.
Hill I'm willing to die on - Distance runners should do legitimate work on speed/power year-round.
By that, I mean distance runners (800-marathon) should have a day of training every 10-14 days or so where raw top speed, muscle fiber engagement, and/or foot-strike (minimizing ground contact time) are the primary focus. I'm not talking about strides. I'm talking about very short, 100% effort sprints and/or steep hills, along with plyos and/or heavy lifting.
I know a lot of distance runners are hesitant to do this, because it usually means a "low-mileage" day. A lot of runners also hesitate to do this because, if done properly, it is a day of high stimulus on your neurological and muscular systems, which means it should be treated as a workout day. That means "sacrificing" a workout that we are more comfortable doing.
But I thoroughly believe it is worth it. I have seen so many distance runners (including myself) who work so hard to improve their basic endurance, their thresholds, their vVO2, etc, start to struggle and start to get less out of their hard work than they should because, as their fitness increases, running at the proper intensity level becomes disproportionately stressful on their legs.
Being purposeful about training your legs can help unlock all the other work you do.
Oh, and those that are concerned about mileage, my experience has been this - if you devote a day (and a workout) every 10-14 days to your legs, your mileage might dip initially, but within a couple of months, your overall mileage for each of these 10-14 day periods can/will be higher because working on your legs will enable you to handle more on the other 9-13 days in the cycle. You will also be able to handle volume in your other workouts, so your overall "workout" volume scarcely suffers, either.
99% of sub elite runners who aspire to be pro should just give up. You are sub elite because of genetics. Once you realize that you can focus of better things and not waste your time with a goal you almost certainly will never achieve.
Hill I'm willing to die on - Distance runners should do legitimate work on speed/power year-round.
By that, I mean distance runners (800-marathon) should have a day of training every 10-14 days or so where raw top speed, muscle fiber engagement, and/or foot-strike (minimizing ground contact time) are the primary focus. I'm not talking about strides. I'm talking about very short, 100% effort sprints and/or steep hills, along with plyos and/or heavy lifting.
I know a lot of distance runners are hesitant to do this, because it usually means a "low-mileage" day. A lot of runners also hesitate to do this because, if done properly, it is a day of high stimulus on your neurological and muscular systems, which means it should be treated as a workout day. That means "sacrificing" a workout that we are more comfortable doing.
But I thoroughly believe it is worth it. I have seen so many distance runners (including myself) who work so hard to improve their basic endurance, their thresholds, their vVO2, etc, start to struggle and start to get less out of their hard work than they should because, as their fitness increases, running at the proper intensity level becomes disproportionately stressful on their legs.
Being purposeful about training your legs can help unlock all the other work you do.
Oh, and those that are concerned about mileage, my experience has been this - if you devote a day (and a workout) every 10-14 days to your legs, your mileage might dip initially, but within a couple of months, your overall mileage for each of these 10-14 day periods can/will be higher because working on your legs will enable you to handle more on the other 9-13 days in the cycle. You will also be able to handle volume in your other workouts, so your overall "workout" volume scarcely suffers, either.
You could also do this the day before a workout. I do my speed stuff before harder days (VO2, hills, etc). It simulates strides and provides an increased training effect. After a while (2-3 months) you're body gets used to the heavy neuromuscular tax and learns to recover better. And just a bit of proof this stuff works, I used to run 150s at 26 seconds at like a ~95% effort (slow as sh*t), now I can cruise a 21 mid around ~90% effort. Albeit that took over 3 years.
If a coach talks too much about science when explaining a workout, I assume they are not a great coach. Does science matter? Sure, but communication to runners needs to be simple and easy to understand so they can execute and achieve the purpose of the workout.
Running science isn't that hard... It can be explained... then dumbed down into short, fun, non scientific phrases used for workout purposes.
Or you can skip the explaining and use the dumbed down, short, fun non scientific phrases.
Just run multiple loops, and pick up drinks when you pass the starting point each time.
Those hydration vests cause you to sweat all the more (as they cover large areas of your skin), and who the hell wants to run while carrying an extra 2-3kgs of weight?
Not too mention water is better on you than in you during a hot summer long run.
Which would lead me to my hill. People obsess over hydrating immediately before or during a run or race. If you’re consistently drinking water throughout the day you’ll be perfectly fine and won’t die going on a 10 miler without water.
You may be right about replacing your shoes every 250 miles. I ran for a decent NCAA program in the 70s, most of the distance guys ran 50+ miles a week. We were issued one pair of shoes per year! I supplemented with buying my own, but other guys just used the school shoes. No wonder so many of us were hurt.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.