What is the most overrated part of training? What is most overlooked that shouldn't be?

see it when I believe it wrote:

Best of the best? wrote:

84.3 "Physiologist in training," 15:12/30:55 runner

79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner

I said Gallowalkers..

A classical logical fallacy from left field.

-1.0/10 even by Letsrun standards.

EP for Dummies wrote:

[quote]so question this wrote:

So anti-v02 maxers.

Is all training at 3K to 5K race pace a waste of effort? Just mileage and speed?

Training at 3k to 5k pace is great for racing at those paces for many reasons other than VO2 max. VO2 max increases as a byproduct, a moderate amount, though there's no evidence you're really reaching your highest potential VO2 max doing only this type of training.

Aren't 3 and 5k paces just two points on a continuum of paces, stretching from recovery jogs to acceleration/max velocity, that you can train at. When it fits into your overall plan, train at these paces, and maximise the body's adaptation to those particular paces.

There is also a school of thought that training at 10k pace (cruise intervals) is excellent to promote good running mechanics, vVO2Max and lactate clearance without being too harsh, and can be safely done all year.

EP for Dummies wrote:

so question this wrote:

So anti-v02 maxers.

Is all training at 3K to 5K race pace a waste of effort? Just mileage and speed?

Training at 3k to 5k pace is great for racing at those paces for many reasons other than VO2 max. VO2 max increases as a byproduct, a moderate amount, though there's no evidence you're really reaching your highest potential VO2 max doing only this type of training.

If you really want to increase VO2 max, do crossfit tabata workouts or lots of XC skiing. Those are more effective at increasing VO2 max than repeats at 5k pace. But they won't get you much better at racing a 5k.

Actually, I'm an XC skier. The skiing per se doesn't raise your V02 max. It's the amount of training that you can do; low impact while using more muscle groups than other aerobic sports.

But as mentioned in other posts, in the US at least they tend to overemphasize V02 max training (what they call Level 4)

Strawman fallacy wrote:

see it when I believe it wrote:

I said Gallowalkers..

A classical logical fallacy from left field.

-1.0/10 even by Letsrun standards.

+1

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Refusing to accept that you are more gifted than others is an insult to people who are injury prone.

That's totally hypocritical; one could say stubbornly insisting that HRE is talented is an insult to all the hard work he put in.

There are tons of reasons for injuries, most think they can't handle beyond some arbitrary mileage cap, but usually, the problem is somewhere else. That could be a whole separate topic. If you want to play the genetics card, that's just taking the easy way out.

Be happy with your talent - Most millennials don't even have the genetics to wake up at 6 AM!

As I'm the "college aged runner who cannot run even 60 miles a week, a level he managed early in his high school years" to whom HRE is referring, I'll chime in again.

I think that it's possible part of the reason I eventually broke down was because I was very tough on my body as far as nutrition, or lack of it (borderline anorexic). I thought I was doing the right thing when I was doing it.

how important is sleep? HRE he wasn't sleeping much in his best years.

Is sleep overrated and we really only need 5-6 hours a day? is a lot of sleep one of those things like nutrition where it only helps you eek out that extra 1%?

cuz if so, I'd argue the other 99% are far more important. An athlete doing 100 mpw sleeping 5 hours a day with terrible nutrition will beat an athlete getting 8 hours of sleep with perfect nutrition and perfect recovery

I seemed to have my best years when I had minimal sleep but slept like I was dead on whatever sleep I could get.

Sometimes having extra time to sleep leaves you staring at the ceiling for way too long.

Not an expert, but 5-6 hours of sleep plus a short nap is better than 8 hours in many ways. There are ways to improve the quality of that sleep as well. The 8 hours/day is like the 8 glasses of water/day thing, it shouldn't be treated as a law.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Some people are more genetically gifted than others in handing high mileage without getting injured.

.

How do you know that? What genes are involved and how do they work? Obviously some people are more fragile than others but there is no way to know if genes are involved no matter how much someone may believe that they are. Even if there are a handful of people who cannot run even 60-70 miles a week those people are outliers and should not be held up as an example of what most runners need to do.

amdthatsme wrote:

As I'm the "college aged runner who cannot run even 60 miles a week, a level he managed early in his high school years" to whom HRE is referring, I'll chime in again.

I think that it's possible part of the reason I eventually broke down was because I was very tough on my body as far as nutrition, or lack of it (borderline anorexic). I thought I was doing the right thing when I was doing it.

That seems very possible. I don't know if you took my post as an insult as someone else here did but there was no insult intended. I really was trying to toss out a useful idea, and I wish you well.

agc5k wrote:

how important is sleep? HRE he wasn't sleeping much in his best years.

Is sleep overrated and we really only need 5-6 hours a day? is a lot of sleep one of those things like nutrition where it only helps you eek out that extra 1%?

cuz if so, I'd argue the other 99% are far more important. An athlete doing 100 mpw sleeping 5 hours a day with terrible nutrition will beat an athlete getting 8 hours of sleep with perfect nutrition and perfect recovery

Different people seem to need different amounts of sleep. I have a friend who was a 2:15 guy who won some major international races in his day who slept maybe 3 hours in a typical night but would often vanish for a Saturday into bed and sleep for the entire day.

I was always tired in those years and would like to have slept more but it just wasn't possible. It made no sense to me to cut way back on my mileage just because I was spending hours lying in bed not being able to get to sleep. I did find that naps did a world of good. But if you can get 8-9 hours in a day do it.

But to the point of this thread, the things that I think are overrated are the non-running things. Note that saying something is overrated is not the same as saying it's useless.

I've been following this thread for a couple of days and have enjoyed it so far. It's gone off on a few tangents, but for the most part it is interesting.

For me, it's been interesting to think about why some people think one aspect of training might be overrated while someone else thinks the same aspect of training might be underrated. I have a few theories and would love to hear what others thought.

One possibility that I think is probably the most likely: One person came through a training program that overvalued one thing, where someone else might have come from a program where that same thing was absent or at least not prevalent. Example: Runner A's coach demanded that a long run be completed every week no matter what where runner B's coach did not believe in the long run. Later on, runner A decides to scrap a few of his/her long runs and replace them with a progressive run and boom improvement...the long run is overrated and progressive runs are underrated. For runner B, the long run was never really incorporated because coach wanted to make sure there was time in the week to do another quality track session. After moving on, runner b decides to incorporate a long run, sees major improvement and now long runs are the secret ingredient and too many quality sessions are the devil.

Another possibility is the exact opposite. Maybe runner A and runner B never moved out of their original programs and had strong willed coaches who had them totally convinced. Runner A might just think that because he/she has always highly valued the long run and that message has been sent so often, that that's the way it is and the same with runner B and his/her affinity for quality work on the track.

It seems like most, if not all of the components of training are valuable in some capacity, but it is the balance of them within a particular training program that defines their value. I agree with those who say that the balance will be different for different individuals. I think it is more complicated than that though as the balance will change even for the same individual over time. As a runner's skills and strength improve one modality might become more necessary than it used to be and one might take a backseat.

This brings me to my last possibility which is the question of when. What I mean by that is when do we want to see results. If an athlete is always looking to maximize potential in the short term, which may even mean 6 months down the road, they may have a different concept of what is overrated/underrated vs. the person who wants to see how fast he/she can be 6 years from now. If runner A wants to run a half marathon every 6 months and run as fast as he/she can at each one of those, the priorities might be different from someone who wants to run really fast 6 years from now, see steady improvement along the way, but maybe not care if the intermediate races aren't run at tip top sharpness. In these circumstances, runner A might not put a lot of value into drills, core strength, hip strength, and biomechanical work in general because those things take a lot of time and probably won't produce a big difference for the race in 6 months, but runner B might put a lot more stock into those components because they are things that might help to keep a runner healthy over the next 6 years and might enable that athlete to stay healthy while continuously adding mileage. There may be an argument over how much work is sustainable, but I don't think that anyone would argue that if they could figure out a way to add 10% to their workload and have that be sustainable, it would help their performances regardless of event.

What does letsrun think about any of that?

Seems like pretty reasonable insight. Its like just because you add a long run and start improving just means a correlation not causation. It could be one of many things that lead to the improvement, or something else all together

Great thread, fellas. Keep going at it. Nothing to add but to say thanks for posting.

Oh, and I don't know how people survive on little sleep. If I don't get 8 hours, I feel it the next day.

mxc87 wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Refusing to accept that you are more gifted than others is an insult to people who are injury prone.

That's totally hypocritical; one could say stubbornly insisting that HRE is talented is an insult to all the hard work he put in.

You are missing the point. He was able to train harder because he was more durable. All the desire and willpower would not mean much if his body kept breaking down all the time.

mxc87 wrote:There are tons of reasons for injuries, most think they can't handle beyond some arbitrary mileage cap, but usually, the problem is somewhere else.

Well, getting enough sleep is more of the ways to prevent injury. But he bragged about how he got away with 5 hr sleep while running 100mpw. Certainly he had some innate advantage. But he refuses to admit it, just like many other LRC posters. And he believes anyone whose body cannot handle 70mpw is an "outlier."

Well, this is LRC, where anyone below the top 1% is mediocre. So maybe I should not be surprised.

I think it's ridiculous to argue that talent or propensity for speed, mileage, durability don't impact results. Genetic factors are critically important to results. Hard work is not enough. 100 mile weeks could be a sub-3 for some, 2:2x for others, and even a marathon major win for a select few. I can see where some might limit their potential by their perceived "lack of talent," but we generally have a ceiling we're going to hit at some point.

Who Dat? wrote:

I think it's ridiculous to argue that talent or propensity for speed, mileage, durability don't impact results.

It also isn't something that's been implied by anybody in this thread.

How is reporting what I did bragging? But yes, most runners in their late teens and twenties should be able to handle at least 60-70 miles a week if they've been training for a few years. Maybe you can't. I don't know what your abilities are anymore than you know what talent I had. Maybe I MADE myself more durable by figuring out how to and not giving up when 50 mile weeks were difficult or taking every injury as a sign I couldn't handle that mileage. And maybe that won't work for others but you only learn what you're capable of by trying.

If you can only run 50 or 20 or whatever a week then that's all you should do. But you shouldn't tell other people not to do more just because you can't.