Bored with intervals

Are you training too hard? Or not enough pace variability? Too much of the same thing?

Different things work for different people.

If you've found something that is working for you--now, at least--then I'm glad! By the way:

1) Boredom--in an otherwise-well-motivated athlete--is a *physical* sign of a need for change.

2) If, in the future, you find that you want/need another change, I recommend true fartlek:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fartlek

https://www.newintervaltraining.com/fartlek-training.php

There's almost no variability in my training (except strides) and I have no problem to recover. My average daily pace is going faster at the same effort so after plateauing/regressing with the traditionnal approach tempo/reps/LR + easy runs I'm getting fitter and racing better.

Isn't that Wikipedia definition of fartlek somewhat flawed?

If you are sprinting between lamposts, that's not proper fartlek because it's too structured.

The best way to do fartlek is to run fast, stop before you get tired, jog or walk to recover and repeat.

I think most runners are just too obsessed with structure and stats to grasp this concept and why it works so well.

Kalinox wrote:

There's almost no variability in my training (except strides) and I have no problem to recover. My average daily pace is going faster at the same effort so after plateauing/regressing with the traditionnal approach tempo/reps/LR + easy runs I'm getting fitter and racing better.

So what is this thread about?

It's about sharing experience with others runners training this way. What benefit/drawback do you find in it ? What results did you achieve ?

i know an older guy who basically trains like this, and it seems to work decently, but not optimally.

his only change comes during the fall when he officiates soccer. I would think the soccer officiating somewhat replicates a fartlek.

He will typically lay down his best races during this time period.

I'm wondering about the thread title. Why did you choose it?

You said you were a science guy. That's usually a red flag to me. People who make a thing about "science based training" often get bogged down in spurious concepts that ignore the greatest science device of them all - common sense.

I say that as someone who has studied sports science a great deal.

question... wrote:

Isn't that Wikipedia definition of fartlek somewhat flawed?

If you are sprinting between lamposts, that's not proper fartlek because it's too structured.

I entirely agree. That's why I specified "true" fartlek, but it might have been clearer had I said "original" or "Gösta Holmér" fartlek, which is described pretty well a bit later in the Wiki article.

lease wrote:

question... wrote:

Isn't that Wikipedia definition of fartlek somewhat flawed?

If you are sprinting between lamposts, that's not proper fartlek because it's too structured.

I entirely agree. That's why I specified "true" fartlek, but it might have been clearer had I said "original" or "Gösta Holmér" fartlek, which is described pretty well a bit later in the Wiki article.

It's how children train naturally. We did it by instinct and a sense of wonder, fun, excitement, freedom.

A swimming coach once told me something very profound. He said that up to the age of 14, kids don't naturally overtrain. They stop when they are tired. But something happens during adolescence that makes us want to show how tough we are and we lose some of that common sense and it takes many years to get it back.

Is this the thinking behind the original fartlek concept?

So you were overdoing it.

One size fits all is just asking for trouble.

Adaptation are largely a function of intensity and duration.

But overlooked is the cost of doing work that doesn't suit you, non-optimized, lack individualization.

To that end a big tip off is whether you are having fun, challenged not just marching in line.

Provided the volume is not too high, somewhat hard can bring better results than light /hard and if you are doing this right, you'll also have less down time and feel a clearer sense of progression.

As you describe it, you are really training for 25k but still better than your "formula".

And as you get fitter you can just step it up with progressive or varied paces, likely RPE just a bit harder

than what you are dialing in on.

Try not to get lost in the weeds. most of what you are reading is wrong, outdated or overly simplified to sell.

Keep asking questions and keep listening to your body and spirit.

I here you.... I am kindof in the same position, but I really like intervals, as easy or moderate running is not giving back any "energy".

I have been training too intense for long periods I believe it is not easy to actually feel that on the body, but the results are not better. I have read about people that excell after injury so enough recovery both in short and long term is maybe hard. I am also more scientifical in the approach (and I really dont think "common sense" is an alternative)

All training is a mix of what have been and what is and it is really hard to with you say anything conclusive. Does the prior training model work? Well, with the volume you lay down, it did not work then, but now when you do less intensity, you excel. Is it because of the new or because of the combo with the old?

I listened to a runner that could train hard and recover fast, but he used the word optimal and not maximal. We are many motivated to run as much as possible to improve as much as possible, but a lot might not be the optimal to improve a lot. I came back after low years in the spring 2019 and improved for 9 months. Then I have basically for 2 years now NOT improved.

So the focus for me will be how to find the optimal. I have so much motivation for both volume and intensity and it will be hard to having to reduce to improve. Strange since it should be obvious.

After summer I changed my ways some and cared more about recovery at least to recover to fresh legs each second week. I did some testing every 14 days and improved for a long time. Then I got som problems with consistent testing so I have not done that for a while, but, I improved. I will continue to follow those ways, but focus even more on actually respect the recovery needs. There is no payback from hard training if not recovering from it as improvement happens in the recovery and not the training.

This is hard since my head hears and thinks more is always better.

For you I don't really think the model with moderate is the reason for your improvement, I think it is in the totality. I would go scientifically onwards and try to balance the right stimuli for you and the right amount of recovery to excel from it. Presonally I don't think hard intervals are good for long term improvement, especially when you run 10k and M. Try intervals in the range from M to HM. If you think your VO2 max is not well developed (which I doubt given your PBs) do some hard stuff,

I am similar to you, read a lot (a ton) about training methodologies/physiology . So i can get into your mind.

However, the answer to your 'problem' is quite simple. With 6-7h/week and a marathon racing time of 2h44 you have capt it.

6-7h/week is not too much in any endurance sport. So to get even better you have to increase your volume. More hours a week training.

If you increase your volume it takes time to manifest in performance, you have to be very patient.

Kalinox wrote:

What I'm trying to say is after doing all the science/physiology based stuff with no to bad results, I got back in shape by just moderate mileage at medium intensity and shaved 1'22" of my 10k PB. No more workout scheduled, no more pace/time to hit. Exactly what we could put in the category of the worst training. Too fast to recover, to slow to produce stimuli, no purpose run....

...I look forward to hearing your views about this kind of training...

I think one that that is needed to successfully enjoy running over years and decades, is to constantly find ways to keep it fresh. Doing the same thing all the time gets boring and is hard to sustain. You have find a way to keep it interesting.

Your mind likes your new method and your body is responding. That doesn't surprise me. Keep it interesting. As long as you're enjoying the running and it's making you feel better, you're doing it right.

Kalinox, whoa dude!!!

Just chill, smoke a nice full bowl of sativa then try your intervals.

Enjoy!!

When you try a new training method, how long are you sticking to it? Keep in mind, often training methods - such as "more threshold work" is a part of a macrocycle that should make up a 6-12 month period. A lot of training is preparing to train, so even though you might not see results in 2-4 weeks, your body is in a better position to run faster later.

To me, it sounds like you did not build a sufficient "base" to be able to handle harder sessions, and you maybe over did them. Go and look at Lydiard's model - to me it sounds like you are still in the "General Conditioning" phase. Continue this until you feel like you plateau again (it will happen, but it's fine for a training phase to last 6 months or so). Then look at introducing some more threshold based work.

If you really want to run your best, it requires targeting a race in 10 months or so and sticking to a system until then, not questioning it week in week out. It's only after seeing a system through at least 1 full cycle (if not more) that you can truly determine if it is/isn't for you - this where common sense comes in. We don't have time to test every different system on every individual, so you need to decide what you think you will respond best to and experiment from there.

Lot of good posts here, thanks guys.

I guess my current improvement is due to a mix of : less pressure (no workout days), repeat of a moderate suffisant stimulus, avoiding extrems. It's like a "no plan" plan I can do week in week out letting the body/feeling leads the pace/volume and not the schedule. Motivation is greater so consistency as well and finally it gives results.

I don't know how far can I go this way but will continue as long as the joy lasts,

When I was being coached I hated intervals. I was not in charge, coach was. When I became unattached I was coaching myself. And yes I'd include the dreaded intervals. What I discovered was I didn't hate my former coaches intervals anymore. I actually relished them. Now I was in charge and didn't schedule any workouts that I thought were impossible to complete.

Do what's FUN for you. If you over think it or over do it then it will quickly become a chore and the fun part of training will disappear. All training should be fun. The sucks balls part should be saved for race day.

question... wrote:

I'm wondering about the thread title. Why did you choose it?

You said you were a science guy. That's usually a red flag to me. People who make a thing about "science based training" often get bogged down in spurious concepts that ignore the greatest science device of them all - common sense.

I say that as someone who has studied sports science a great deal.

Thinking the same. Sometimes you can overthink things, seen a lot of runners do this with plans and intervals..."OH NO MY HEART RATE WAS 161.45, IT SHOULD BE 162.67, WORKOUT RUINED" kinda people. Yeah doing it this way is joyless and just running steady with a few strides is more fun, obviously. However you can do intervals and train 'better' and not make it so complicated. Fartlek for example, or even just do 1-3mins on, 1min off until you get tired, just run fast on the ons, and slow on the offs. That to me is better use of time that doing 7 miles straight at MP~ every day.