A Training Idea That Looks Too Simple But In Reality It Completely Rules Despite What You May Feel About The Simplicity

i did a good workout last week felt really great (6) 300's with 3 - 4 minutes easy jogging in between.It really fills next to my other great 3-4 x 4 - 7 minute aerobic repetitions.i feel that i improve on 4 hard sessions a week now. Maybe something you could think about when using a system: slowly add intensity.

The program is obviously missing two very important training components:

Lactate threshold training

VO2 max (aerobic power) work

Although a decent amount of aerobic running is included, stride-outs, and anaerobic capacity training are present, two of the most fundamental components of training are neglected.

I don't see how everyone is missing that...

The guy has no log run. I bet that is why he didn't present a 5k time. His times probably drop off quite a bit after 3k. Why is it that people are always looking for an easy way out?

You are making the mistake of thinking that because your events are 50% (roughly) anaerobic in nature, you need to spend 50% of your time (or effort) on training that system. The anaerobic system requires much, much less training in order to maximize it's adaptation than the aerobic system does.

This makes sense if you consider it from a biological standpoint. The purpose of the anaerobic system is SURVIVAL. It allows you to escape from a bear, lion, etc. If you don't escape the first time, there is no second time. So the system by it's very nature has to be pretty well adapted (irrespective of training) in order for it to be of value.

The aerobic system is different. It is for getting you around over long distances. If you are not as well adapted to that as I am, you just go slower than I do, but you probably (probably) won't die, you just won't get there as fast.

Sean Nunn

don't you people know that you get maximum aerobic gains from running 3 days a week. Running any more then that just puts you at risk for injury.

Tinman wrote:

You are the one who claims in the original post that you do anaerobic capacity training (100-200 plus 400-800) daily. I didn't make it up, you did. Thus, my statement that you or your team will suffer if you do anaerobic capacity training daily is still on the table for discussion until you clarify some points of contention. I am guessing, since you have done it for "years" without problem that you are not running them very fast and, thus, you are not doing anaerobic capacity training. i.e. you are not running 1500m pace or faster in those fast 100 to 800m reps (daily). So, it would behoove you to define and describe just how intensely you are running relative to your current maximum. This would clear up things and give you a platform to show off your training program in a positive light.

Wow, Tinman. Who shyt in your cornflakes? I come here to describe my training, which I love, and which benefits me. You respond with negativity. What gives?

I run everything at around 1500m race pace or faster, in my anaerobic capacity bursts. I don't really care if that bothers you or not.

orion the runner wrote:

The program is obviously missing two very important training components:

Lactate threshold training

VO2 max (aerobic power) work

Although a decent amount of aerobic running is included, stride-outs, and anaerobic capacity training are present, two of the most fundamental components of training are neglected.

I don't see how everyone is missing that...

I completely agree that those middle zones are missing, orion. But I don't miss them.

jumpingbean wrote:

The guy has no log run. I bet that is why he didn't present a 5k time. His times probably drop off quite a bit after 3k. Why is it that people are always looking for an easy way out?

I agree that there is no long run. I train for 800-3000. I don't care about 5k plus.

Actually you didn't "describe" your training, you told us it "totally rules" (which,incidentally sounds like a 12-year-old talking, not a 38-year-old).

Now since you told us the long intervals were at "aerobic conditioning pace" and the shorter ones at "anaerobic capacity pace", we should all be on the same page. But then you came back and asked us "Have you asked me exactly how hard these efforts are? Has anyone asked me how I'm doing with this yet?"

If you truly understood the terms, there would be no need to "ask" you any of these things. We already know what aerobic conditioning pace and anaerobic capacity pace mean. You apparently do not.

I'm 39 and have run faster than you at both the 3k and 800 meters in the past year. I did both of those performances off of very little but easy base mileage. So I guess my training "totally rules" then.

Everybody is happy that you found some training you like. Really. But when you put this one-person-experiment as some sort of hard-and-fast rule, you need to be able to defend it with something more than, "hey it rules!"

Come back when you reach 38 at an emotional level as well.

Aaerobic capacity is a range, just as aerobic conditioning is. In the latter, I may jog, or I may get to light tempo. For anaerobic capacity, even though I score 1500 pace, most sessions are therapeutic and controlled, not eyeballs out.

I don't care who is older and who runs faster. I know that this training is wonderful for ME. I present it, because as this thread has illustrated, many say "oh no no" to something so simplified, without really investigating why it may work really well.

kblx rules. Totally. :)

Today I did 25mins easy + 10x20secs on, 40secs off, and 24mins easy.

Yesterday I did 30mins easy + 4x15secs + 2x30secs + 60secs hard + 20mins easy.

Please be nice to me 39.

No aerobic CAPACITY pace is NOT a range. It is the LIMIT of running aerobically. A very narrow threshold. Aerobic pace (i.e. no "capacity") IS a range. This is what we mean by understanding the terms.

I'm glad you don't care who is older and runs faster. If you truly don't care, spare us the "I ran this race time off this training" as it is proof of nothing but the fact that YOU are able to run so well of such training, just as my times are proof of nothing but that I ran better off different training.

You have no idea what people here have and have not investigated. As for myself, I've tried just about every kind of training under the sun. hard all the time, Easy running all the time, High mileage, low mileage, Tons of LT work, tons of aerobic work, Igloi-style training, multi-pace training, etc. I've learned what works best for me and it's nothing resembling what you've presented here. Keep it up if you want, but believe it or not, some of us out here do better with a different approach. There are even a few world record holders out there (just about all of them, I'd say) who do better with a different approach.

Oooooops. I my previous post, I meant to say aerobic conditioning and anaerobic capacity.

39, everything you say is nice. So what? I presented my training. I run well. I am happy. Deal with it.

39,

I've also tried all that stuff, but haven't learned what works best for me. I'm trying my derndest to avoid the obvious conclusion (nothing works for me). What works for you? Maybe I could try it...

kuntibollox, I am glad that this training works for you. Have you ever tried the high mileage route? For me I have tried similiar training to your schedule. All in all I had pretty good success in the 800-2m. But after 10 years of gradually building up more mileage I have been running much faster off of less hard faster work and more easy miles with one or two workouts a week.

I detest higher volumes. Makes me unhappy. I hate long workouts. I believe 7 little workouts is better than 2-3 big ones. 50-60mpw is plenty. I did the classic "higher volumes with key weekly workouts" thing. Now I embrace daily dosages of fast efforts over the classic model. It feels right.

If Roger Bannister came on here, disguised, and talked about his training, not mentioning his accomplishments, how many of us would scoff, like 39 and Tinman have?

Well in all fairness many believe that if Roger Bannister were training today he would have run faster under a different approach. Now maybe he wouldn't and maybe you wouldn't either. But the science based coaches like Tinman and Jack Daniels would say that you would. But that is taking away the psychological aspect that you detest the longer workouts.

Bannister was genius. He analysed the event and did what he felt was right, history and influence be dammed. 3:59 on cinders? 3:53 worthy, I say. Maybe he was a "3:50" guy. His 2:52 1200m was even more amazing imho.

Of course, he had his "39 and Tinman" types during his day. ie Those who look at something different and out of the ordinary and react with disgust and anger.

kuntibollox wrote:

Bannister was genius. He analysed the event and did what he felt was right, history and influence be dammed. 3:59 on cinders? 3:53 worthy, I say. Maybe he was a "3:50" guy. His 2:52 1200m was even more amazing imho.

Of course, he had his "39 and Tinman" types during his day. ie Those who look at something different and out of the ordinary and react with disgust and anger.

You say it yourself. The 2:52 is better. Which begs the question why couldn't he run a faster mile? IMHO I more traditional Lynaird or Daniels type training would have resulted in maybe not a faster 1200, but certainly a faster mile.

In terms of your training, you do what makes you feel good. When people come on these boards and say I have run this and do this in training in means nothing. It is all about reaching your own potential and that is what this sport is about and in a bigger sense that is what this thread about. Hey discover what works for you, be your OWN coach and scientist. Coaches have the impossible task of trying to find what works best for a group of individuals when in reality if they can they need to find out what works individually for each member of the group. Often they revert back to the type of training that maxmizes the talent of most of the group, which seems to be more of the traditional high mileage 1-2 workouts a week type.