I was just wondering if instead of doing all your mileage at the beginning of the season and then backing down and try to peak, if you reverse that. For instace, start at like 55mpw or 60mpw or what ever then just keep building until you get to, lets say, 100mpw. I've always noticed that when I do a crap load of miles in the summer, I run my best in the first few meets then go downhill from there. Does any elites do this? just curious about your thoughts. Thanks.
Have you thought about just keeping your mileage at 100 throughout the year?
Look at Scott Simmons' book "Take the Lead"--he uses this exact format.
Interesting take on training--not too out there, quite feasible.
reference this wrote:
Look at Scott Simmons' book "Take the Lead"--he uses this exact format.
Interesting take on training--not too out there, quite feasible.
where can I buy this book?
Scott Simmons uses the pyramid method. 65-75-85-75-65-55
My HS coach used this method (before Simmons ever released a book) and it worked wonders if the coach applying it knows what hes doing.
and simmons does not use that method according to the book
is he the coach of VIC? Cause I actually got this idea from a friend that goes there and he said thats how they train.
Yes
collegerunr wrote:
is he the coach of VIC? Cause I actually got this idea from a friend that goes there and he said thats how they train.
How does the progression of intensity look over the course of a pyramid-type mileage progression? Is there no increase in intensity until you start dropping miles?
Also, does anyone have any other alternative ways to structure mileage? One that I've often thought interesting is a nordic skiing 4-week cycle which consists of one week of high volume, low intensity; one week of low volume, high intensity; one week of high volume, high intensity; one week of low volume, low intensity.
I just recently purchased the book and enjoyed it. A little on the pricey side, but I felt it was worth it. Definitely makes you rethink many things you have taken as gospel with regards to your training. I will be incorporating some of his methodologies during my next training cycle.
Any other thoughts on the book?
It's okay. It would be well worth it if it was $15 or so cheaper.
It's more of a philosophy book than a training book. Some training info, but not a lot. The most usefull training info was the hammer idea and the peaking. Those were the only "different" ideas.
For those science/physiology nuts, watch out. A lot of incorrect usage that you'll bicker about. Some of which affect the overall training philosophy which I kind of didn't like. It's okay to have that philosophy but don't try and back it up with wrong science. Just back it up w/ results and different reasoning.
Anyways, a pretty good book that's a bit pricey. The most important thing is that it makes you think a little bit and isn't a cookie cutter program.
does scott simmons have his team do a similar progression during track or do they back off alot cause of speed?
Does the book have any training schedules? What are some of the staple workouts? Thanks.
The book has a week sample in the back, but Simmons goes out of his way to say he does not want to give a "one size, fits all" program. I actually kind of like it.
If I'm not mistake, doesn't Rubio use the Progression Method for the Aesics Aggies trainning?