I'm not trying to knock the wisconsin program, but what the hell is the point of counting every mile at 7:00 mile pace? Every single runner on the team knows in their head how many real miles they did.
And if the point was to deceive the competition when asked about weekly mileage, then Solinsky did a good job of revealing the 'secret' in his interview with mensracing.
Perhaps he's trying to deemphasize the obsession most Americans have with counting and miles. Instead he's trying to get them to focus on how they feel by deliberately asking the guys to ignore the endless pursuit of numbers aspect.
Running for time rather than miles but calling them miles anyway?
seems to work for them
Sounds like a good idea.
One reason would be to negate pushing the pace on recovery days, since regardless how fast you go it counts the same.
... think that the "badger miles" has a lot to do with their "success". They are a good team, they train hard and get good athletes. The way you count your miles doesn't make you prone to success or vice versa.
it's stupid. it has no relevance, because you can't accurately say how much you run. it's hard to pinpoint injury problems if you can't have a clear view of your training.....
"it's hard to pinpoint injury problems if you can't have a clear view of your training....."
Exactly.
It's not exactly as if sports therapy is an exact science. To suggest that changing the numbers of how much they run will reveal that much more about what could have possible caused a problem is missing the point. The trainers know they run a lot, but, you probably won't hear them ask each other, "Was that 12 Badger miles or 16 real miles?" All they want to know is what the problem is and how they can fix it. Try another approach...that one was a little light on the substance.
i have run "badger" miles for years without even knowing about them, we kept track of minutes when in college and always divided by 7 to figure out our miles...not sure why.. but it gave you a decent idea of what you ran, the poster who stated it kept the easy miles easy was right, if you had to run 70 minutes to get in ten miles, you werent pounding at sub-6 pace for that run
As a physical therapist, the first lesson we learned in graduate school was to keep thorough and detailed documentation on every patient. This allows you to review past treatment sessions, look for possible errors, evaluate changes in behavior or response to treatment. It only follows that as an "elite" level runner, which I would consider any of the top 20-30 at nationals, you have to take care of your body and document not only what mileage and workouts you are doing, but also what goes into your body (food, drugs, etc), sleep habits, work/school schedule. These might seem like trivial pieces of info., but when you are trying to cut 20 seconds from a 10K PR, how else are you going to know what to modify, what to eliminate, what to add......i suppose we'll see how these badger miles pay off when it comes time to run in late november.
I don't think that they flip a switch in their brain off, they just don't fret too much about what to write down. 90 > 80 > 70, regardless of the units of measure. I suspect that although none of them are going to measure their runs down to the microns, they have a reasonably good idea of what they are doing.
hurdled400 wrote:
As a physical therapist, the first lesson we learned in graduate school was to keep thorough and detailed documentation on every patient. This allows you to review past treatment sessions, look for possible errors, evaluate changes in behavior or response to treatment. It only follows that as an "elite" level runner, which I would consider any of the top 20-30 at nationals, you have to take care of your body and document not only what mileage and workouts you are doing, but also what goes into your body (food, drugs, etc), sleep habits, work/school schedule. These might seem like trivial pieces of info., but when you are trying to cut 20 seconds from a 10K PR, how else are you going to know what to modify, what to eliminate, what to add......i suppose we'll see how these badger miles pay off when it comes time to run in late november.
easy, that way runners can say:
Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers!
every time the workout comes up in the rotation.
As far as logging "badger miles" and referring back to them if you're injured, as long as you consistently use the system, it shouldn't matter. It's a sort of set standard that you can go back and look at and determine what you did wrong. Granted you may of ran a little bit more quality in miles in one week than another, I dont think it would be that much of a difference.
There's no point. Martin Smith is an idiot.
All it does is hide information from you. If you did your runs all much too hard every day one week and then ran them easily the next week, you will see no difference in your training log. So if you start feeling a nagging injury after the hard week and you look back on your log you don't see the crucial information -- that you ran too hard.
If you want to run easily, then run easily. It is useless to play these silly little mental games with yourself. Why are people so afraid of simple facts?
Why do you care? If you don't like, don't do it. If you don't like it, don't go to Wisconsin. Just quit coming on this message board and bitching about it!
my opinion - I started keeping track of my miles a year ago in a very similar manner as these "badger miles," and like someone said above, I didnt even know thats how these guys were doing it too. I had to this summer because I never had set courses or knew how long they were in distance, so if I ran 65 mins, rather than worrying about "oh my god, was it 10 miles, or 10.3?" just put down 10 miles. So what if it says in my training log 100 miles, when in actuality I ran 106 or 107. The point - you ran those miles anyway, they are in your body, so what difference does it make what you have down on a piece of paper? This way, you dont get any wildly extravagant mielage totals that arent true, and you're also keying on time and not mile splits. I used to run the same route every night and check every damn split. Now I make up course as I go and dont worry about pace on those runs where I dont need to. The idea that you need to EXACT DISTANCE and EXACT PACE - I dont buy it. For me, the so called "badger miles" system works, and makes sense.
Loser Steve wrote:
Why do you care? If you don't like, don't do it. If you don't like it, don't go to Wisconsin. Just quit coming on this message board and bitching about it!
Why do you care? If you don't like what I write, don't read it. Don't open the thread. Just quit coming on this message board and bitching about it.
my opinion - I started keeping track of my miles a year ago in a very similar manner as these "badger miles," and like someone said above, I didnt even know thats how these guys were doing it too. I had to this summer because I never had set courses or knew how long they were in distance, so if I ran 65 mins, rather than worrying about "oh my god, was it 10 miles, or 10.3?" just put down 10 miles. So what if it says in my training log 100 miles, when in actuality I ran 106 or 107. The point - you ran those miles anyway, they are in your body, so what difference does it make what you have down on a piece of paper? This way, you dont get any wildly extravagant mielage totals that arent true, and you're also keying on time and not mile splits. I used to run the same route every night and check every damn split. Now I make up course as I go and dont worry about pace on those runs where I dont need to. The idea that you need to EXACT DISTANCE and EXACT PACE - I dont buy it. For me, the so called "badger miles" system works, and makes sense.