Anyone ever try training like Frank Shorter?

Don't try it. Simple can't work. It has to be complicated to work; so complicated, in fact, that you need spreadsheets, GPS, HR monitor, $175 sunglasses, and a hyperbaric chamber to make any progress.

No. I run 100 miles a week. All easy.(But its not easy to run 100 miles!) No workouts. No tempo.

Timdog wrote:

Has anyone ever trained with the simple plan that Shorter used? 2 workouts a week, one fast and one strength, as many easy miles in between, a long run, make your hard days hard, and your easy days easy. I like it because it's so simple, but was wondering if anyone has actually tried this?

most people have tried this...

almost all training programs, whether as simplified or not, follow this basic structure

Watch some of the "workout wednesday" videos on flotrack. You'll see the elites do the same damn workouts that the rest of do, they just do them faster.

repeats, ladders, tempos, hill reps, etc..

The amount of navel gazing and over analysis of most runners is staggering.

Ya, my base phase is pretty much exactly what he described. I'll do one long tempo or fartlek, and then either 200 repeats or hill reps, and other than that it is just lots of easy miles.

I've had fantastic results training like that, not really because it is tons better than other base phase plans, just because it is very easy for me to execute. I don't need to think about it as much, so I find it much easier to get in solid training without really worrying (I can be a bit of a head case when it comes to the nitty gritty)

The first time I specifically tried to follow the Frank Shorter Philosophy was after my senior year in HS, I ran a 4:44 mile, showed up at college 11 weeks later and ran a 4:31 at XC tryouts. I credit the increased mileage that I was able to put in.

I'll repeat there isn't anything special about the plan from a physiological standpoint, it is just very easy to go out and run this properly.

I follow lindgren training. Mega mileage with a occasional extremely hard fartlek.

What Shorter did was the obvious and it worked out.

Now you have to run 2 hard workouts a week just to be big in highschool.

I actually find that I need three harder workouts a week for HM and marathon training. A tempo (HM pace for 6-9 miles), a hills/intervals/repeats session (usually between 5k-10k pace), and a medium-long run (MP for 11-13 miles). Without the tempo, I can't hold a faster pace for more than about a 5k. Without the speed/hills session, I can't get to the speed I need. And without the medium-long run, the pace tends to deteriorate after about 10 miles.

In the high school system most run 3 hard workouts a week.

"Why don't I write a book on training? Because it'd be like a page long, that's why."

-Frank Shorter, on being asked why he didn't try to sell his "training program."

Denver Runner wrote:

I actually find that I need three harder workouts a week for HM and marathon training. A tempo (HM pace for 6-9 miles), a hills/intervals/repeats session (usually between 5k-10k pace), and a medium-long run (MP for 11-13 miles). Without the tempo, I can't hold a faster pace for more than about a 5k. Without the speed/hills session, I can't get to the speed I need. And without the medium-long run, the pace tends to deteriorate after about 10 miles.

I've noticed from looking at elite training logs that everyone seems to follow this same sort of training.

One speed session

One tempo session

One long-interval session

Long run

Easy days in between

I've always overanalyzed my training and I think just making it simpler would be better. Obviously, the distance/intensity of these workouts varies on what distance you're training for.

From looking at training logs, I've also noticed that the best of the best (Geb, Bekele, etc.) seem to run a lot more in their workouts. I know their logs aren't what they do all the time but they have 3hr long runs, 60 minute tempos, and lots of intervals. It just seems like they do longer workouts for their distance than what a lot of runners do.

120 mpw is not simple, no matter how you slice it. Give it a try, stick to your 400 and mile repeats and forget about those tempo runs. I've found that 90% of the runners I know run them way, way, too fast - then wonder why they suck ass on race day, and burn out 2 weeks into the season.

And what are you training for? If you are training for the marathon then running 400 and mile repeats without any tempo runs is fool hearty in my experience. In fact I find that 400s and mile repeats are easily dropped from marathon training without much effect.

STP wrote:

120 mpw is not simple, no matter how you slice it. Give it a try, stick to your 400 and mile repeats and forget about those tempo runs. I've found that 90% of the runners I know run them way, way, too fast - then wonder why they suck ass on race day, and burn out 2 weeks into the season.

Tempos in my opinion are much more important then intervals, especially in the marathon which requires more strength work then actual speed.

It's "than."

120 mpw is not simple, no matter how you slice it. Give it a try, stick to your 400 and mile repeats and forget about those tempo runs. I've found that 90% of the runners I know run them way, way, too fast - then wonder why they suck ass on race day, and burn out 2 weeks into the season.

I find it easy to run my own tempos at the right pace . . . and impossible to coach my runners to run tempos at the right pace.

The difference is the group setting tends to foster competition. And sending them off to do a tempo on their own lets the slackers do what they do best, which is of course slack, while the overachievers try to overachieve.

Ugh.

Just Run Baby

steve mugness says make it complex and study sciences for maximum results

collegedropoutt wrote:

steve mugness says make it complex and study sciences for maximum results

Yes, but where has it gotten him? Slower than in high school.