According to what I read recently, the body adapts to a stimulus within 6 weeks. Does this mean you need to change your workouts every 6 weeks? Is this why I plateau? It seems like that much change would disrupt consistency over time. I've been running for a long time but do I need a paradigm shift?
Not sure that we can be that definitive, but one certainly needs to alter the training from time to time. It is called periodization. It might be 6 weeks to improve some aspects; less for others and more for others.
so you are saying you accept what you read recently without question?
can't be wrote:
According to what I read recently, the body adapts to a stimulus within 6 weeks. Does this mean you need to change your workouts every 6 weeks? Is this why I plateau? It seems like that much change would disrupt consistency over time. I've been running for a long time but do I need a paradigm shift?
Jack Daniels talks about the body needing 6 weeks to adapt to a new training stimulus and therefore you should increase or change the training load only after 6 weeks. The alternative would be to increase every week or make no changes at all.
I do five workouts every two weeks. 1 at primary race, 2 below, 2 above. I repeat that cycle once, then I change workouts. How that might look is this -
Mon - 6x800 at 5k race pace (primary emphasis)
Tue - easy
Wed - 12x200 at 1500 race pace
Thu - easy
Fri - easy
Sat - 4x1600 at 10k race pace
Sun - easy
Mon - easy
Tue - 8x400 at 3k race pace
Wed - easy
Thu - easy
Fri - 4 mile tempo run at half marathon race pace
Sat - easy
Sun - easy
*REPEAT*
Then the next month my 5k workout becomes 5x1000 rather than 6x800. The 1500 workout becomes 300's, the 10k workout becomes 3x2000 meters, etc.
This is how one progresses. Of course you can change things up to suit your needs. You can go 6 weeks between changing workouts rather than 4 if you'd like. You can do 2 or 3 workouts per week rather than the 2.5 that I average. And of course most people will have a long run in here, though I cut mine out about a year ago and haven't noticed a difference in my race performances. You should tweak things however you want them, my main point here was about varying workouts and planning a logical progression.
Why not, for example, stick with the 6 x800 workout
and focus on running the repeats faster or reducing the recovery time?
That seems like a logical progression to me as well. I just don't see how changing the distance of the repeat ( 5 x 1000) and maintaining the same effort level (5K pace) is going to make the difference between improvement or growing stale.
can't be wrote:
Why not, for example, stick with the 6 x800 workout
and focus on running the repeats faster or reducing the recovery time?
That seems like a logical progression to me as well. I just don't see how changing the distance of the repeat ( 5 x 1000) and maintaining the same effort level (5K pace) is going to make the difference between improvement or growing stale.
Sure, you could do that. The way I outlined it is the way I like to do it, but you can manipulate any or all of these variables - volume, speed, recovery, and frequency.
The example I gave where the repetition length increases each time is actually an example of reducing the recovery. Note this progression. Each workout includes a 400 meter recovery jog in 2:00.
6x800 = 3 miles at 5k broken up by 10 minutes jogging
5x1000 = 3 miles at 5k with 8 minutes jogging
4x1200 = 3 miles at 5k with 6 minutes jogging
3x1600 = 3 miles at 5k with 4 minutes jogging
I suppose it would be equally valid to reduce the jogging portion. Something like
6x800 w/ 400 jog = 3 miles at 5k with 10 minutes jogging
6x800 w/ 300 jog = 3 miles at 5k with 7.5 minutes jogging
6x800 w/ 200 jog = 3 miles at 5k with 5 minutes jogging
Could you also speed up the running, increase the volume, or increase the frequency? Yes, absolutely. There is something to be said for experimentation and finding out what works best for you.
At the same time, you don't need to re-invent the wheel. The reason runners keep getting faster is they stand on the shoulders of those who have come before them, so they can do what works and reject what doesn't work. Don't go back to Bannister's training just to do trial and error. If you find a program that has worked for others, it may very well work for you.
I'm further confounded now in seeing that you give yourself LESS rest with the longer repeats. What's the rationale there? It's not like you're running them slower as cruise intervals.
can't be wrote:
I'm further confounded now in seeing that you give yourself LESS rest with the longer repeats. What's the rationale there? It's not like you're running them slower as cruise intervals.
Let's look at what that poster put up as examples and address your confusion:
6x800 = 3 miles at 5k broken up by 10 minutes jogging
5x1000 = 3 miles at 5k with 8 minutes jogging
4x1200 = 3 miles at 5k with 6 minutes jogging
3x1600 = 3 miles at 5k with 4 minutes jogging
When running 6x800, there will be 5 rest intervals. Each one is 2 min for a total of 10 min, hence "broken up by 10 minutes jogging." 5x1000 will offer 4 rest periods of 2 minutes each, for a total of 8 minutes jogging, etc. So, the rest interval does not change, but the total rest for the given distance run at a given pace is decreased.
Right, the Stache has got it. Every iteration of the workout is 3 miles at 5k race pace. That's the hard part of the workout. There are also recovery jogs incorporated into that. How we progress is by gradually taking away some recovery as we cover that 3 miles at 5k.
I think either way would work - the longer reps with a constant 400 meter jog (my way), or the constant rep length with reduced recoveries (your way?)