Volunteers needed to test my Low Mileage, High Quality training plan!

From200mTo8k,

For the ITBS, I found that the foam roller only really alleviated some of the knee pain (LCL tightness) but what really cured the ITBS was strength training my legs...lots of plyo, lunges, squats. As for the shin splints, well I have just come to terms with the fact that they are inevitable for me once I get beyond 40-50 mpw range. The best I can do for myself is to get the most bang out of the least amount of running necessary.

I will explain my situation to you in full right here to give you some idea of where I am at with running. I'm active duty Army and currently around 16:30 shape (based on a recent 5k for which I minimally trained). I applied to the All-Army cross country team and they will be competing at Nationals under the military division. I have a pretty decent packet and if I get selected I will be running there Feb 11th. That leaves three solid months to get into the best shape possible so I'm peaking for the race. I believe, if selected, I'll be running the 12K.

Things that make this easy are that I have 2 hours at lunch each day to devote to training and I live on-base right next to a track and a gym...no excuses.

Today I'm going to tailor a more specific plan that fits in three months and includes about 40miles total of running each week (I do plan on incorporating a longish sunday run at an easy pace).

Will post it once I've structured it...please let me know what you think as I've definitely got some stake in your plan.

I'll volunteer.....

...for the control group!

This is like a more structured version of the training I've been doing for the last year. After a few years of persistent injuries I decided to drop all mileage and try something new.

A typical week now would involve 3 runs. Something like:

8x400

5x1k

4mile tempo

Instead of including a few easy runs like you suggest I throw in maybe 4 or 5 hours of cross training.

Starting from a ridiculously low level of fitness (and about 10lbs over weight!) I managed to run close to my 8 and 15 PRs this summer which were set off 70 miles pw.

However I feel like there is a fairly low ceiling in terms of how fast you can actually get off this type of training. So I'll definitely be trying to up the mileage next year.

dfrank,

So you might be running Nationals for the Army in 12K XC on February 11? Wouldn't you be coached by the Army coach between now and then or are you on your own? Are you sure it is 12k and not 8k? Nationals what? NCAA XC Champs or USATF XC Champs?

Science! wrote:

I'll volunteer.....

...for the control group!

I assume you are joking. I realize that I am not conducting a proper physiological research study. When I say I need volunteers to "test" the plan, I mean it in the loose sense. Each volunteer will conduct an experiment of one. The individual using the plan will know if this plan is better or worse than other plans they used in the past based on their past experience and future performance marks.

4th&Inches wrote:

This is like a more structured version of the training I've been doing for the last year. After a few years of persistent injuries I decided to drop all mileage and try something new.

A typical week now would involve 3 runs. Something like:

8x400

5x1k

4mile tempo

Instead of including a few easy runs like you suggest I throw in maybe 4 or 5 hours of cross training.

Starting from a ridiculously low level of fitness (and about 10lbs over weight!) I managed to run close to my 8 and 15 PRs this summer which were set off 70 miles pw.

However I feel like there is a fairly low ceiling in terms of how fast you can actually get off this type of training. So I'll definitely be trying to up the mileage next year.

I can tell you get it. This plan is for exactly where you were one year ago. You might be surprised if you changed your 5 X 1K into 6 X 1K and your 60 minute run into a 90 minute run, once you've maxed out your current plan. That's awesome that you hit your PRs with lower mileage and less (or no) injuries. That's the whole point of the plan. Glad to hear it!

From200mTo8k wrote:

Why? I am not against 100 mpw if someone can do it without getting injured. There are huge gains to be made in racing the 5K if you can move up incrementally to a 40 mile week. After that, there are gains, but they are not as large compared with the risk of injury. What about the two paragraphs do not make sense to you? Attacking my credibility as a person does not help yor argument. Please use reason.

i'm not attacking your credibility as a person since you don't have any credibility at this point. who are you?

you're just regurgitating some mind-numbing stuff about low mileage training while also admitting that high mileage will eventually be necessary.

gee, provocative stuff.

your comments about Hall not improving in his mile time and Geb 'retiring after injury' (wtf?!) are just stupid. what are you talking about? Geb the 40+ year old who's been at the top of the game for a decade? High mileage was detrimental and forced him to 'retire' and that makes you wonder about the 'recipe'? what?!

You give three really terrible examples and then deduce that the 'high mileage training' might not be such a good idea.

wow, such a noob.

From200mTo8k wrote:

I can tell you get it. This plan is for exactly where you were one year ago. You might be surprised if you changed your 5 X 1K into 6 X 1K and your 60 minute run into a 90 minute run, once you've maxed out your current plan. That's awesome that you hit your PRs with lower mileage and less (or no) injuries. That's the whole point of the plan. Glad to hear it!

i'm at a loss as to how you think this is so revolutionary or new that it warrants 'volunteers'. you think you're starting some new training paradigm shift or something?

newsflash: lots of people have had success doing low mileage training. Lots more people have had even more success doing high mileage training. there are loads of examples for each out there.

why is "your" training plan any different than any other training plan?

so far it looks like it's.... not.

From200mTo8k,

All branches of the military will have their own respective team competing in the USATF xc national 4k/8k/12k in St. Louis this year. For the All-Army team, I'm not sure exactly how it works...this is my first duty assignment and my first time applying, but I'm pretty sure I'd be training on my own at my present assignment and then reporting in St. Louis just prior to the event to compete

as for the event breakdown, I got this from the MWR webpage:

"The All-Army Cross Country Team consists of fifteen athletes. They are divided into six men in the 12k race, five women in the 8k race and four men in the 4k race."

As for coaching, if an army runner runs fast enough (some consistent sub 15 5ks, 30-31 10ks, 2:20-2:25 marathon), he might have a shot at getting picked up for the army WCAP (world class athlete program). In that case, the runner would permanently moved to Fort Carson, CO and train under an Army coach. That'd be living the dream.

wowza wrote:

i'm not attacking your credibility as a person since you don't have any credibility at this point. who are you?

you're just regurgitating some mind-numbing stuff about low mileage training while also admitting that high mileage will eventually be necessary.

gee, provocative stuff.

your comments about Hall not improving in his mile time and Geb 'retiring after injury' (wtf?!) are just stupid. what are you talking about? Geb the 40+ year old who's been at the top of the game for a decade? High mileage was detrimental and forced him to 'retire' and that makes you wonder about the 'recipe'? what?!

You give three really terrible examples and then deduce that the 'high mileage training' might not be such a good idea.

wow, such a noob.

I disagree that you are not attacking my credibility as a person or at least me as a person, especially when you call me a "noob." I think it is disrespectful and unacceptable and deserving of an apology. If you do not like my ideas, then fine, but please do not attack my person for them.

At this point I still find your comments not very helpful. If you would like to help me see the light, can you please try rewording your message rather than simply saying something is "stupid"? I think your message, as it is, is toxic and unclear, yet I am willing to work with you if you can clearly articulate your message without the toxicity. Otherwise, I will be foreced to ignore your messages.

What do you mean by regurgitating? How exactly am I regurgitating?

I have no problem taking back those three examples if you can explain to me clearly why I should in a respectful manner.

wowza wrote:

i'm at a loss as to how you think this is so revolutionary or new that it warrants 'volunteers'. you think you're starting some new training paradigm shift or something?

newsflash: lots of people have had success doing low mileage training. Lots more people have had even more success doing high mileage training. there are loads of examples for each out there.

why is "your" training plan any different than any other training plan?

so far it looks like it's.... not.

I do not think my plan is very original or revolutionary. I am not sure how you get that from anything I posted. Maybe "my plan" does not warrant volunteers, but "I" would like some volunteers.

I don't know that it is a fact that more people have had success using high mileage programs. It might be true depending on what qualifiers are added or how we define "success" or "people." When a novice runner trains like an elite before he or she is ready, they get injured. I think to voice your opinion after writing "newsflash" is very disrespectful and worthy of an apology. I know you haven't had time to read my latest post in which I set boundaries for our communication if it is to continue, so I can understand that this post by you would have more toxic messages.

How is "my" plan different? Probably not all that different. I am not proposing to the site that I am the next Canova or Daniels. I have derived my plan from commonly held training principles and little is original in it.

Who am I? I am a nobody really. My greatest accomplishment in distance running was probably when I became the NAIA District 14 Champion in cross country in 1993 after my coach unjustly took me off of varsity on the same day that varsity was running at the NCAA Regional meet. I also won a few indoor races my senior year in 800m and was on the 4 X 400m relay team that holds the school record, turning in a 50 flat split. Not incredibly impressive and definitely nothing to make me more credible than the next guy who has read the training principles from the experts whom we all read, yet still probably quite a bit above the average runner like most on this website. In the end, I'm just a person, real and flawed, like you.

All that said, I am excited by the plan. Even if it is not new to anyone out there, it is new to me. I worked hard on developing it using what I've read and I am very happy that I don't get injured anymore and I am still getting faster even though I am past my physical peak statistically according to my age. There is more to the plan than first meets the eye. I thought maybe I had something to offer to other runners from my studies and life experience. I still think I do. Nothing earth shattering, but still something. If this plan is for you, use it. If it is not, then don't. I offer it as a service to whomever has a need for it.

You know how it is when you discover something that is new to you and you want to share it with others to take them along on the ride? That's what this plan is for me. That it does not harm the body is what is most important to me. Nothing, not even a gold medal in the Olympics is worth harming our bodies. This is what is new to me. I am the coach I always wanted in that regard.

So what is your goal that you want to train for? Is it primarily that you want to peak for the 12k race or do you need to hit another 5K time before that? When will they decide if you get to go?

Also, what kind of quality training have you been doing? Have you been training in a periodized manner or have you been doing the same thing every week?

When I bought my first pair of Nike Zoom Vomeros I had shin splints. I tried on other shoes the day I bought the Vomeros, but only in the Vomeros did I not feel the shin splints. They might be worth a try. I think you are in a bind because the weight training that might be helping your IT band might be increasing your shin problems. If you are doing leg extensions and curls, that won't hurt the shins, but anything where you are pushing using your feet could.

From200mTo8k wrote:

Who am I? I am a nobody really.

well, just as long as you understand that.

i find it hilarious that you're so sanctimonious that you think you deserve an apology for having your erroneous 'ideas' challenged and "your" training plan called out for what it is (nothing at all, really) while at the same time peddling your pedantic quips about wanting respectful dialogue and all that jazz.

so at the end of the day you're just another 20 min 5k guy who once ran in high school who now thinks he has some good ideas that he wants other people to pat him on the head for it.

intriguing.

wowza wrote:

From200mTo8k wrote:

Who am I? I am a nobody really.

well, just as long as you understand that.

i find it hilarious that you're so sanctimonious that you think you deserve an apology for having your erroneous 'ideas' challenged and "your" training plan called out for what it is (nothing at all, really) while at the same time peddling your pedantic quips about wanting respectful dialogue and all that jazz.

so at the end of the day you're just another 20 min 5k guy who once ran in high school who now thinks he has some good ideas that he wants other people to pat him on the head for it.

intriguing.

The NCAA is not a high school association, but yes, I am still a nobody. My point in asking for an apology is not to suggest that I am morally superior to you. I sometimes use toxic language too and require correction from others. This is not about whether or not I am inferior or superior to you or anybody else in any way. I shared that I think I deserve an apology because that is simply what I think. I point out what I think are disrespectful ways of communicating so that you can be made aware of how you are impacting me and others and consider correcting your toxic ways of communicating. This is not to make myself superior, but as a service to you.

I like having my ideas challenged. I am interested in truth, not in being right. What I cannot tolerate is the disrespectful way in which you have been communicating.

I think I deserve to be treated as a normal human being, no more no less. I think you are treating me as less than a human being. I think your last post, while mostly accurate, is insensitive and unnecessarily harsh. At this point, I must stop replying to you. If you have any comments or questions, there will be no reply by me.

Here are my PRs, by the way:

4 X 200m relay split in HS, 23.8

4 X 400m relay split in college, 50.0

800m in college, 1:53.8

1500m in college, 4:07

4 X 1Mile relay in HS, 4:28

5k XC in HS, 16:48

8k XC in college, 27:xx, (don't remember exact time, nor care much)

Nothing spectacular, but times that are better than average. In the end, my times and my ideas do not make me superior or inferior to anybody. We all inherently have equal dignity and deserve to be treated as such. I wish you well.

So you're being sanctimonious as a service to me. Again, intriguing.

Of course your entire premise above centers on the belief that I am concerned with what you think. Since that premise is wholly erroneous, the resulting discourse is also erroneous.

Again, you are remiss in thinking that your level of toleration is something with which I or anyone else should be concerned with.

Furthermore, and circling back to the topic at hand, you haven't really put forth any 'training ideas' to begin with. You threw up some lop-sided analogy about Haile retiring because of high mileage (you do realize he isn't retired, right?) and from that assert that high mileage may not be such a good idea.

Fascinating.

I'd hand you a tissue and all, but I think your problems are more deep-seeded than that.

Your times from a decade plus ago are fairly irrelevant. If you feel your dignity is being threatened, I suggest you address that with a therapist. I've already pointed out how I am wholly unconcerned with your dignity, thinking, or feelings.

I was just curious as to why you've deluded yourself into thinking that you're promoting some new ideas that merit some random person devoting their season to your "cause".

Danno67 wrote:

0/10 - obvious troll ...

I know the OP. He's legit.

From200mTo8k,

I won't know until Jan 1st...so I'm just getting fit to race not really knowing if I'm a go or no-go. Ideally, I'd rather run the 12k. The longest distance I've really raced is 10k with a PR of 32:30 (nothing too outstanding, but stronger than my 5k PR). In the last year I popped a 33:33 with just sporadic runs and some treadmill workouts a few weeks leading up.

I'm naturally really thin and muscular so I can build fitness very quickly. Endurance is probably my strong suit but I really lack leg speed. Even in college I was running like 15:40s in local 5ks with a mile PR of something outstandingly slow like a 4:37 (I never raced anything shorter than 4K after HS).

What I hope to gain from this style of training is a lot more leg speed and kick. It helps that I live next to a track. I'll maintain endurance with a weekly long run but most of my fitness is going to be gained on the track...that's what I like about these workouts.

As for what I have been doing...not much really. Probably 30 mpw of just running and a few tempo type runs for the hell of it.

tomorrow I'm going to have my schedule figured out based on your workouts. Because of the 14 weeks I have to train, I'm starting with period 2 and pulling 14 different weeks that will have me peaking in Feb.

From200mTo8k wrote:

I would like some volunteers to test my new low mileage, high quality training plan. The idea behind it is that there is no need to increase weekly volume and risk injury until you race as fast as possible using the current plan. Best results will be seen over time after using the plan consistently. I have been using this plan and find it nearly impossible to get injured with it.

A few questions regarding this plan.

Why the run/walk thing? Are you aiming this solely at beginners?

How can you race as fast as possible with the current plan without progressively increasing the training load of said current plan?

Or are you suggesting not building volume until the end of that training cycle?

If you're doing low volume that you never build on, you'll have to continue to increase intensity to obtain more stress. Obviously that will be limited to a lower level with low volume (especially if running history is on the short side).

If you plateau with intensity and don't increase volume, you won't really improve that much with no new training stimuli.

And where are the tempos? It really seems to be lacking in the sustained threshold area in regards to tempos and longer intervals.