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

Does anyone else find the writing styles of from200mto8k and dfrank eerily similar?

There are runners all over doing a low mileage plan that run pretty well. Last fall I did 2 months of 5ks after 6 weeks off and didn't run ANY during the rest of the week. I was only about a minute slower than when I was in great shape before the injury.

Transparant black m wrote:

Does anyone else find the writing styles of from200mto8k and dfrank eerily similar?

Wowza! Was literally thinking the same thing earlier.

Ok, I see.

My problem with "goal oriented" programs is that I rarely

have a specific goal race. I just run ... And once in a while

I might decide to enter a local 5 or 10k race. But I never

really plan for it. However when I do, I still want to race well. I think for me, it would be nice to have a program that just repeats it self over a few weeks

wow, great work detective. I have no doubt that you put a lot of work into analyzing the linguistical differences between our posts.

The fact for me is that while I get real fit with higher miles, I always get too busted up for the training to amount to anything. So I'm trying a different approach for the first time and figured I'd give some of his ideas a shot (whether revolutionary or not) bc my own high quality plan would simply be a shot in the dark. But I don't really need to explain that to anyone here.

My feeling is that if you don't like this guy's ideas then simply don't read the thread. It's a running forum where running ideas should be discussed....but everyone is a friggin critic.

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

The run/walk part is optional. I am not aiming at beginners solely. I used to stick my nose up at run/walk plans, laughing, saying walking is what I do when I can't run anymore. Now, I'm a convert for training but not for racing. Galloway has a good theory that for thousands of years, humans have hunted by foot in a way such that they ran a distance, walked a distance, then ran a distance. If he is right, then one of the reasons steady state runners get injured so often is because they are not resting the muscles briefly every so often. The run/walk is part of the plan's emphasis on injury prevention. I propose that someone who regularly runs 54 minutes steady state at 6-minute pace, will be equally as fit as someone who uses the run-walk method for 60 minutes, running at 6-minute pace for the run portion. At 6-minute pace, the runner covers 1.5 miles before walking a minute; two of these is almost a 5k. I run/walk on my easy days too.

This plan is the first one I used in which I never missed a single workout because of a running injury, which is why I think I keep getting faster. I'm not married to the run-walk method and if someone doesn't want to use it, it can be taken out as long as the person is conscious that he or she is increasing the risk of injury. I think it could be hard to convince a team to use the method because of the (unnecessary) sense of pride that comes from running without stopping. I wonder how many elites with stress fractures could have prevented them by using this method. I think they’d still be as fast, just uninjured.

I am open to the run being longer than 60 minutes for a specific individual, but I don’t think that if someone runs 90 minutes during one full cycle, that they must increase it to 100 minutes the next. If the goal of a race is to run distance X as fast as possible, then why not have the same attitude regarding working out. If an athlete can run 100m in 9.8 seconds, he would normally not shift his goal and hope to someday run the 800m at 9.8 per 100m pace. On the other hand, if a competitor puts out a better time than him in the 100m, he will want to run that same distance (800m) faster (9.7 seconds). I think our training should emulate our racing attitude, speed before volume. Likewise, if a 5:00 miler has the potential to run 4:30 using this plan with no volume increases after three seasons, then why increase his mileage. Increasing his mileage would make him a 10:30 3200m runner. On the other hand, running faster over the same distance using this plan would make that same athlete a 4:30 miler after several cycles. Then once he’s a 4:30 miler, he can increase volume, perhaps, so he can become a 9:30 3200m runner or even faster.

There are different ways of increasing the training load. One way is to add distance and that is a fine way. Another way is to increase intensity, which is also a fine way. This plan increases intensity. On the 60-minute run, for example, the distance increases automatically as intensity increases. You will cover more miles in the time frame running at 7-minute pace than you will at 8-minute pace. I ran 8k's in the 27s in probably all four years in college, never getting any faster. This was the case, even though we ran high weekly mileage, high enough that I was usually chronically fatigued or injured. What if my coach had decreased the weekly volume, allowing me to remain injury free and my speed to be set free? A 4:10 miler is going to run 8k faster than a 4:25 miler. No?

Another way that this plan is progressive has not been mentioned yet. The rest times in between intervals can be decreased. For the 6 X 400m workout this last cycle, I took 1:00 rest. For the 8 X 300m, I took :50 rest. For the 12 X 200m I took my watch battery was dead, but the idea would be to take less than :50 rest. Then when you come around the second time in week 4 of the period, you can either run the 6 X 400m faster or decrease your rest time down to :55 from 1:00. When I peaked for my most recent race and cut the volume in half in the final week, I rested only :31 for my 6 X 200m.

Yes, I am suggesting not building volume until the end of the training cycle; only building speed over consistent volume. I am actually decreasing volume throughout the cycle because the primary workout goes from 60 minutes to 5K to 1.5 miles to 800m total quality volume for that day.

I am tempted to increase the volume in my new cycle that starts next week to a 70 minute run, but I am resisting the temptation due to my paradigm shift. I should be running faster for 60 minutes this cycle than the one that just ended, which will mean that I will run my peak race faster.

My running history is not on the short side. I did an IronMan Triathlon about ten years ago, which meant 13-14 hours of exercise in one day. My capillary network should be developed even if my mitochondria count is potentially low right now. I think I will not “tap out” this training plan for four more years. At that point, I will need to add a new training stimulus as you have said. I will increase volume. At that point, I will change the 60 minute run to 70 minutes, the 3 X 1 mile to 4 X 1 mile, and perhaps leave the rest of the plan alone. I want incremental adjustments so that I can see the minimal amount of volume increase needed to get me to run faster in my goal race during my peak.

I do not think it is lacking in longer intervals, unless you mean threshold pace intervals. Yes, it is lacking in tempos and threshold work. That was a hard decision. It takes 4-6 weeks to develop a system and there were only so many systems I could hit before I need to re-enter the base period. I see this lack, which is why in this cycle I am adding tempo runs (or really cruise intervals due to the run/walk method) inside of the 60 minute run, actually at the end of it.

Wk 1: 9 minute cruise interval

Wk 2: 2 X 9 minute cruise interval, with 1 minute walk between

Wk 3: 9 minute cruise interval

Wk 4: 2 X 9 minute cruise interval, with 1 minute walk between

Wk 5: 3 X 9 minute cruise interval, with 1 minute walk between

Wk 6: 9 minute cruise interval

Little 2-week build ups here, with an easy week (9 minute) after each. My pace will be mandated by a HR monitor on that portion of that workout only. I run only 4 miles on my easy days. In my final week I cut that in half and my runs naturally turn into tempo runs. I remember peaking in college and going out for a 4 mile run towards the end of the season with the 800m runners when I was a 1500m runner and we were clicking off 6 minute miles like they were nothing. We didn’t plan it, it just happened. If you peak right, I think the tempos will appear just at the right time.

Another note on why I chose to let the tempos be lacking rather than something else. I’ve looked at my training logs and was surprised at how slow I was when I was mainly doing tempo runs and aerobic running compared to when I did faster work. That is one reason I am emphasizing leg turnover over sub-sub-VO2Max work (both “subs” are intentional). A 5k race is run at faster than LT pace. I think decreasing LT pace is good for 10 mile races up to marathon (or beyond). By being able to run faster at LT pace, you will automatically run a faster marathon since marathons are run at below LT pace. A 5k is a different story. Someone who has increased his VO2Max and Economy might run a 5k at 5:30 pace and have an LT that is quite high. If that same person had emphasized Tempo running over VO2Max and Economy, he might have an LT of 6:00, but what does that matter if he is racing at 5:30 pace utilizing the VO2Max system and having a faster turnover than 6:00 pace?

If I trained two primary systems at once, then I would need to add a third quality workout. If I did this, I could have a “tempo” phase, perhaps at the same time as another phase, but having a third quality workout increases risk of injury. I suggest that once this plan is maxed out, one route to go would be to formally add tempos in some way.

In high school we didn't even know what a tempo was and we were turning in some pretty good times without them. Could we have been faster with them? Perhaps. Our running history was on the short side and we used a plan a lot like this and the lack of volume did not seem to matter. We'd maybe run 1 or 2 10-milers at the beginning of a cross country season.

dfrank wrote:

wow, great work detective. I have no doubt that you put a lot of work into analyzing the linguistical differences between our posts.

The fact for me is that while I get real fit with higher miles, I always get too busted up for the training to amount to anything. So I'm trying a different approach for the first time and figured I'd give some of his ideas a shot (whether revolutionary or not) bc my own high quality plan would simply be a shot in the dark. But I don't really need to explain that to anyone here.

My feeling is that if you don't like this guy's ideas then simply don't read the thread. It's a running forum where running ideas should be discussed....but everyone is a friggin critic.

We may write similarly, but we are different runners. I was the biggest guy on the cross country team. When they tested our fat content, mine was the highest, but I have bigger bones and more muscle than the others too. Speed comes naturally to me and endurance not so much, even on high volume programs.

Typo = "he will want to run that same distance (800m) faster (9.7 seconds). "

Should say "he will want to run that same distance (100m) faster (9.7 seconds)."

To "i love the eliptical":

Yeah. Sometimes we forget that races are workouts too. run those races and you are already doing the most specific training you could do for the race. Add in some training at above and/or below race pace once a week and you are almost a minute faster.

dfrank:

I wouldn't just grab a few workouts from the plan and throw them in somewhere. It takes 4-6 weeks to train a system so you'll need to pick what you really focus on for that amount of time and pick from one of the workout types for that 4-6 wk period.

It sounds like you want to focus on economy, so these workouts can help with that:

6 X 400m

8 X 300m

12 X 200m

Make sure you don't turn them into sprints. Visualize your race when you do them and imagine yourself having very fast turnover for the whole 12k. You want a small change to occur in your current 12k stride. That said, these are run at current mile race pace for the 400's and faster for the others.

Doing a phase of the previous period in my plan after this can help you begin to bridge the gap between this pacework and the 12k race:

4 X 800m

5 X 600m

6 X 500m

It is going to be tough to improve much in such a short time, but I think you will see some improvement.

Trixter wrote:

Ok, I see.

My problem with "goal oriented" programs is that I rarely

have a specific goal race. I just run ... And once in a while

I might decide to enter a local 5 or 10k race. But I never

really plan for it. However when I do, I still want to race well. I think for me, it would be nice to have a program that just repeats it self over a few weeks

If you did Period 2 only repeatedly, that would be a nice training plan that repeats itself over a few weeks. You may find that your workout pace for 3 X 1 mile is 15+ seconds slower than race pace. That's okay. It can be a good predictor of your next race.

If you use it. I'd like to know if you get faster over time.

[quote]wowza wrote:

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.

-----------------

I came to read this thread because I was interested in the ideas expressed by the OP and have had to wade through your venomous garbage in order to get to the content written by more mature people who understand that the purpose of this thread is to exchange ideas. If you don't have anything to contribute and just want to vent your bitterness and anger on the world then maybe you could start a thread for people who, like yourself have nothing better to do with their time.

By the way, 200mTo8k's responses to you were far more kind, patient, and mature than I would have been, and contrasted sharply with your obvious immaturity.

FYI--There is no such term as deep-seeded. The correct term is deep-seated.

Ok, I think I will try it.

What time did you run in your latest 5k? I want to compare it with the next one you run as long as it is 6 weeks or more from now.

Last one was in september this year. I run 18:11.

(I am an older guy, not chasing pr's anymore)

That's a good time. I think you said you are newly self-coached. Who was caoching you? Local running club?

I have not been in a running club for 10 years. I do all my training alone. Have read some running books here and there.

I used to race in cross country skiing and olympic flat water kayaking (Now I do a little of everything). Back then I had coaching. Not anymore though ....

From200mTo8k wrote:

wowza wrote:

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.

Actually, I'm pretty sure he meant boob.

Either way, you don't know anything about distance running.

T&F Coach wrote:

Danno67 wrote:

0/10 - obvious troll ...

I know the OP. He's legit.

Well, as long as you're vouching for him, Mr. Anonymous T&F coach ....