Summer XC Base

A suggestion:

http://www.bunnhill.com/bobhodge/BaseTraining.htm

Hodgie-san - thanks for the suggestion, but im not sure it makes sense to me. From what I've read, optimal adaptation to aerobic running comes at 30-60min, and maximal comes at 60-90min. How would running 4-6mile runs (30-45min), no matter how often, really help long distance running? Or i should rephrase my question; wouldn't simply 10 miles at once, or a more varied approach of 8-4 lead to better fitness gains than those gotten from twice daily 40min runs?

Running twice a day releases much more growth hormone and encourages and facilitates muscle recovery.

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/10/is-9mi-once-better-than-45mi-twice.html

[quote]wUT wrote:

10:40 is garbage and so are your other times based on how much youve put into training.

In the interest of defending my training philosophy, I'm going to dispute this statement. I should have specified that I ran that 10:40 at the end of a week of 70, with no workouts but long tempos and two sessions of mile repeats. No speed work; just base work: the idea being, of course, that I understand basic sharpening philosophy, and so the 10:40 was just a gauge of fitness; I think its reasonable to expect that by the end of track season when Im at 35mpw and have done considerable sharpening a 10:10 will at least be in view. Also, I ran my 4:49 at the end of XC season, peaked, and at 14 as well. So thats a 4:49 for a freshman: No, its not national class by any means, but i think its respectable; Especially because when I was 12 my 5k PR was 21:40. So I took very little talent, and made it into mediocre-to-respectable talent by my training. Also, while i hate to use tentative results, it is worth noting that the 10:10 I soundly think is in my reach would likely be at least in the top-ten of freshman in my state. Thats not garbage in my book. So, if you truly believe that I have no understanding of my body and training, and that If i would've ran only 40-50mpw this winter I would've instantly debuted at 10:10 in indoor, or that if last summer I would've just barely scratched 50mpw, It would've turned my 4:49 into a 4:39 instead of a 5:09, then so be it. I for one cannot fathom that being the case. (call me close-minded, but, however little I do know, I know enough about myself and distance running that that cannot be the case).

Absolutely wrong. If "endurance" and "aerobic power" were the only limiting factors in performance then you would be running much faster, wouldn't you? You are proof that it doesn't work for you. Thats all that needs to be said.

Try something else, or be known as the guy who tries hard in practice but can't sack up compete. Its as simple as that. There is no point in doing that much mileage and underperforming

Thanks for the article. However, I think it only reinforces my ideas; it still maintains that the initial base phase should be done in long aerobic runs. And so that leads me to a point about the mileage thing: for example, this winter I found running 80 with 68 in singles and 12 in doubles to be, well, easier in a way, than just 70 in singles. I plan on running, say, 100mpw over 80mpw, simply because if the difference is made in light, easy doubling i think the 100 is in many ways easier than the 80. It relieves psychological boredom, and evidently encourages and facilitates recovery and adaptation. Thus, in a way, I plan on 100mpw not cause its more than 80mpw, but because its more doable: I think 80 without doubles poses a higher injury and burnout risk than 100 with them. Hope that makes sense; just trying to flesh out my ideas and explain the perspective to high mileage nay-sayers.

wUT wrote:

hat, for example, while a 60sec 400m is a mediocre time for a highschool male, somehow stringing four of them together becomes a world-class feat. My explanation is that, while you can take any reasonably fit young male and train him up with 12 weeks of speed and anaerobic training to make a 60sec 400m runner, it takes professional athletes years of intensive high mileage work to cultivate the aerobic capacity necessary to run 4:00 for a mile. There are exceptions to every rule; but i do subscribe to the Lydiard-ian notion that endurance and aerobic power are the true limiting factors in performance. Hence if i can slog out 18miles at 6:30 pace, a 5k at 5:15 pace will just happen naturally (this statement is a simplistic misunderstanding of many training concepts, but if taken lightly it conveys my point)

Absolutely wrong. If "endurance" and "aerobic power" were the only limiting factors in performance then you would be running much faster, wouldn't you? You are proof that it doesn't work for you. Thats all that needs to be said.

Try something else, or be known as the guy who tries hard in practice but can't sack up compete. Its as simple as that. There is no point in doing that much mileage and underperforming[/quote]

this.

[quote]wUT wrote:

Absolutely wrong. If "endurance" and "aerobic power" were the only limiting factors in performance then you would be running much faster, wouldn't you? You are proof that it doesn't work for you. Thats all that needs to be said.

I don't know how fast you consider 'working' to be, but as i've said i consider 4:49 for a 14-year old who didnt show much promise to begin with to be 'working'. I ran 4:59 off of 40-50mpw, then ran 4:49 off of 50-60mpw - yea, i grew a year, but a 10sec cut off is pretty decent. [and even if you dispute that, let it be said that my summer of 50-60mpw was say 1/2 to 3/4 as long as the previous one, due to an injury sustained in track. So, if you think i should've dropped 15sec to call it 'working', well maybe that was it. The bigger the base the higher the peak]. Anyways then, I have reasonable hopes of running 10:10 or faster this year: if that happens, it damn worked for me. Not everyone has the innate talent to be Lukas Verzbiscas or Edward Cheserek. You work with what you have. Plus in my training philosophy I see progression: I know i only have 2 years of personal experience to cite, but at least my reasoning stands. If i dropped 10sec of the mile the first year, say i do 8 the next. Thats a 4:41. Then 6. 4:35. Then 4. 4:31. It isnt national, but its plenty good to be a senior running ~4:30.

Needless to say, I think your a little out of your sphere to claim that my performance's dont show that my training works. I applaud you for good faith if you solemnly believe that any freshman running 60mpw your 'right way' should somehow run sub-4:40, but I dont think its true.

a senior running 4:30 off 100 mpw is actually pretty bad. I'm a sophomore who ran low 4:20s this indoor season off 50 mpw. That is half your milage, more than two years younger, and almost 10 seconds faster. The mile is as much speed as it is endurance. Do more quality miles and tempos for summer base. You don't train for 3.1 miles the same way you train for 26.2 miles.

Also, If you work on your speed, it will help you out in the long run. It is much easier to run a 4:30 mile with 53 second speed than 60 second speed (for a 400).

[quote]smitty werbenjagermanjensen wrote:

a senior running 4:30 off 100 mpw is actually pretty bad.

In my book, a 4:30 is a 4:30. It doesn't really bother me that I might have to work harder than other people to achieve that. By the way, that was a totally hypothetical example. The progression I forecasted might actually end up leaving me at 4:40. But maybe 4:20. Anyways I think it was actually pretty conservative as i may run low 4:40s this year.

You don't train for 3.1 miles the same way you train for 26.2 miles.

I beg to differ. Peter Snell, Olympian in the 800m, regularly ran 22mile marathon conditioning runs in his base season. Its called Lydiard training, and undeniably it has worked. Obviously athletes specify workouts in the sharpening phase according to their events; but in the off-season, 100mpw can do the same thing for a 800m runner as 120mpw for a marathoner: make them better.

Also, If you work on your speed, it will help you out in the long run.

I plan on working on my speed - but mostly in season. Yea, I'll try for neuromuscular conditioning over the summer with exercises, hill-bounding, and striders; but other than that theres not much raw speed work to be done. In season, i'll sharpen with 400m workouts, do downhill striders, etc, to make me faster. I suppose some sort of top speed workout like 4x200m or 6x100m in the base phase would be possible; but generally one doesnt want to go anaerobic in the base phase, let alone alactic.

drop to 60 and get in some more quality. intervals are not bad as long as you work the aerobic system, think mile repeats, 1ks, and stuff like that.

Lagat may run low mileage, but he is hitting his aerobic system hard day in and day out through long intervals and tempos.

right now it seems like you are either trolling us or are really insecure. People try to give you advice, but you keep on insisting on you crazy training methods. Is that the only reason you put this tread up? By the way, you are not peter snell, you are a 15 year old kid who runs a 10:40 3200.

100mpw is just a recipe for disaster for someone your age.

Let's say you run 100mpw. I envision the following scenarios:

1. You become a stud...but based on your current times...not likely.

2. You get injured (maybe a stress fracture) and you'll miss the entire XC season rehabbing. You'll then suck at track.

3. You run 100mpw and come into XC completely flat and everyone destroys you. You begin to hate running because you invested a ton of time into and it gives nothing back to you. Diminished returns.

My take is that you are not developed enough to handle that workload with such limited experience. Many D1 programs top out at 70mpw. Olympic 1500m guys, OTC athletes, even Hansons-Brooks Project guys didn't even touch that type of mileage until post-college. Wouldn't you think there is a reason for this?

Please listen to what people are telling you here. There are plenty of great runners that post here that will steer you in the right direction.

smitty werbenjagermanjensen wrote:

right now it seems like you are either trolling us or are really insecure. People try to give you advice, but you keep on insisting on you crazy training methods. Is that the only reason you put this tread up? By the way, you are not peter snell, you are a 15 year old kid who runs a 10:40 3200.

I'm trying to rationally explain why I believe my 'crazy training methods' to be sound. Please clear up my misunderstandings, but I don't understand how what you've said somehow renders my training methods 'crazy'. 'more quality and tempos' - I did tempos all winter, and some mile-repeats; this summer I plan on two threshold sessions weekly: thats a lot of quality. Then you talk about working on speed. I told you how I plan on addressing that. Please tell me how you would suggest i work on it. I'd imagine that whatever it is, I can try to incorporate it into high mileage (and thus reap higher aerobic benefits on top of the speed benefits). If the extent of your admonition to 'work on speed' is 'cut mileage' then I simply dont follow you: 1. Long runs greater than 90min generally start to stimulate fast-twitch muscle fibers, thus making you 'faster'. 2. Do you think that just because I run a peak 100mile week means i'll run the state meet at 100mpw? of course not. I'll have a huge base from it, then proceed to drop it say 5-10 miles per week, adding in sharpening and speed training, to eventually peak at, i dont know, 40-60mpw. A big difference anyways; enough to develop a fair bit of speed on its own.

By the way, i didnt claim to be Peter Snell. You made a statement; I pointed out a well-known counterexample. The potential fallacy I made is that I assumed that some sound physiological principles apply to all runners- from Peter Snell to the lowly 15-year old 10:40 3200m runner. That, however, is a wholly different argument. If you believe that just because run more --> run faster applies to a large amount of successful runners doesnt mean it applies to me, then so be it.

dont listen to the naysayers prometheus. You're not going to shrivel up and die running 80-100 mpw at 15 or 16. Plenty of Japanese and Kenyan runners are probably doing that much. CAm Levins runs 155 mpw in college. Nate Jenkins was running in the 140s. Some top marathoners like Brian Sell averaged 160 mpw as pros, so you've still got room to go up too, just be cognizant of recovery and you'll be fine.

From a guy who ran 120s in college.

Watch out for injuries and you must become very aware of everything in your body so you can stop injuries before they happen. You are going to get injured if you work hard. It may not happen now but eventually your luck is going to run out and something will have to give. When you train this summer do not be afraid to back off if you think you may be over training. Remember to train to race and not to make badass training logs. I am a similar runner to you who is much better at longer stuff and high mileage just comes easy to me. I can go and pound out long runs like no one else but I have realized that as much as these help me it is more beneficial for me to work on my speed. I find that doing 5k-10k type workouts during my base phase actually helps me more than pure base training. This is not true for everyone though but when you are a pure distance guy in hs and the longest race is only 5k it helps. Working on speed during base will only help. Throw in some 1ks or mile repeats every now and then over the summer and it will help. These workouts still help your aerobic fitness but will make your 5k pace much more sustainable. Strides are also very important and it is preferable to do them barefoot at a fast pace almost every day. You have a great attitude and work ethic just don't be stupid or think you are invincible. Work hard but always remember that you have years to grow and hurting yourself now will only hurt your development. Good luck and I hope I helped.

Thanks a lot for the advice. I think what I will try to do is start at 50-60mpw, build up to 80mpw by +5-6 a week, then run by feel. If i think i can run more, by all means I will; if not, i'll hold 80, and come to the realization that i'll still have a plenty badass training log. And maybe ever 2-3 weeks i'll through in a 1k repeat workout with just a few quick 400m repeats at the end to work on speed. Striders I do plan on doing pretty much always, so i think that will help too. It all comes down to me loving running, and having faith in high-mileage philosophies. I have the dedication; and so its primarily an experiment: what is the utmost someone can do with a 17:30 5k runner in 10 weeks? If I run 15:30, spectacular, and I know anything is possible. If I run 16:30, I had a good time and got a lot better. If I run 17:30 or get injured: well I tried, and gave it my all. So everyone eagerly await the occasional posts that will mark my summer training in ~5 months. Either way, eventually some group of people will have their philosophies and comments vindicated, and will be able to gloat as much as having one's philosophy approved by the experience of a random adolescent can cause one to gloat. Maybe i'll learn something about running along the way.

Unless those miles were slow as dirt, I'm guessing your running economy must be really bad if you can't run faster than 10:40 off 70 mpw. By runnin that much one would assume you're more aerobically developed than they are so I would imagine it's general inefficiency that's to blame for why you're a mediocre runner.

You really need to add some faster stuff into your training, this will help you solidify your mechanics and become more efficient. Over the summer run 200s with full recovery. Don't worry about it being too anaerobic or what have you, as long as the running is within yourself you won't peak early and it's important to run multiple paces year round (two threshold workouts a week? And mile repeats twice in 3-4 days? What are you thinking?)

I would certainly agree that mileage builds champions but you obviously have a number of other areas that need improvement without carrying the risk of injury. Your 4:49 is significantly better than your 3200 time so it's my like you don't have any speed, try to develop it before you become an ultrarunner.

Oh and 100 mpw in doubles plus strengthening and other workouts everyday? Are you just naïve or do you not plan on having any life at all this summer?

Jurgis Rudkus wrote:

Oh and 100 mpw in doubles plus strengthening and other workouts everyday? Are you just naïve or do you not plan on having any life at all this summer?

Running 100mpw takes less than 2 hours per day. Even if the kid spends 30 minutes per day on strength and sleeps 9 hours every night, he has 12.5 hours to do whatever else he wants. How the hell is 12.5 hours insufficient time to "have a life"?