random knowitdude wrote:
That mostly just shows how crappy your college training was.
While it is true there are many ways to accomplish the same thing, different types of training accomplish different things and will produce different training adaptations, which in turn will lead to different performances. You aren't going to run well in the 10k or marathon if you do nothing but short fast reps @ mile pace or faster, just like you're not going to run well at 800m if you do nothing but long tempo runs. Whether you do 2x2miles at threshold pace or a 4 mile threshold run is not going make a large difference however.
I don't have a website, but I am a 14:0x guy. I was a 14:5x guy when I ran for a coach who pulled workouts out of a hat each week.
I've been following the sub-15 blog and think it's a hoot. That being said, I think since it's crowd sourced, and the goal was stated (withing 6 months) other than a few notable exceptions (eg. repeat 100s really early on), I think you two have selected submitted workouts that attempt to segment your time-line. There were videos requesting fartleks and tempos early on, and there was the killer hill session about a third of the way through, now you're on the track for nearly every workout. I don't know if this was a conscience effort or by luck but I think they have generally followed a progression that makes sense for a 5k.
When I clicked on the thread, I was expecting to hear arguments about talent and work. I know of quite a few sub-15 high school kids who's coach didn't have a clue, and they only ran during the cross county and track season and played basketball or swam in the winter. The difference that training makes is how close to your ceiling you can get.
I also think that the sciences is extremely complicated and different people respond to different stimulus even within the same event. I would agree that the only absolutely proven element to training is volume and how hard you work, and that will get you to about 90% of your ceiling.