Anyone had any success with this theory?
Anyone had any success with this theory?
There's this quote by this guy named, I think it is....Coe? It goes something like "slow runners produce....."
Last year the fastest I could manage in practice was 2x400m in 64s or 3x300m in 45s. In a race I ran the 400 in 50.1. I know this isn't what you meant but I think it's funny.
I think you can train very slowly 90% of the time, then really nail some quality workouts and race very well indeed off of that mix.... Works for me anyway. Plus keeps injury potential down. Volume kills, (not speed).
slow except when I'm not,
Could you post an example week of yours, along with some PR's if you're not too bashful? I feel the same way and was just wanting to bounce some training ideas around.
Thank you
I would suggest that you get a copy of Van Aaken Method from Amazon.com.
It should answer some of your questions.
I've read the book and it is quite interesting. I'm not too much of a stickler for the whole diet outline he lays out. What can I say? I like my food, lol!
About the training, it is some slow stuff. I am basically getting ready for my first collegiate season this fall and running as much as I can. I find myself tired because I'm pounding out 120+ mpw and hoping for some great aerobic benefits. I am tired alot, as expected, and see that some of my running is very slow. I still incorporate work done at aerobic threshold, blast the last bit of my long run, which is 20 miles, and do some fartlek segments once a week, as well as sprints, and strides a few times per week. The problem is that I'm afriad that I'll be sucked into the "all-out everyday" approach implemented by many colleges once the season starts. Any advice?
hey hey wrote:
slow except when I'm not,
Could you post an example week of yours, along with some PR's if you're not too bashful? I feel the same way and was just wanting to bounce some training ideas around.
Thank you
To put it in context, I'm in my late 40's, so all the numbers would likely be adjusted for a younger person. I'm more middle distance than long distance, so that might be a consideration too.
In training that led to a 4:46 mile, 4:24 1500, and 2:08 800 about a year ago, the training had peak mileage of maybe 50, with more like 35 in the months prior to the big races.
A typical week during the 35 per week phase:
Monday rest.
Tuesday 3 mile warmup (8 minute mile pace)
2x(4x200) 30-31 with 60 second recovery
2 mile cooldown, 9 minute mile pace.
Wednesday easy 6 miles (8-8:30 pace).
Thursday easy 6 miles (8-8:30 pace).
Friday easy 4 miles (8-8:30 pace).
Saturday: 3 mile warmup, light plyometrics, strides.
race 800 meters in 2:12.
2 mile cooldown.
Sunday: easy 8-10 miles 8:30 pace or slower.
For Tuesday and Saturday, substitute a variety of workouts such as:
4x(2x400) @ 70, with 90 second recovery.
mile race (about 5:00).
600 race (about 1:33).
400 race (57-58).
4x400 low 60's 5 minute recovery.
4x600, full recovery.
3000 meters at anerobic threshold.
Basically, a mix of racing, pure speedwork, and some speed endurance, never all that much volume. And slow was slow.
Sebastian Coe's Quote was "Long slow distance, produces long slow runners."
What is everyone's opinion on this?
Check out Joe Henderson's site "running commentary" and click on the "LSD BOOK" icon. This produces his booklet
entitled "Long, Slow Distance: the Humane Way to Train".
It came out in '70 or so.
That may answer your questions.
Coe was a great runner, but he was full of shit on the LSD.
LSD will get you there, but it will take you longer to get there. You get more bang for the buck by training at a greater intensity. If you want to get fit faster, you have to push it slightly beyond what is comfortable.
If you can hold a conversation during a run, you are doing LSD. If you get to the point where you want people to shut the f*** up, you are in the optimal training zone.
Out.
If you can hold a conversation during a run, you are doing LSD. If you get to the point where you want people to shut the f*** up, you are in the optimal training zone.
classic...
Man that stuff is OLD.
Those guys are in their 60's.
If you're runnign a lot, you'll tap into higher energy ssytems along the way and your overall fitness level will be fantastic, although you'll need to specifically target those higher systems if you want to maximize your fitness.
I have a friend who was running between 100-150 mpw for many months. For the first few months, all he did was run b/c that's all he could do when getting adjusted to such high volume. He found that, as the training progressed, his effort stayed the same but the pace would increase. One time he was just cruising his 20mi run and ended up running 2:02. He also he got to the point where he felt "different" and that nothing made him tired. He jumped into a 5km XC race and took 4th, but felt like he could turn around and run it again. The next week he won the race.
STL_Runner wrote:
Last year the fastest I could manage in practice was 2x400m in 64s or 3x300m in 45s. In a race I ran the 400 in 50.1. I know this isn't what you meant but I think it's funny.
that is impossible...
I was always fascinated by the ability of wild animals that move around all day and get very aerobically fit and occasionally sprint to either escape or capture food. When the time comes to run fast for a long distance, they're ready for that too. A fox pursued by a pack of hounds is a Van Aaken athlete at his best.
Sounds like your friend reached that "tireless state" Lydiard always talked about. Must be a nice place to be.
slow except when i'm not: Which aspect of your training do you feel was most important?
Really? wrote:
Sebastian Coe's Quote was "Long slow distance, produces long slow runners."
What is everyone's opinion on this?
I guess Coe never heard much about Viren's training.
Will wrote:
Really? wrote:Sebastian Coe's Quote was "Long slow distance, produces long slow runners."
What is everyone's opinion on this?
I guess Coe never heard much about Viren's training.
viren's training was anything but slow. it was "slow" for him, very fast for us.