What is the most overrated part of training? What is most overlooked that shouldn't be?

The answer to me depends on the distance being raced.

Most 800 meter and milers types I knew trained hard but could have benefitted from a little more aerobic development. But they hated long runs, which probably explained why they were mid distance guys to begin with.

Similarly, I knew a lot of marathoners who abhorred the sight of a track, but they loved grinding out long runs.

Overrated: doing just the workouts we like instead of the ones we need to improve. I think most fall into that trap.

For underrated I would go with nutrition and sleep.

reality check 19 wrote:

relaitivity wrote:

What is relatively low?

sub 60

Perhaps the take home message is that V02 is a measure (of the ability to utilize oxygen), but it doesn't always convert to performance. Endurance, speed, and efficiency are as or more important. To this day USST is totally wrapped up in V02 max.

Is it still sub 60?

I could not disagree more. I know we all try to get first place in the "I had no talent" derby but I think I have a good claim to one of the top spots. It took me nearly three years of high school running until I beat another runner who actually finished a race. I never ran any distance down to the half mile at better than 6:00 mile pace until my freshman year in college but eventually managed to run marathons at that pace.

I knew a couple other guys with similar beginnings to mine and we all got into the mid 2:20s to mid 2:30s and we all did it by running tons of miles. For all three of us 100 miles a week was a cellar, not a ceiling. The idea that because you have less talent you should train less is absurd if you want to get the most out of what talent you do have. You need to train more. Only once in my life did I manage to beat another runner who trained as much as I did. Now if you decide that running 34:00/2:55 "gets" you as much as 32:00/2:30 does and you would rather do 50-70 a week that's fine. But it's another story.

I've noticed many people talking about core/hip strength being underrated. I've dealt with hip flexor problems for years, as well as injuries which I assume are due in no small part to the weak/tense "minority" muscles (as opposed to the quads) in my upper legs. Could anyone post a resource?

This is the best thread LetsRun has had in ages.

I can't believe I started such an awesome thread lol

Sorry for the triple post - why don't they have an edit option?

HRE - I know what you are saying about people needing to train more and shortchanging themselves quite often based on what they perceive as their talent level. For a while that was my philosophy. What happens, though, when you just can't train more?

I started running in 7th grade and started running what I would call "seriously" in 9th. From 10th through 12th I was putting on what we called heavy mileage (compared to my teammates; we weren't a powerhouse, as you can tell) - consistently in the 60s. So, relative to everyone else, I had a very strong base. I got my first major injury as a junior during track season -- a stress fracture. A stress fracture is something that I think is fairly safe to say is caused by "training more." Senior back in 60s. First couple years of college in the 60s, into 70s. Ever since my sophomore year of college, I have simply not been able to stay healthy. I'm running nowhere close to what I used to run and I'm stuck on an endless loop of injuries. My nutrition is not perfect, if such a thing exists, but I do know it's better than what it was when I was in high school. Neither of my parents nor their parents ever did any sports. I was truly the first of my kind. I hope to continue to be. I would love to go out and run 60, 70 80 90 100 mile weeks now. My body just seems not to be able to hand it anymore.

So I guess what I'm saying is,

1) you never know how training is going to affect you until much later

2) I would be cautious about advocating that people "train more"

Underrated: Being mindful of yourself, if those are the doctor's orders.

Honestly it depends on who you are like many others have said. I would say everything is important to a certain degree and it would be wise to have an open mind to any and all training methods. Some methods may work better for certain people but that doesn't mean you are not getting a benefit from it. One thing I see very often is people putting in the work for a while, not seeing immediate improvement, and quitting because they are frustrated. Sometimes it takes years to see improvement and I believe people quit right before a break through. As we are seeing with many runners (100m-marathon) they are improving well into their thirties. It's unfortunate how many friends I have had quit after their college eligibility is done or go on to get jobs that do not allow them to train to their full capacity when I know they would all have run much faster in the years to come. Yes, you have to want it and make sacrifices but if you put in the work long term with consistency you will improve.

You're sort of straddling two topics here. One topic is what runners generally need to do and the other is what you personally can do.

People often get mad at me here when I say this but I think runners now are too fixated on not getting injured. I had a stress fracture once. It got better and I went back to running normally. I've also found that nearly everyone I've known who has trouble with higher mileage is usually pushing those miles too hard. Most of them seem to feel that if they aren't running at least X minutes per mile they're wasting their time. When they ease back a bit they've been able to handle a lot more miles. I don't know if that's true or not in your case but it's been what I've observed. And most people are able to handle different workloads at different times of their lives. At nineteen 80 mile weeks were a lot for me. A couple years later they were rest weeks.

For some people college running is stressful. I wouldn't be surprised if the demands of running for a team with a bunch of other guys and trying to match their paces is making most of your runs, whatever their distance, relatively hard for you but I may be wrong. Honestly, 60 miles a week is not even remotely close to high mileage on the overall scale so if you're struggling to handle that sort of volume something might need correcting. I suspect that something is part of your college environment given that you were able to run that much at the very beginning of your career.

But let's assume I'm wrong and you really cannot run even 60 mile weeks consistently not because you're doing anything wrong but because you just can't. You can only do what you can do and if you're really getting in as much work as you can that's what will give you your biggest benefit. But your situation is extreme and generally runners wanting to be as fit as possible shouldn't be using you as a reference point.

Over-rated

1)Gluten Free, Paleo,Vegan-Just eat clean avoid junk

2)High mileage and two-a-days- avoid the slow garbage miles they can hurt you nore than help. If you want to do more cross train jump in a pool!

3)Training Programs- Find a good coach who can tailor it to you. Find someone you trust, work on your weaknesses as much as your strengths.

4) Big time programs-Find a place you fit and where you'll get attention, not always a marguee coach or school.

Under-rated

1)Visualization and positive self talk-You gotta believe!

2) Listen to your body! Don't be controlled by the number. Recovery days!

3) Stay around positive people

4) Enjoy what you're doing and who your training with!

5) Be passionate!

HRE touches on something interesting. It's not the miles that are stressful and lead to injuries but the speed of those miles.

You run a lot of slow miles to build and aerobic base and to strengthen muscles, ligaments, tendons, etc. so you can handle the most brutal work (fast intervals) necessary to race well. However, most runners are not patient enough and just want dive straight into "quality" sessions. But guess what, most runners are not athletic enough to handle that and end up injured.

So, most underrated - lots of easy running.

That VO2max stuff, way overrated.

reality check 19 wrote:

If you used skiing to get your VO2 max up really high (say 80), and then went straight to running and started training for the half marathon (and could handle the weekly miles), you would have successfully removed the "limiting factor" of a *poor* VO2 max by spending all that time skiing

How is the rate of oxygen consumption you can sustain for 10 minutes a limiting factor for a 60 to 90-minute event where you consume oxygen at a much, much lower rate?

You might as well expect to run a better marathon because you squat 600 pounds. It's overkill, a waste of metabolic energy, and as such it probably does more harm than good.

What is the evidence to support your statement?

El Jefe wrote:

HRE touches on something interesting. It's not the miles that are stressful and lead to injuries but the speed of those miles.

You run a lot of slow miles to build and aerobic base and to strengthen muscles, ligaments, tendons, etc. so you can handle the most brutal work (fast intervals) necessary to race well. However, most runners are not patient enough and just want dive straight into "quality" sessions. But guess what, most runners are not athletic enough to handle that and end up injured.

So, most underrated - lots of easy running.

That VO2max stuff, way overrated.

Slow running does not strengthen any part of the body for brutal interval work.

This post. 10/10.

Bad Wigins wrote:

cbenson4:

If you used skiing to get your VO2 max up really high (say 80), and then went straight to running and started training for the half marathon (and could handle the weekly miles), you would have successfully removed the "limiting factor" of a *poor* VO2 max by spending all that time skiing

How is the rate of oxygen consumption you can sustain for 10 minutes a limiting factor for a 60 to 90-minute event where you consume oxygen at a much, much lower rate?

You might as well expect to run a better marathon because you squat 600 pounds. It's overkill, a waste of metabolic energy, and as such it probably does more harm than good.

Bad Wigins, you're a know it all. I did not say those things quoted above, cbenson4 did. So please get that straight.

Anyway, someone asked about the V02 max of said skier now vs a few years ago. In the 60s probably. Lower than target levels, and leaves coaches scratching their heads.

Bad Wigins wrote:

How is the rate of oxygen consumption you can sustain for 10 minutes a limiting factor for a 60 to 90-minute event where you consume oxygen at a much, much lower rate?

Because the guys that are good for 10 minutes are also good for 60- 90 minutes and vice versa.

Their consumption is only slightly lower at longer distances.

That's just how it is.

cbenson4 wrote:

But of course, if your VO2 max is not at its ceiling, the only way to get it there is to *train,* as we all know. So yes, VO2 max is a by-product of training. And yes, it is also a limiting factor on performance *if it is at a poor value, relative to you as a runner.* How do we remove that limiting factor? It can't be changed quickly, but through years of training. So it's not your typical "limiting factor" on performance, such as poor hydration or sleep issues, but one that must be worked on over a long period of time until it hits its ceiling.

Wrong again cbenson4. You are repeating the mythology that almost everyone clings to. Your Absolute VO2 max is a combination of basic health and basic fitness, it doesn't take years of training. A few weeks at most. Your VO2 max relative to weight, requires that for a higher value, you have to get down to low body fat. That might take years for some, and most will never get there. But for serious runners it should only take a few weeks or a few months to lose excess body fat.

Fair enough. But do you honestly believe everyone is capable of running 100 mile weeks and hitting 2:3x or 2:2x in the marathon? I do not. I believe you are a coach and assume you deal with runners of all different abilities. Do you advise all to build to 100mpw? Is there a sweet spot of fewer miles and more intensity for most other runners to stay injury free yet hit "decent" goals for themselves?

I'm not trying to troll you just valuing your opinion. I'm almost 40 and I ran an 18:38 5k and 2:59 marathon on 50MPW last year and have increased my miles to close to 60MPW with a fair amount of intensity (speed/tempo) to improve. So I generally agree that more miles is better and I'm trying to build up. Putting aside other time commitments and personal preferences for the types of training I enjoy, I think trying to get to 100MPW would be suicide for me. I think my sweet spot for long term training and enjoyment and "decent" results for me is in the 55-70MPW with more some intense work that I really enjoy. Maybe you'll tell me I'll never reach my potential and I can respect that.