Training Discussion Thread - outsiderunner

Overthinking wrote:

OR kind of training is nothing new or shocking. People like Mike Musyoki, Norm Green, Mark Nenow trained in a similar fashion successfully.

The polarized, hard-easy training is not the ultimate truth.

It's funny to see people that won't accept any different method like orthodoxes.

Stick with what is working for you. You won't see any sudden breakthrough after 50 anyway...

I'm totally with you here. If he gets to a point where he's stagnated for a long time maybe then try something else. But not now. What he's done has worked well. Improvements will come more slowly as he approaches his ultimate but that doesn't mean they won't come or that something new will bring them more quickly.

I used to teach graduate courses in psychology. There were times when we'd deal with how people learn and how it determines their ability to function. Obviously, a lot of doing that involves taking information in. What's less obvious is that it's equally important to keep information out as well. We're all bombarded by more information than we possibly can process and if we try to process too much it's paralyzing.

On a very small scale, I think has happened with training for distance races. The amount of information on the "right" way to do so available now is amazing for someone who started running before 1970. But there's so much of it now that it's very difficult to sort out what of it is correct and what isn't. Almost any threads here that start with someone asking for opinions on how to train or why they aren't getting the results they want gets loads of posts. But the posts are often contradictory with no clear basis for deciding which ones are worth listening to.

And these ideas rarely look at the actual runner as a variable when in fact s/he is perhaps the most important variable of all. The general assumption is that the runner needs to adapt to the "correct" training more than that the training needs to be adapted to the runner. In the end, it all comes down to overload and recovery. Create sufficient overload, allow sufficient recovery and you'll get faster until you've gotten as fast as you can and can do that in a variety of ways.

My advice to OR would be to believe in what you'er doing. to look at what you've accomplished as much as what you haven't accomplished so far, and maybe not spend too much time here looking for other people's opinions (which of course carries the paradox of telling him to not pay attention to my opinion.)

Mark Nenow had his best races after he switched his training.

HRE:

I think there's a lot of wisdom in what you're saying both here and in your earlier post. Conviction, commitment, keeping things simple and sticking with what works are definitely key principles. That being said, there's a time and place for reflection, too. It seems like the OR himself has arrived at a point where he's ready to do some reflecting, and considering that he's a little ways out from his last major race, and not yet training in earnest for his next one, this seems like a pretty good time for him to do so.

Personally, I don't think there's anything especially odd about OR's training, either. As you and others have pointed out, it's essentially a variation on Lydiard-style base training, and as such it bears at least a family resemblance to the training that lots of people used to do back in the day. It worked well for many of them, and it seems to have worked well for the OR up to this point. (For what it's worth, a very broadly similar approach worked pretty well for me at one point, too, within the limits of my very modest abilities.)

I also think that people who are not familiar with this kind of approach may tend to misread certain aspects of OR's training. The issue of average pace in relation to race performance stands out to me here. I'm curious whether you will agree with this, but my sense is that sustaining an average pace of 6:40/mile (or whatever it might be) is much easier if your basic training pattern is moderate-moderate-moderate-moderate than it is if your basic training pattern is hard-easy-hard-easy, to the point where comparing the two is almost apples to oranges. In making this point, i'm not necessarily suggesting that the OR's training is "good", "better", or "best", I'm just pointing out that any comparison along these lines needs to account for the difference in training approach. (Quick two cents: I think that OR himself tends to overvalue the importance of his average pace. I'm no statistician, but the numbers Allen has cited don't seem to support the hypothesis that a faster average pace has been the determining factor in OR's marathon improvement.)

Along similar lines, I think it's worth pointing out that while OR's approach is certainly less polarized than many popular systems, there's actually a significant degree of modulation in the way he trains, with meaningful variations in distance, intensity, terrain, and the way the progression unfolds (and probably other factors). And while I haven't been around for the whole saga, my sense is that there has actually been a meaningful evolution in the way that OR approaches his training and how conscious and confident he is about shaping his training both day by day and in the bigger picture. And my sense is that that evolution - that growth - has been a significant factor in his progressively improved performances.

In the end, I agree with you that OR should train the way he wants to train, commit to that approach, and have confidence in it (at least until the next season for reflection comes along). But whether or not he chooses to take up any specific suggestion from me or anyone else, I hope this conversation will be useful to him insofar as it helps him to make his decisions with greater confidence and consciousness of why he is taking the path he chooses to take, whatever that path may end up being. For myself, I think that this thread has brought out some really terrific insights from a number of different posters, and even if those insights don't necessarily point in the same direction - perhaps because they don't - I still think there's a lot here that's worth reflecting on.

gfmah - Great, great post.

Pappy wrote:

Mark Nenow had his best races after he switched his training.

I'be only just begun looking into Mark Nenow's training, but this quote jumped off the page:

“It was kind of the same thing every day. I used to do an awful lot of work. I think I was in extremely good shape. I probably had an enormous base to operate off of. The kind of base that you should build and then go to some real keen interval training. I built that base year in and year out for most of the year. I think the sharpening and the real fine tuning, I never really did. I used to run the same thing everyday. I would run the same loops. I had probably three or four loops around Lexington from my house that took me 70-75 minutes to run and they were probably all 12 -14 mile loops. At night, I had 2-4, seven mile loops. I would do that day in and day out and then on Sunday do a long run. Then what I would do during the day on Tuesday or Thursday or whatever, I would do a long loop on a really hilly course. Lexington is a really hilly place, so I would run over really hilly terrain. In some ways, it would be a long run of 12 miles, but in essence, it kind of did turn in to more intervals of seven times a mile hill because I was doing this specific loop. For the most part, it was strength running and plowing the miles. I didn’t get on a track except to race.”

Re: Nenow quote. The link to the full interview didn't seem to work, but I found excerpts here:

https://www.hillrunner.com/forums/topic/mark-nenow-interview/?amp

Yeah, I know what Mark did. About a month or so ago on RRTT or another thread his training was discussed. Interestingly before he set the AR in the 10k he changed his training. He started doing a good deal more speed work.

He was great before the switch but set the AR after the change.

Pappy wrote:

Yeah, I know what Mark did. About a month or so ago on RRTT or another thread his training was discussed. Interestingly before he set the AR in the 10k he changed his training. He started doing a good deal more speed work.

He was great before the switch but set the AR after the change.

You might argue that he was essentially laying down a long base period (sort of on a long term multi-year basis rather than on a per training cycle basis) before shifting to a sharpening period.

Which leads us to the next logical question: Has OR been laying down a long lifetime base that he might now be able to take better advantage of by way of a more focused sharpening period (sort of how Runners Fix had a recent pop back to his old peak fitness once he went from huge volume to slightly slower volume with more intensity)?

I would note that this approach to base building is not overly Lydiard-esque as I have heard it described because it involves going anaerobic every day (with the outcome being the presence of lactic acid, which I have been left with the impression was a no-no during the base period from a Lydiard perspective), although I have to admit my Lydiard knowledge is somewhat thin. I think OR has described his approach as Lydiard-inspired, but I think that is sort of how historians, when looking back at events after the fact, tend to see things through the lens of knowledge that they subsequently acquired. In this case, OR did what felt good and then when he learned a little bit more about various training approaches, he did what we all do - he forced his square peg through the hole that looked closest to a square.

What OR is doing is not even remotely close to Lydiard type training Smoove. There is no periodisation, no hill circuits and no fast track work.

What OR is doing doesn't even remotely resemble a lydiard base as he's accumalating lactate on his runs finishing at 10k pace as you say. Adding an esque onto something just because it has a slight area of identification with something else doesn't bend it into the truth.

Everything would be ***esque then, we could call Canova an igloiesque coach because he uses neuromuscular repeats or we could call Coe lydiardesque coach because they both run anaerobic intervals a lot during specific training. What is happening here when someone calls OR's training is very similar to those examples, it's just not true on any level.

Smoove, Great response on the sharpening. I think that is exactly what happened with Nenow. If I remember correctly it was only for 6 weeks or so.

Lydiard guys were building lactic and going anaerobic during their base phase. They just did it so that they were recovered quickly. They just didn't push hard enough to lower the blood pH. I think that "not going anaerobic or building lactate" are terms the older runners use that have slightly different meanings than what people have today. Maybe HRE could explain this better?

I've often had the debate with other runners that trained in a Lydiard style. How do you run rolling hills at a steady pace and not build more lactate going up hills? Of course you have to be building more lactate and maybe go somewhat anaerobic.

Pappy wrote:

Yeah, I know what Mark did. About a month or so ago on RRTT or another thread his training was discussed. Interestingly before he set the AR in the 10k he changed his training. He started doing a good deal more speed work.

He was great before the switch but set the AR after the change.

Pappy, I wasn't contradicting you; I quoted your post because it got me interested in Nenow's training (I was away from running from 1984-1990, so didn't have much memory of his career). I missed that Nenow thread, so this all may be redundant, but I think interesting and somewhat germane to this discussion.

I took some time this morning to read a few more interviews. Seems in college, he did a lot of speedwork, then got into the unstructured big miles (he says 100-140 miles per week) after college, running 27:28. His running loops included multiple hills. Still, he would also get on the track to sharpen. Working with a coach, he added sprint drills and structured repeat miles, but only for 4-6 weeks (?) immediately prior to running the 27:20 American record (which stood until 2001). A few excerpts:

1985 Runners World interview:

At the University of Kentucky "I went the route of three track sessions a week. One year I was doing a lot of 200s -- a lot of 200s -- and I'm sure I had my speed up real good. I was probably in shape to run the best 800 or 1500 that I could run, but I was running the long races. I've done a bit of all the different kinds of training, and it's become apparent to me over the years that I'm able to race pretty well by just putting in my time on the road. ... (Now, in the spring) once a week, as we get close to the TAC meet, I might start getting on the track, When I do get on the track, I don't do anything real impressive, either. I just get out there and run to kind of get used to the track."

1986 T&F News interview:

MN: I admit I haven’t been a big fan of coaching, at least not for myself. Only coaching I ever had was in college, and my college career was sketchy at best. The moment I left college, as soon as I was on my own, I excelled.

I believe you need to work one-on-one with a coach. He has to really know you. You have to be together. I’ve just not been willing to relocate to get coaching. I’m really comfortable in Lexington.

JDW: What did Storey have you doing?

MN: Intervals. The classic stuff. Nothing fancy. 4:40-ish. He was real careful. He wanted to alter my training, but he didn’t want me to push it. He didn’t want me to come up lame.

JDW: And that’s your secret?

MN: I ran 27:28 on “nothing.” When you toss on top of that some sprint drills, some repeat miles, maybe that is the difference. But I was really strong. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Four weeks of track doesn’t automatically get you 27:20.

JDW: “Nothing” doesn’t get you 27:28. How were you training? How fast is your mileage?

MN: I don’t really know. I really don’t know the pace. I run how I feel. I just scatterbrain run around town. I never plot my week out. If I feel good on, say, Tuesday, then I run hard. If I’m feeling sluggish, I take it easy. I listen to my body. I run alone always. There’s a couple of reasons for that. First of all, there’s no one around here to train with. And, secondly, I don’t like to run faster than I want to run, and I don’t like to run slower than I want.

2011 Runners World interview:

"When I came home from Oslo to prepare for Brussels, I literally did six weeks of Alan Storey training and then went back to Europe to run that fast race. And that’s the first time in my career that I really felt like I had a good coach or a detailed advisor."

I meant to note that the 1985 interview was before the 27:20 American record, and the 1986 interview shortly after.

Smoove - That is exactly what I did--"he forced his square peg through the hole that looked closest to a square." Very nice! And thanks for the input.

Very busy at the store. I am in the process of going over Stone's write-up. To me, it looks fine. Stilling thinking of how to "format" the road 1K reps...I think I have a "fair" running piece of road that might work for that. If I have not said this already, part of the reason I have avoided the inerval stuff is that it tends to complicate planning a bit, esp. in a hilly area. This is NOT a criticism of Stone and his plan...just a note.

Allen, what do you think of Smoove's plan? Smoove, I gather it gets your stamp of approval?

No worries Allen. I didn't take it as being contradicted. Sorry if my reply seemed like I was being short. I wasn't trying to be. I always have thought Nenow trained like the 1985 interview. I did not know he did a sharpening phase before the American Record until recently. That 6 week change took him from a 27:40 10k'er in 1985 down to a 27:20 10k'er in 1986. 20 seconds doesn't seem like a lot but at that level 20 seconds is huge.

Pappy wrote:

I did not know he did a sharpening phase before the American Record until recently. That 6 week change took him from a 27:40 10k'er in 1985 down to a 27:20 10k'er in 1986.

Or maybe he was simply in the better shape of his life and in a perfect day.

That sharpening phase doesn't change his training philosophy that much. Lots of fast running by feel, no hard-easy polarization. Many people can't conceive different training approaches and see Lidyard everywhere.

OR-

For the 1k repeats, if it makes things easier/safer/more manageable for you...one option that I like to do is find an uninterrupted stretch of road for the length of rep that I need. In this case, 1k. Run the first rep, noting where you started and where you finished. After you finish, continue jogging slowly for half of the recovery time. (You also have the option of doing a standing recovery, but I can't picture you stopping and standing). When half of the recovery time has elapsed, turn around and jog slowly back to where you finished - this will be the new "starting" line. Your "finish" line will be where you started the first time.

Knowing landmarks means you don't have to get too fixated on looking at your watch - you can focus more on form, breathing, sensations versus the watch. I also give myself a pretty broad range (goal time of repeat +/- 5 secs) so that again, it's not the exact time you focus on but the proper range of time.

Another benefit of running back and forth on the same stretch of road is that if the wind is against you in one direction, it favors you in another. You can also easier keep track of how many reps you have completed - "odds" will be in one direction, "evens" will be in the other direction.

And it doesn't matter if this stretch of road is straight, around a bend, up and over hills, etc. Just an uninterrupted 1k of road that you like.

Make sense?

outsiderunner wrote:

... what do you think of Smoove's plan?

You mean Stone's plan? I love it. Without referencing it again more carefully, I think it achieves what many of the contributors here suggested: keep much of what you're doing and enjoying, incorporate a couple easier or true recovery days, add a bit of speedwork, and increase the time spent at 10K to half marathon race paces.

I rarely train on a track, and don't have a GPS watch. I run workouts in a couple ways on road and trail. On a flat towpath, I have two measured half miles (one mile). I run back and forth for repeats, hitting the lap function on my watch. The recovery portions are by time.

On the roads, if I wanted to run alternating paces for 1-minute each, I might glance at my watch, or I might eye a landmark "about" a minute ahead, and run to it. Either way, it's by perceived effort, and the exact time and distance aren't critical.

For VO2max-type hill repeats, I run hard up a 3-minute (approx) hill and jog back down. No exact distance. For hill sprints, I run all-out up a steep 30-second trail hill, and walk back down.

For continuous threshold runs, I just run one of my standard loops where I know the start and end marks for a 4- or 5-mile section. I don't check the splits along the way -- just settle into "perceived one-hour race pace." Which usually is about 10 seconds per mile slower than actual race pace, but close enough!

My point is, it doesn't have to be complicated or psychologically stressful. Running progressions -- letting the pace "come to you" in a natural way -- is low-stress, too. But in the past, I found myself getting caught up in "training loop PRs," sometimes aiming for a course PR from the outset, running too hard, too soon.

Stone -- Ha! I hadn't seen your post when I wrote mine.

Pappy wrote:

I always have thought Nenow trained like the 1985 interview. I did not know he did a sharpening phase before the American Record until recently.

Even in the 1985 interview he says he would work out on the track once a week during the spring. But apparently much more structured with a coach in 1986.