Road Racing and Training Thread, Week Ending 5/12/2019

Allen1959 wrote:

With the exception of extreme training (like super-low mileage, super-high mileage, or super-hard efforts with inadequate recovery), I'm beginning to believe that the details really make little difference in performance. Looking at my own history, I've had some of my best performances after nothing but progression runs/easy runs. AND after dedicated VO2max and LT training. AND after willy-nilly mixes of long runs and repeats. AND after few workouts and lots of racing. CV-pace, LT pace, Threshold pace, I-pace, H-pace, M-pace ... it's fun to speculate and experiment, tweak and evalute, plan and execute, but in the end, really, I gotta wonder how much the results would really vary.

I think it's Alex Hutchinson that has written about this - basically the concept is that about 95 % of proper training is simply running hard some times, and resting at other times. We get very fixated on the nuances of 400s versus 1200s and cruise intervals versus straight tempos, but those are only 5% of the puzzle.

Of course, that final 5% does get much more important when you are at the upper limit of your potential, but how many of us are at that point?

But...I'd also add that discussing and ruminating about those tiny nuances, that 5%, is the fun part of the sport for many of us. And...as discussed previously, you need to be having fun to run your best.

No doubt, darkwave...you need to be having fun in order to run your best.

outsiderunner wrote:

No doubt, darkwave...you need to be having fun in order to run your best.

Yup - one caveat: that doesn't mean always doing whatever happens to be most appealing that day - there needs to be balance and restraint.

When I talk about being sure to keep things enjoyable, I mean things like adjusting a training schedule to allow someone to still go to that kickboxing class they really like once a week. Or how Joan Benoit avoided altitude training because she hated being away from home.

Not every day has to be superfun - sometimes you just have to suck it up and do the work, or suck it up and recover. But there has to be some joy also.

darkwave wrote:

When I talk about being sure to keep things enjoyable, I mean things like adjusting a training schedule to allow someone to still go to that kickboxing class they really like once a week. Or how Joan Benoit avoided altitude training because she hated being away from home.

Not every day has to be superfun - sometimes you just have to suck it up and do the work, or suck it up and recover. But there has to be some joy also.

This is one of the most important lessons I took from running and I apply it to my research work. It can be boring. It can be painful. But, at the end of the day, we have to find the joy on lacing the running shoes and go out for some miles!

darkwave wrote:

Of course, that final 5% does get much more important when you are at the upper limit of your potential ...

Ha! My reply was already too long-winded, so I edited out this line: "Of course, when you're chasing sub-17, and run 17:10, or chasing 2:39:59 when you're at 2:40:30, those 'little differences' can be pretty darn big."!

Both those examples are from my own training/racing adventures ... And in hindsight, less racing and more CV and Threshold-pace work would have attained the first goal, and higher sustained mileage would have achieved the second. Or not!

Allen1959 wrote:

darkwave wrote:

Of course, that final 5% does get much more important when you are at the upper limit of your potential ...

Ha! My reply was already too long-winded, so I edited out this line: "Of course, when you're chasing sub-17, and run 17:10, or chasing 2:39:59 when you're at 2:40:30, those 'little differences' can be pretty darn big."!

Both those examples are from my own training/racing adventures ... And in hindsight, less racing and more CV and Threshold-pace work would have attained the first goal, and higher sustained mileage would have achieved the second. Or not!

One of my favorite quotes (and I wish I could remember the author) - "the difference between 3:00:01 and 2:59:59 is statistically insignificant...."

[the context was all those studies that say that doing x or y has a statistically insignificant effect on performance]

Puto Miudo - I agree on the application to work also. You don't have to enjoy everything you do for your job (and it's utterly unrealistic to expect you would). But there has to be some enjoyment in it.

No, Allen, I firmly belive that, with more miles and some more tempo, you would have attained the second goal.

darkwave - I feel you...and note that even today, I had some pain to work through. The bad pain was the crummy feeling in plodding 7:41 -> 7:02; the good pain was running the final mile at 6:13 for the heck of it. Having done that in the last mile, I now feel good about the run. Otherwise, I probably would not.

Still do not like the 7:18 avg. pace, though, knowing that last year I would have been sub-7.

outsiderunner wrote:

No, Allen, I firmly belive that, with more miles and some more tempo, you would have attained the second goal.

Ahh. The sad fact is that all I needed to do was RACE Boston instead of making it a fun run. 1983 was blessed with beautiful weather - mildly overcast, cool but not cold, a slight tailwind. I lost very little time at the start (important because no "net" times back then -- heck my 2:40:30 may have been sub-2:40 with chip timing).

And I know I was in 2:38 shape after a fantastic winter of training. Indeed, I ran my 10K lifetime PR a couple weeks after Boston.

That 1983 Boston is famous for having produced spectacular times. From Runner's World:

"The 1983 Boston Marathon produced the fastest, deepest men’s results an American marathon has ever seen. ... In 1983, 84 mostly North American runners broke 2:20, and 263 bettered 2:28:30."

Greg Meyer won the men's race in 2:09:00. Joan Benoit was the top woman at 2:22:43.

I'm in the mix here somewhere:

Wow, thanks for the details. That was a whole different universe back then...back when running mattered in the USA.

outsiderunner wrote:

...back when running mattered in the USA.

This isn't entirely true. Yes, the marathon isn't as deep now as it was in 1983 when we saw 268 sub 2:20 performances compared to 101 in 2017 (Although it's still faster at the front which is worth something). However, I think it's more accurate to view that as a shift in emphasis as opposed to a decrease in interest. If you were to look at the half-marathon over the same period, there were 80 sub 1:07 performances in 1983. In 2017 there were 105. It's not that running doesn't matter anymore, it's that people are choosing different events to prioritize, which is probably cyclical to at least some degree.

The other part of this people bring up is how often people raced in 1983 compared to 2017. In 1983, 13 of the guys with sub 2:20 performances ran 3 or more marathons under 2:20 that year. In 2017 3 guys did. I know people are more split on this, but I'd rather see Rupp run 2:06 twice than see him run 2:12 3 times, so I don't have a problem with racing less if it means racing faster.

*All Data obtained from ARRS all-time lists which stop at 2017*

outsiderunner wrote:

The main concern I have right now, though, is that last year at this time I could still average 6:59 or better on a warm or “off” day, whereas yesterday was 7:01 and today was 7:18. Perhaps the marathon is still in my legs.

I'm sure you're still recovering from the marathon. And on any single day, there are numerous factors, known and unknown, that effect our physical performance. No need to worry about one day or one run.

But here's some additional food for thought. A 49-year-old who can race 10 miles in 1:09:59 can expect to slow by 38 seconds by age 50 (to 1:13:06).

That's based on age-grading percentages.

As my former news editor would often say, "The course, Allen, is not set up for the ease of the running." And neither is advancing age, my friend!

Winning in training matters a lot less than winning in racing.

closed out a E run yesterday w a 71 road quarter and still had a gear I think.

Eyeing the end of next week for my Jot Quill 400m Time Trial .. Some others need to do this!

My former editor would also remind me that affect and effect are two different words.

*1:10:37 at age 50 versus 1:09:59 at 49. Aargh. I'm firing my copy editor.

runrincerepeat wrote:

Winning in training matters a lot less than winning in racing.

closed out a E run yesterday w a 71 road quarter and still had a gear I think.

Eyeing the end of next week for my Jot Quill 400m Time Trial .. Some others need to do this!

I guess I should also try an actual time trial as well before my June 11 meet! I'll probably shoot for sometime next next week, where I'll actually have better access to a track when I'm on a work trip in Cali :D

Thanks Allen and RRR. I will admit that two days in a row of 7:00+ avg. has made me nervous. Went about a whole year without even one of those days, and so two in a row scared me. I agree that the marathon is probably still in my legs.

jot quill wrote:

runrincerepeat wrote:

Winning in training matters a lot less than winning in racing.

closed out a E run yesterday w a 71 road quarter and still had a gear I think.

Eyeing the end of next week for my Jot Quill 400m Time Trial .. Some others need to do this!

I guess I should also try an actual time trial as well before my June 11 meet! I'll probably shoot for sometime next next week, where I'll actually have better access to a track when I'm on a work trip in Cali :D

Is it cheating if a buddy paces me on a bike?! I asked if he would ride in on the edge and he told me he would stick that bike up my A$$ if I didnt go low 60s