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

outsiderunner wrote:

There still is some confusion here. I idd not mean that passionate runners no longer exist or that we no longer have good performers. What I meant was that 1) there is a difference in the depth of the field in the US, especially in the marathon, and 2) and perhaps even more important than #1, I recall an appreciation in the general public for distance running that I do not see much of today. In the US, it was a “thing” back then, and given attention in the media, and it was taken seriously, as a “real sport.” What too hot says about mass participation is where I was going with my point.

OR, the depth of field isn't only different in the US. In Portugal, nowadays, a 1:20 HM is enough to win for a girl. The men's side has a little more depth with a 1:09/1:10 winning HM. In the HM I did last week, the winner of the full marathon won in 2:27 and the first woman finished in 3:15 which is absolutely crazy. Smaller 10ks are won in 34' and 40/39/38' in men and women respectively.

Quantity over quality...

I agree with the second point also. Kids are drifting away from athletics in general and running in particular because it doesn't get any media attention (thus the money involved is really low).

runrincerepeat wrote:

This time on the comeback on most runs I dont turn the watch on.. just a couple times a week. And I plan to keep it that way. ...

I forgot to bring my watch with me this morning. So today's lunchtime run will be untamed. Kinda bummed, though. What if I feel great and finally have a respectable result? All for naught! :)

Untamed?! Well, maybe. But definitely untimed.

jot quill wrote:

These days on non-workout days I just switch my watch to a screen that only has total distance and some heart rate stats, just to give me something to look at when I'm feeling impulsive.

I actually love seeing slower paces on regular days, today I hit one of my slowest overall paces for an outdoor normal mileage run, felt great :D. Don't feel any less fit or any slower, just relaxed and happy to have soaked in a chill run on a nice day!

This really resonated with me. Lately, I've been doing some of my non-workout days by not looking at the watch at all and just trying to stay comfortable and focus on an effort where my legs feel great and my breathing is dead easy while still moving at something faster than a jog. I finish feeling super fresh and really, really good. After the run, I'll look at my Avg Pace / HR and the lower the numbers I see, the better I feel about the workout. This is a sharp contrast to how I used to approach easy days.

Hell, I seem to be appreciating my environment much more when I'm in this mode as well. Noticing the smells, wildlife, vegetation, canyon formations, waves in the stream, clouds, etc. Just yesterday, I noticed a goose perched up on the top of a tree and stopped to take it's picture. Weird! I would have never noticed that before had I not been in "natural run" mode.

You guys are great—thanks for the commentary, and it is especially interesting to have some input from the other side of the pond (i.e. Portugal). Thanks, Puto.

Allen - No worries about the watch. If you feel good, just kick it. You will know.

Well, perhaps I am “back in the saddle.” I hope so. Just got back from 11.5 in a light rain. So, 11.5 at 6:37 overall, finishing 6:23, 6:21, 6:07, 6:07, 3:10. The true good news, though, is that I felt pretty normal in those last few miles—controlled, and not having to push much to get 6:0x. So, you may laugh now at my expense, as I hope my little “blip” is over with. :-)

Now, the BIG question. Well, it is not really that big of a question...I just wanted to get your attention. Tomorrow I have a chance to defend my 5K title at our tiny little (but very hilly) 5k race here in town. I won last year, but have not given it much thought this time around, as my marathon was 12 days ago. So, should I run it? All things considered (especially running fairly hard today), I lean toward not running it and just putting in some Saturday miles instead.

Too hot: Could you please explain more about the central governor theory and how it might apply to my situation?

jot quill wrote:

These days on non-workout days I just switch my watch to a screen that only has total distance and some heart rate stats, just to give me something to look at when I'm feeling impulsive.

That's what mine is, essentially. Time of day at top, then bottom shows total distance and heart rate.

As for pace of easy runs? Mine are done by feel, but with a heart rate ceiling of 145 - I'm allowed to stay well below that, but can't drift above it.

While we're talking about paces, my workout paces on the track are actually notably slower than they were several years ago, but I'm also racing much faster. Funny how that works.

A very basic explanation above. How it applies to you is just my theory...before you switched over to a more polarized form of training (slowing down purposefully on your easy days) you had accustomed your your brain-perceived effort closed loop to that comfortably hard sensation to the point that it became normal for you. Given that you recover a lot faster than most people, this leads to good results because you are able to stress the aerobic system to a greater degree.

too hot - Thanks very much. Will read the article. I think you have hit the nail on the head here in regard to me. I especially like how you have placed emphasis on the words “purposefully” and and “normal.” That really makes sense.

too hot - Forgot to ask...do you think I can get back to that state of comfortably hard normal that you describe or has it gone away? Looking over my records, the gains were, indeed, enormous.

Too hot, you of all people should be advocating that average pace on easy runs a year a part means literally nothing. Especially when the difference is 14 seconds. You're only validating it to try to shoehorn it into your preconceived notions. Trying so hard to have a chance to to say I told you so.

Here are some quotes from OR after Richmond last year. No one forced OR to change his training. He chose to do it because he felt he needed to modify the trajectory he was on.

His training this winter made him go from defending one or two 5:50 miles at the end of a run as "10k/CV pace" to

and

and

All while running 80-90 mpw instead of maxing at 70. And running a 20 second 5k PR. He didn't suddenly get less comfortable at faster paces over the winter. The opposite is true. Anyone with eyes can see he's a better runner now than he was 6 months ago, he just didn't get the race conditions to prove it (either because he is not suited for big city races and travel, or because it was a nasty weather day on a nasty weather course.) He's less than 2 weeks post marathon and he's finally learning how to go deep enough into the well during the race that it takes some time to recover.

I must say, there is good input here, too. Thank you. Much to consider...

I'm not sure that there is anywhere else on the internet that has this kind of post from RR&T Historian. I mean, the detail, the look back, the ability to breakdown the changes that have been seen in OR since his change. This is really interesting and remarkable. We talk a lot about potential changes we could make, speculate, etc. But these are hard numbers that we can see. Pretty cool stuff for OR to consider!

It all goes back to how fun it is to discuss the details of our training, even if it only impacts that 5%. It's so interesting just to ponder how certain types of stimuli might make us better, stronger, faster. In reality, as long as we're working, we're probably seeing gains. Speaking of putting in the work..

I'd like to refer back to my days as an engineer, in particular Physics, for a moment. Several equations that are burnt into my mind...

1. Work = Force* displacement (or think of it as distance) * cos(theta) - theta being an angle between where the force is applied and the direction of the motion. I like to remember this, especially when on hills. The amount of work goes up if that angle goes up, even if my force stays the same. Hills = more work. Also, I can run with less force, for a longer time, and get the same amount of work out of it.

2. Power = Work/Time - On the back of the first equation... you become more powerful the more work you put in over time. Does it matter what kind of work? Doesn't look like it... just put in more.

Just like to bust out some physics every now and then and relate it to my running.

OR has a tendency to have doubts and question himself as you can see above. A lot of that was put into his head when we critique his training. I would have stuck to what was originally working. Consistency is everything. OR doesn't have to think in terms of hard/easy. His strength is running moderately hard on a regular basis and that's what I mean when I say that one should tailor a program to the runner you have in front of you instead of the model that you subscribe to. Steve Magness has written some really good articles on this point.

I would agree that OR seemed like a different class of runner over the last training cycle. It is a shame that he had a negative outcome for whatever reason. It is also a shame that Stone's life circumstances meant that he wasn't able to help OR plan his training anymore.

Because, honestly, not only was OR in probably the best shape of his life (based on his workouts, a significant 5k PR and that great 20 mile race), but HE WAS ALSO OBVIOUSLY THOROUGHLY ENJOYING THE TRAINING. We don't need the thread historian to dig those quotes up, they were recent enough for us all to be able to remember them.

Of course, that would normally make me ask why OR would consider changing what he has been doing. And look, we all know too hot and I disagree on just about everything.

But, given OR's personality, particularly his desire for simplicity and his tendency for rumination, this really doesn't surprise me. I think he was able to avoid the challenges that those aspects of his personality created with respect to running when Stone was coaching him because he just did what his coach told him. There was no mental energy expended. His reversion to his old training approach affords him that opportunity again without having a coach. So while it is not the approach for OR that I would advocate, I at least understand the basis for it and acknowledge that it makes some sense. I don't think it makes as much sense as finding a coach who understands his personal needs, but I recognize the challenges there too.

I do want to be clear about one thing though: with the exception of the outcome at Boston (the marathon is a fickle mistress/master), this last cycle was his best bit of running in his life. None of us, OR included, should lose sight of that or go revisionist historian now that he has decided to go with a different approach.

Running to me is like Poker.. you can make all the right decisions and come out with a negative outcome, the luck factor (I.e. Health, weather et al) Unlike in chess where if you always make the right decision you will always win. BUT over time when you make the right decisions in training then the results are there...

But this is what makes running so fantastic and every race a mystery.

Very well stated, Smoove. No doubt, I did very much enjoy the training I did under Stone. The thing that concerned me here recently is that my legs felt pretty good after the marathon, yet I was not able to do what came easily a year ago. So, I got concerned that I might be hitting the 50+ wall. That the days of speed and fun might be over. And when too hot used the word “purposefully,” he really hit the nail on the head. It is not so much the avg. pace itself, but that when I was working with Stone, that easy pace (7:20 or so) felt like absolutely nothing. When I had to try to run 7:01 and 7:18 two days in a row, it raised my antennae. In any case, I gather it was just a blip.

So, should I run the 5k tomorrow and try to defend, or get in some Sat. miles?

All the best to you...

But the thing is, you did not need to try to run any paces those two days.

I would skip the 5k.

But I would skip the 5k for reasons that relate back to how you are feeling. Still, as a guy who has had some success at the marathon distance as a masters runner, I have noticed how much of a toll the training cycles and the races themselves take on me. As an indicator of how much of a toll they take, when I have run my local half marathon in December after two of my fall marathons, I have finished the halves in about my half marathon split for the marathons, and those were 4-8 weeks later. You are what- 2 weeks out from your marathon? A marathon that came after a bigger training cycle than you ever experienced before? Of course you aren't recovered! So to me, of course you should not race the 5k.

outsiderunner wrote:. When I had to try to run 7:01 and 7:18 two days in a row, it raised my antennae. In any case, I gather it was just a blip..

There is a LOT of statistical noise in running. It's very hard, but one has to a) always focus on the big picture, and b) focus on the correct metrics.

Related sidebar - 10 days ago I raced 10 miles at 6:15 pace. Today I attempted a 4 mile tempo, but pulled the plug just after 3 miles because I was working too hard and straining. My splits were 6:26/6:22/6:26.

Do you think that my fitness has gone to hell? I don't. It was a blip - noise in the big picture of things. Those two easy runs of yours? Even more so. Especially, since, as noted, you're not that far out from a very tough marathon (I'd still be eating cookies on the couch).

Individual runs are single, small, nearly negligible data points - not trends.

And....as I joke to my friends when people look too nervous before track - "your splits during this workout are not indications of your value as a person...."

Agreed, there's really just so many factors that go into a single run's performance. Weather, mental state, well restedness, humidity, diet, random variations in how you just feel like running at any point in time, other physical activity, all scoped and scaled to your recent previous days among tons of other factors.

Running an identical average pace for any particular set of runs actually sounds harder to me than hitting workout targets.

And by paying too much attention to these numbers, you do your body a disservice by maybe even forcing yourself past an actual consistent effort level just to hit some numbers. Imagine every day you're essentially putting on a weight vest of unknown heaviness, representative of the various factors that go into any day. Wouldn't it be silly to push yourself to run the same paces every day?

Just my 2c :)