2:19 on 70-80 miles per week.

Trevelyan Harper wrote:

Thank you JS. I think I agree with a lot of that post. Although I think the recovery benefit and the overall strengthening aspect of weight training helps all runners.

I’ve not heard about the Achilles strain and hills. I find I recover faster from reps uphill. But I guess it all depends on biomechanics, flexibility, overall stress and what you’re adapted to.

Interesting conversation though and thank you for your insights.

What are your thoughts on Tinman’s CV workouts. They seem to exist in between your LT and Vo2 paces so I doubt they get used.

As I have told a couple of times there is no need for them if you do like I say running just maxVO2 -pace at 5k race pace, LT- pace and aerobic power pace (LSD) .

No, you can't. No matter how much you think you can or how much you insist that you can, you can't. You HAVE to show results. This is exactly the problem with all this "scientific" or "magic" training stuff. It reads well but doesn't prove itself with results.

yyy wrote:

use a time machine, go back and clone Wejo, and let WejoI run high mileage and WejoII low mileage. Repeat 10^6 times and report back.

Haha! )) We can clone him at once! It`s the same genes....

Joking aside ....I`m sure I can tell why he only ran 30 min at 10 k on low mileage and 28 min on high mileage.

Just if he can present what I told I will do it.

HRE wrote:

No, you can't. No matter how much you think you can or how much you insist that you can, you can't. You HAVE to show results. This is exactly the problem with all this "scientific" or "magic" training stuff. It reads well but doesn't prove itself with results.

HRE....the results you talk about are there already, but I´m not allowed to present and talk about them here because then the moderators tells I`m promoting myself and deletes. ;)

HRE wrote:

No, you can't. No matter how much you think you can or how much you insist that you can, you can't. You HAVE to show results. This is exactly the problem with all this "scientific" or "magic" training stuff. It reads well but doesn't prove itself with results.

To quote our POTUS, "Sounds good, doesn't work." Look at championship races, after all the heats and when the final lap comes, they are left in the dust. Like that Belgium coach on the other thread talking about how high mileage isn't needed, yet his athletes are beaten at championship races by high mileage athletes.

HRE ran high mileage.

Look at how he would do against the Belgium athletes,

and there is your answer. Too much scepticism, and not enough action.

Last European Championship:

1st, gold medalist(s) Jakob Ingebrigtsen (his coach says to run 100, 110+ MPW)Norway 13:17.06 EU20R

2nd, silver medalist(s) Henrik Ingebrigtsen Norway 13:18.75

3rd, bronze medalist(s) Morhad Amdouni France 13:19.14 SB

4 Yemaneberhan Crippa Italy 13:19.85

5 Marc Scott Great Britain 13:23.14 SB

6 Polat Kemboi Arıkan Turkey 13:23.42 SB

7 Rinas Akhmadiyev Authorised Neutral Athletes 13:24.43 PB

8 Julien Wanders Switzerland 13:24.79 PB

9 Chris Thompson Great Britain 13:25.11 SB

10 Soufiane Bouchikhi Belgium 13:25.22

11 Ben Connor Great Britain 13:25.31 PB

12 Florian Carvalho France 13:28.08

13 Antonio Abadía Spain 13:34.25

14 Kaan Kigen Özbilen Turkey 13:35.31 SB

15 Robin Hendrix Belgium 13:36.15(his coach says only 55 MPW on average and is against high mileage)

Here's a better example wrote:

Last European Championship:

That's a good one too. No HRE in there. Low mileage FTW.

poor example better example wrote:

Here's a better example wrote:

Last European Championship:

That's a good one too. No HRE in there. Low mileage FTW.

What are you talking about? The person who won the European championship, his dad/coach said, "“120? No! 170km, 180km. So that’s 110, 120 miles. That’s why they can compete in several distances over a weekend. Jakob can run five, six seven competitions in three or four days. And they don’t have any natural speed. That’s their weak point. What they have is speed endurance, .”

The results can only be there if you got them with Weld on Johnson.

Thanks to Coach JS, I did these yesterday: 60 seconds each with 75 second recoveries.

First set: max HR 172

recoveries: 116 115 113 114 / 114 108 103 112 / 102 110 120 126

reset to 90 second recoveries because went over 120 - maybe didn't need to adjust it

Second set: max HR 173

recoveries: 114 108 099 114 / 110 109 101 103 / 106 111 - completed.

Impressions:

These were easy compared to my usual workouts.

The intervals were interesting to do and I plan to keep doing them.

I ran intervals like these quite a bit in the 60's, but we didn't have heart rate monitors then.

dunes runner wrote:

Thanks to Coach JS, I did these yesterday: 60 seconds each with 75 second recoveries.

First set: max HR 172

recoveries: 116 115 113 114 / 114 108 103 112 / 102 110 120 126

reset to 90 second recoveries because went over 120 - maybe didn't need to adjust it

Second set: max HR 173

recoveries: 114 108 099 114 / 110 109 101 103 / 106 111 - completed.

Impressions:

These were easy compared to my usual workouts.

The intervals were interesting to do and I plan to keep doing them.

I ran intervals like these quite a bit in the 60's, but we didn't have heart rate monitors then.

Hello dunes runner!

I`m glad to see you tested and liked this way of doing intervals .))

You are a little bit older than me I think from your talk about the -60`s? I`m soon age 60.

Just keep up with the DANCAN-way. Cheers!

-COACH J.S -

dunes runner wrote:

Thanks to Coach JS, I did these yesterday: 60 seconds each with 75 second recoveries.

First set: max HR 172

recoveries: 116 115 113 114 / 114 108 103 112 / 102 110 120 126

reset to 90 second recoveries because went over 120 - maybe didn't need to adjust it

Second set: max HR 173

recoveries: 114 108 099 114 / 110 109 101 103 / 106 111 - completed.

Impressions:

These were easy compared to my usual workouts.

The intervals were interesting to do and I plan to keep doing them.

I ran intervals like these quite a bit in the 60's, but we didn't have heart rate monitors then.

Well ......I checked a little bit more how you did the intervals , and if I understand you had the same recovery time

of 75 sec at first set and then 90 sec fixed at second set ? And then you ran fast for 60 sec at every rep......?

The way to do it correct if you like to test next time is to run fast reps of 60 sec ( at about your 5 k race pace) and then just walk easy between until your pulse is back to 120 bpm . The time it takes for your pulse to come back to 120 bpm you shall not bother. It should not be fixed to 70 sec or 90 sec as you did,okey? This with let the body "automatically" give you the very best rest after every rep is the main thing with this way to run intervals. Good luck!

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Well ......I checked a little bit more how you did the intervals , and if I understand you had the same recovery time

of 75 sec at first set and then 90 sec fixed at second set ? And then you ran fast for 60 sec at every rep......?

The way to do it correct if you like to test next time is to run fast reps of 60 sec ( at about your 5 k race pace) and then just walk easy between until your pulse is back to 120 bpm . The time it takes for your pulse to come back to 120 bpm you shall not bother. It should not be fixed to 70 sec or 90 sec as you did,okey? This with let the body "automatically" give you the very best rest after every rep is the main thing with this way to run intervals. Good luck!

Thanks much for responding on this. I had actually asked you that question then removed it!

I will do them that way next time and then report back.

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

First day on the new program for OP went according to the prescribed pace about 6:40 mile pace. I will report tomorrows

20 x 400m also but then there will be a break for a while.

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

The 20 x 400m went exactly as I thought. 71-72 sec per lap and rest down to 120 bpm varied between 41 to 60 sec.

- COACH J.S -

That's a good reference. Thanks

I think that what HRE is saying is that training is more of an “art” than a “science”. H2O (2 parts hydrogen & 1 part oxygen) is water in Elodoret, Kenya and Utica, NY- that is science. Not the same with training. Many high school athletes are all doing the same workouts- with totally different results. In my very first coaching gig I foolishly had everyone train together at the same pace & same recovery. I had a kid break 4:45 and most were in the 4:55-5;10 range. By year three I had changed the workouts to more individual needs. That year the team of five all were within 4:38-4:42. In the process I moved everything around with some success and failure. That’s the art side of coaching. Keep in mind that this was the 60’s so the times were not great but respectable for a school of under 100 students with no XC or indoor track and a dirt track to train on.

Week 1 down, 22 weeks to go.

M 7.6 6:34 pace

T 10 miles, 20x400 in 71 average with 50ish sec rest average

W 7.3 6:48 pace

Th 10 miles, 33:25 July 4th 10k tempo. Second place 37:30. Ran 34:01 last year

F 7.5 6:41 pace

S 8.9 6:46 pace

S 12 miles 6:41 pace

Total: 63ish miles

Feeling good! Biggest chance is specific pace for easy days. I’ve always just went out and ran. Usually 7:30-7:10 pace this year so I’ve upped the easy day pace quite a bit. Other random facts that may help or hurt my chances. 6’2 160-165 lbs and size 14 feet. Vaporflys only go up to size 13 so I’ll have to do it the old fashioned way. 42,000 almost entirely injury free lifetime training miles. I’m guessing a large lifetime base will be very helpful for this current lower mileage approach?

I don`t think that training smart is more of an art than a science. There is a need for both of them at equal value to reach individual supreme level.

I agree with you that high school kids shouldn`t do the exact same workouts when it comes to pace and recovery time.

There is one way( of course a couple of more) that comes to my mind to do workouts for the kids that are individual but still " team social" where they pace and push each other all the workout. They can do eg 15-20 x 400m and the slowest kids starts first and then all the others starts with appropriate time difference with the fastest kids last. All of them then use the same rest time or individual rest time back to 120 bpm . This way they all will train individual, but still encourages and pace each other all over the track the entire workout.

Below Average wrote:

Week 1 down, 22 weeks to go.

M 7.6 6:34 pace

T 10 miles, 20x400 in 71 average with 50ish sec rest average

W 7.3 6:48 pace

Th 10 miles, 33:25 July 4th 10k tempo. Second place 37:30. Ran 34:01 last year

F 7.5 6:41 pace

S 8.9 6:46 pace

S 12 miles 6:41 pace

Total: 63ish miles

Feeling good! Biggest chance is specific pace for easy days. I’ve always just went out and ran. Usually 7:30-7:10 pace this year so I’ve upped the easy day pace quite a bit. Other random facts that may help or hurt my chances. 6’2 160-165 lbs and size 14 feet. Vaporflys only go up to size 13 so I’ll have to do it the old fashioned way. 42,000 almost entirely injury free lifetime training miles. I’m guessing a large lifetime base will be very helpful for this current lower mileage approach?

Thanks for posting your training. Keep us updated. It’s an interesting experiment.

It got me wondering how long is a reasonable amount of time to test whether a system works for you. 4 months? 6 months? I feel like less could mean you peak and then think the system is great without trying to see if you can sustain the improvements.