Boards running knowledge thread

demfad

The vast amount of running info available on websites, magazines, fora, running groups and clubs etc etc can be more confusing than helpful and can often be contradictory. How can we separate out the wheat from the chaff?

I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread for running related knowledge. The caveat would be that the poster has experience of this or has seen it being practiced with success. OK to quote from an existing post (with that caveat in mind) as this would help bring all the existing nuggets into one place too, so they aren't lost. (Tergats profile may be getting a hit or 3 ).
Sessions are welcome too as long as the poster has the required experience of them (or seen them suceed) and knows how they are of benefit etc.
OK to discuss, question and develop other posters posts. All A/R disciplines welcome.



Note: all runners are different so there may be contradictions, what is true for some may not be true for others. That's Ok, and hopefully we can establish why and learn etc.



Ill kick off:

Hill reps generally make you a stronger runner and help with injury prevention.

These should be slowly introduced at first and the runner needs to be very well warmed up before the first one.

Duanington

demfad wrote: »

The vast amount of running info available on websites, magazines, fora, running groups and clubs etc etc can be more confusing than helpful and can often be contradictory. How can we separate out the wheat from the chaff?

I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread for running related knowledge. The caveat would be that the poster has experience of this or has seen it being practiced with success. OK to quote from an existing post (with that caveat in mind) as this would help bring all the existing nuggets into one place too, so they aren't lost. (Tergats profile may be getting a hit or 3 ).
Sessions are welcome too as long as the poster has the required experience of them (or seen them suceed) and knows how they are of benefit etc.
OK to discuss, question and develop other posters posts. All A/R disciplines welcome.



Note: all runners are different so there may be contradictions, what is true for some may not be true for others. That's Ok, and hopefully we can establish why and learn etc.



Ill kick off:

Hill reps generally make you a stronger runner and help with injury prevention.

These should be slowly introduced at first and the runner needs to be very well warmed up before the first one.

Great idea

Just a specific question on Hill reps, what are the differing benefits of walkback versus jogged recovery? ( are there any real differences?)

adrian522

What do you mean by hill reps? I followed a plan recently that had short hill reps (less than 10 seconds each) and longer hill reps (60-90 seconds each).

I'm, pretty sure that the objective and potential benefits of these sessions were different which is why both were included.

From RW:

For Stride Efficiency improvements:

Short hill repeats are 40-to 60-meter sprints up reasonably steep hills. Our effort level should be slightly less than an "all-out" sprint – but just slightly. Also, remember that this workout is designed to challenge our legs, not our lungs. Our legs should feel momentary fatigue as we recruit their full range of muscle fiber, but we should recover quickly. Don't make the mistake of turning this stride-efficiency workout into a fitness session. After each repetition, we walk back down the hill, wait until a full two to three minutes have passed, and then sprint up the hill again. Eight to 10 reps will do the trick.

For Intermediate Fast Twitch Endurance improvements:

The best way to train this intermediate fast-twitch fiber is to run long hill repeats. This has nothing to do with whether we'll be racing on hills, flats, roads, or the track. Long hill repeats make us faster – period.
he first step is to find a hill that's not too steep and not too flat. The incline should be challenging, but it shouldn't chop our stride or require mountain climbing gear. I prefer about a 6 percent grade. This increases the workload for each stride while allowing us to maintain full range of motion.

Recovery between reps is four to five minutes, including our jog back down the hill and some walking at the bottom. Less recovery won't give us a better workout, but it will increase our risk of injury and burnout. Remember that we're targeting a specific muscle fiber type that is recruited during a specific range of effort. Too little recovery forces us to recruit the other type of fast-twitch fiber and/or to burn through our muscle glycogen stores.

This is from the following:

http://www.runnersworld.com/race-training/solving-5k-puzzle?page=single

Itziger

Good idea.

And on a hill rep variation, I've found the following to be great prep coming up to a Half. (Reminder to self: Stop messing around and do this once or twice in the coming weeks)

If you can find a mile, mile a half drag or series of drags, jog down and run up at a decent effort. I try to do them at Half pace or thereabouts. The 'rest' is long admittedly and I don't know what a scientist runner would make of that.

The session I've done is 2k long and has a series of drags and one tougher uphill section. It does have flat bits too.

macinalli

Duanington wrote: »

Just a specific question on Hill reps, what are the differing benefits of walkback versus jogged recovery? ( are there any real differences?)

I always understood that the idea of a jogged recovery (for any interval session) was to deter the build up of lactic in the legs. Not sure if hills would be any different?

One good piece of advice I've received for hills is that you should always finish the session feeling that you could do 1 more rep if needed. If you do push it too far, then you won't reap the benefit - need to remember that this is a strength session. This sounds similar to Adrian522's point about too little recovery.

demfad

Just threw in a general comment re hills to get the discussion going. For a newby Id advise to use a variety of hills and recover as needed. But try to run the reps "well".

Duanington wrote: »

Just a specific question on Hill reps, what are the differing benefits of walkback versus jogged recovery? ( are there any real differences?)

For shorter hill sprints you might walk back. These don't use the Anaerobic system so no lactic build up, rather you are using Creatine Phosphate (like the sprinters). Full recovery of CP supplies takes 3 mins (I think) so the recovery is full recovery i.e 3 mins.

macinalli wrote: »

I always understood that the idea of a jogged recovery (for any interval session) was to deter the build up of lactic in the legs. Not sure if hills would be any different?

One good piece of advice I've received for hills is that you should always finish the session feeling that you could do 1 more rep if needed. If you do push it too far, then you won't reap the benefit - need to remember that this is a strength session. This sounds similar to Adrian522's point about too little recovery.

My experience is also that you jog when you've built up lactic acid, its good as it allows your body to use up the lactate too. In practice for reps with smaller recoveries the people tend to just rest. They may be running the reps too hard.

Id agree the better and more relaxed you can run the reps the more muscular benefit. Hill reps can be fitness sessions too: i.e you can train the thresholds and VO2 max etc. That might be after youve maxed progress on the flat, or to compliment flat sessions. In general there will always be a strenght element gain.

Itziger wrote: »

Good idea.

And on a hill rep variation, I've found the following to be great prep coming up to a Half. (Reminder to self: Stop messing around and do this once or twice in the coming weeks)

If you can find a mile, mile a half drag or series of drags, jog down and run up at a decent effort. I try to do them at Half pace or thereabouts. The 'rest' is long admittedly and I don't know what a scientist runner would make of that.

The session I've done is 2k long and has a series of drags and one tougher uphill section. It does have flat bits too.

You'll gain more benefit from a long rest than a short one IMO, Once you run the reps well. Id be of the opinion that even for "fitness" hill sessions you should be able to run all the reps well before reducing/speeding up the recovery. For your fitness sessions, you should run them all "well" as in with good form for you even if it means slowly down or taking big rests immediatey. That would go for the flat too IMO.

davedanon

This theory on the recovery time is interesting. I hadn't heard that about the jog preventing lactate build-up. While I've been busy with London, my regular club group has been doing hill reps in Tymon. I think they're up to 10 reps on the hill that runs from the corner of the Spawell complex up past the steel monument to the top of the little hill overlooking the bridge over the M50. It's about 90-ish seconds and the gradient is gradual until the very last section, so it's a pretty good workout. The point is, I'm fairly sure they walk briefly before jogging gently back down to the start. So this would be considered too short a recovery, if I'm reading the above right, yes?

demfad

adrian522 wrote: »

What do you mean by hill reps? I followed a plan recently that had short hill reps (less than 10 seconds each) and longer hill reps (60-90 seconds each).

I'm, pretty sure that the objective and potential benefits of these sessions were different which is why both were included.

From RW:

For Stride Efficiency improvements:



For Intermediate Fast Twitch Endurance improvements:



This is from the following:

http://www.runnersworld.com/race-training/solving-5k-puzzle?page=single

Hi Adrian. Just a reminder about the caveat about the knowledge coming from personal (or witnessed) experience rather than t'internt.

Ill address those session though for sure.

Id argue that the first one would be for improving strenght (max recruitment of muscle fibres) and max heart stroke volume (max amount of blood you the heart can pump through running).

If you're heart muscle can pump more blood per beat then your heart rate at Lactate threshold etc should drop.

You'll also get stronger legs and therefore take a longer stride and get faster. Also all your muscle is now "ready" to be used for other less intense training.
Hil wise, Perhaps a runner might follow with shallower hill sprints to get more power. (power her means force per time, think powerful fast strides , quick ground contact time rather than stronger slower strides)

A better session for stride efficiency might actually be up a shallower hill say 3%.
You run these like regular strides but the slight incline forces you to use more power from the ankle and forces you to push the hips forward and open them. This will happen naturally enough in this session.
If you run this session very relaxed and fast (say initially 90% effort to get it right, but aiming for 95% then jog back) then you could build up to 20 and you'd have a moderate session for muscular endurance.

I'm not sure about the second session. They don't explain why they want to train the intermediate fast twitch fibres that way. I've done a session 10 x 2 mins before many times with only 1 min recovery. It was a VO2 max session though I guess. Not saying that session might not work, its just that we dont know the context. Thats why its best to have the caveat that the suggestions are from experience as its guaranteed. (Dont mean to hog the thread.)

adrian522

demfad wrote: »

Hi Adrian. Just a reminder about the caveat about the knowledge coming from personal (or witnessed) experience rather than t'internt.

Sorry, I'm not really getting the point of the thread if people can't contribute. I did follow a plan based on that article which is why I felt I had something to offer on the difference between different types of hill workouts. The article explained it better than I could.

Not really sure I can contribute to the thread at all then.

demfad

adrian522 wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not really getting the point of the thread if people can't contribute. I did follow a plan based on that article which is why I felt I had something to offer on the difference between different types of hill workouts. The article explained it better than I could.

Not really sure I can contribute to the thread at all then.

Sorry Adrian apologies I didn't see that you had followed that plan (i know it was first your line I should have!), please ignore me re-stating the Caveat in the OP.

There are definately different hill sessions as you pointed out. Would you recommend any of those two or were they by way of example to show the variety?

Ive also seen a variety of the first where a runner with good cadence would emphasise stride lenght while a runner with good strenght and poor cadence might emphasise leg turnover more.

I tried that session once and followed it by doing 400m hard uphill. Was good for endurance (long distance) but i didnt have enough hill rep sessions done to get the most out of it to be honest.

adrian522

demfad wrote: »

Sorry Adrian apologies I didn't see that you had followed that plan (i know it was first your line I should have!), please ignore me re-stating the Caveat in the OP.

No worrries at all

demfad wrote: »

There are definately different hill sessions as you pointed out. Would you recommend any of those two or were they by way of example to show the variety?

Well I found them 2 completely different workouts. The short hill sprints were a little like strides in the sense you feel that they are doing you some good but without really taking anything out of you in terms of recovery. We did some form drills first then the short hill sprints but this wasn't a session that required much in the way of recovery.

The longer Hill sprints (started at 30 seconds and increased up to 90 seconds over a period of weeks) I felt were much more challenging aerobically but included a full recovery, but I still found these the tougher of the 2 sessions.

demfad wrote: »

Ive also seen a variety of the first where a runner with good cadence would emphasise stride lenght while a runner with good strenght and poor cadence might emphasise leg turnover more.

Yes, I was just trying to concentrate on form in that session, I guess it would have been good to concentrate on leg turnover as I would have fairly low cadence.

demfad wrote: »

I tried that session once and followed it by doing 400m hard uphill. Was good for endurance (long distance) but i didnt have enough hill rep sessions done to get the most out of it to be honest.

This program was designed by Clearier for the DCM novices from last year so was aimed at first time marathoners returning to running after the marathon so I guess was aimed at starting to introduce a bit of speed and hill work.

eldiva

demfad wrote: »

If you're heart muscle can pump more blood per beat then your heart rate at Lactate threshold etc should drop.

Good man you're trying to talk a good game here but are spouting out some utter nonsense and I don't think you've experienced this or practiced it either. What you've just described to a point are the symptoms of chronic fatigue and not an improvement in fitness like you thought. If you HR decreases at a threshold it's a sign of poor mitochondrial function which is one of the first signs of chronic fatigue and overtraining.
If you improve your threshold your HR should be at the same point but you should be able to work at a greater capacity. For example we've a runner who's threshold is at 175bpm and 6min/mile. He gets a good block of training in and then retests, his threshold is still at 175bpm but 5.25min/mile, meaning he has improved his aerobic capacity and mitochondrial function.
<snip>

TFBubendorfer

<mod>No matter who is right and who is wrong, leave out the personal attacks.</mod>

eldiva

I didn't think my attack was personal. I simply challenged his inaccurate information. As my old sport science lecturer used to say about bluffer's in the field "you simply shaking the tree to get rid of the deadwood"

Puncher

eldiva wrote: »

Good man you're trying to talk a good game here but are spouting out some utter nonsense and I don't think you've experienced this or practiced it either. What you've just described to a point are the symptoms of chronic fatigue and not an improvement in fitness like you thought. If you HR decreases at a threshold it's a sign of poor mitochondrial function which is one of the first signs of chronic fatigue and overtraining.
If you improve your threshold your HR should be at the same point but you should be able to work at a greater capacity. For example we've a runner who's threshold is at 175bpm and 6min/mile. He gets a good block of training in and then retests, his threshold is still at 175bpm but 5.25min/mile, meaning he has improved his aerobic capacity and mitochondrial function.
<snip>

I think I’m reading Demfad’s post differently to you. My understanding of what he’s saying is if “For example we've a runner who's threshold is at 175bpm and 6min/mile. He gets a good block of training in” and then when he runs at 6 min pace his heart rate will in all probability be lower than 175. Surely that’s not a sign of chronic fatigue, or is it?

Just to add, I agree with you that if his threshold is 175bpm then his pace will have improved.

demfad

eldiva wrote: »

Good man you're trying to talk a good game here but are spouting out some utter nonsense....

Sorry I wasn't very clear, what I meant was your heart rate would be lower at your old LT. I missed out the word 'old'. Well spotted. The line should read:

"If you're heart muscle can pump more blood per beat then your heart rate at old Lactate threshold etc should drop"

I don't think you've experienced this or practiced it either

You're wrong there: here's a session for example from my log

I used all out hill sprints regularly early in that marathon build up with good success If I recall. If you knew me or my background you'd also know (or guess) that I have tried and manipulated quite a high number and variety of hill sessions over the years.

eldiva

Puncher wrote: »

I think I’m reading Demfad’s post differently to you. My understanding of what he’s saying is if “For example we've a runner who's threshold is at 175bpm and 6min/mile. He gets a good block of training in” and then when he runs at 6 min pace his heart rate will in all probability be lower than 175. Surely that’s not a sign of chronic fatigue, or is it?

Just to add, I agree with you that if his threshold is 175bpm then his pace will have improved.

His original post was that his HR should drop if LT improves. That shouldn't be the case. The HR is the constant and the intensity at which point OBLA occurs will shift. If there is improvements then obviously the pace at which OBLA occurs will be at a higher intensity. If it's at a lower intensity then the original marker then yes it can be an indication of faitgue

eldiva

demfad wrote: »

You're wrong there: here's a session for example from my log

Because you've done a certain "He Who Shall Not Be Named" style session is all well and good but it still does not make you experienced enough to talk about the likes of Anaerobic threshold or lactate thresholds. You're also thrown out phrases like lactic acid and lactate, I'd look more in depth about those two if I were you. Very rare that someone has lactic acid in the system, it's blood lactate. Two very different biochemical/blood markers

Peterx

eldiva wrote: »

Because you've done a certain "He Who Shall Not Be Named" style session is all well and good but it still does not make you experienced enough to talk about the likes of Anaerobic threshold or lactate thresholds. You're also thrown out phrases like lactic acid and lactate, I'd look more in depth about those two if I were you. Very rare that someone has lactic acid in the system, it's blood lactate. Two very different biochemical/blood markers

The thread is called boards running knowledge. Assuming expertise is not a requirement I have added a piece on 2k reps below.
Feel free to constructively criticise and indeed add the science behind my personal boards running knowledge if you wish. If only lactate buffering experts are allowed post we'll miss lads favourite/most effective training workouts.

2k reps at tempo pace with recovery back down to about 100bpm in between are an awesome training primer 4 weeks before a race.
I did them building up to 10 x 2k starting at 5 x 2k over the course of two marathon training cycles. I never did a good marathon due to neglecting the long hardish runs but these 2k sessions made me much better at racing over shorter distances - both hillrunning and adventure racing.

eldiva

Peterx wrote: »

The thread is called boards running knowledge. Assuming expertise is not a requirement I have added a piece on 2k reps below.
Feel free to constructively criticise and indeed add the science behind my personal boards running knowledge if you wish. If only lactate buffering experts are allowed post we'll miss lads favourite/most effective training workouts.

2k reps at tempo pace with recovery back down to about 100bpm in between are an awesome training primer 4 weeks before a race.
I did them building up to 10 x 2k starting at 5 x 2k over the course of two marathon training cycles. I never did a good marathon due to neglecting the long hardish runs but these 2k sessions made me much better at racing over shorter distances - both hillrunning and adventure racing.

That looks like a spot on workout. Nicely

demfad

Peterx wrote: »

The thread is called boards running knowledge. Assuming expertise is not a requirement I have added a piece on 2k reps below.
Feel free to constructively criticise and indeed add the science behind my personal boards running knowledge if you wish. If only lactate buffering experts are allowed post we'll miss lads favourite/most effective training workouts.

2k reps at tempo pace with recovery back down to about 100bpm in between are an awesome training primer 4 weeks before a race.
I did them building up to 10 x 2k starting at 5 x 2k over the course of two marathon training cycles. I never did a good marathon due to neglecting the long hardish runs but these 2k sessions made me much better at racing over shorter distances - both hillrunning and adventure racing.

Thanks Peter. I remember you had an excellent International qualification off that session. Can you remember if you a had session for the climbing too or was the climbing off that session and general hill/bike work?

Peterx

The mighty John Lenihan recommended only hitting the hills once a week so that year I kept my hill run for the longish Sunday run.
The other mighty man, Robbie Bryson, said he got a lot of uphill running ability crossover from his cycling and I found that worked for me as well.

In terms of the running specific hill training I would work on power with a 6 x 2 minute balls out with at least 2 minute recovery uphill session just on the Tarmac part of Kilmashogue lane (8 -10% incline)
Doing that session properly always wiped me out, it was very hard (for me - an endurance plodder with little speed)

demfad

eldiva wrote: »

Because you've done a certain "He Who Shall Not Be Named" style session is all well and good but it still does not make you experienced enough to talk about the likes of Anaerobic threshold or lactate thresholds. You're also thrown out phrases like lactic acid and lactate, I'd look more in depth about those two if I were you. Very rare that someone has lactic acid in the system, it's blood lactate. Two very different biochemical/blood markers

I had constructed that marathon program around the idea of building towards big specific sessions. To discuss this and hopefully get ideas on building towards that goal, I started this thread: Training Ideas of Roberto Canova. You'll probably find some of the physiological discussion appalling but I think I and others took a lot from it. So the hills sprints I performed (one of several similar sessions) were "Canova" style sessions.

As the OP Id echo what Peter said: sports science expertise or otherwise is not a pre-requisite for posting here. Confidence in the session or in the principle's merit from personal experience is (as outlined in the OP.)

Peter's suggestion to use your knowledge to provide a physiological explanation or critique where possible, is excellent and would actually benefit the thread.

kit3

Peterx wrote: »

The mighty John Lenihan recommended only hitting the hills once a week so that year I kept my hill run for the longish Sunday run.
The other mighty man, Robbie Bryson, said he got a lot of uphill running ability crossover from his cycling and I found that worked for me as well.

In terms of the running specific hill training I would work on power with a 6 x 2 minute balls out with at least 2 minute recovery uphill session just on the Tarmac part of Kilmashogue lane (8 -10% incline)
Doing that session properly always wiped me out, it was very hard (for me - an endurance plodder with little speed)

Thanks for your responses - very interesting. Re the bit above about cycling, are we talking about specific cycling training here or just cycling as cross training ?

walshb

This thread should be a fun and interesting read but it's turning into who can solve Fermat's last theorem!

kit3

walshb wrote: »

This thread should be a fun and interesting read but it's turning into who can solve Fermat's last theorem!

Guess my question was in the remedial category then ? (am genuinely interested in the answer btw)

Peterx

kit3 wrote: »

Thanks for your responses - very interesting. Re the bit above about cycling, are we talking about specific cycling training here or just cycling as cross training ?

Robbie used to cycle from Enniskillen to the Alps and do the hill running races there, cycling between the races and finishing up at the World Champs. Where he would give a very good account of himself. He still holds the uphill record for Snowdon.

I am in the ha'penny place compared to him but did a bit of mountain bike racing and road cycling in the hills of Wicklow which always helped my uphill running. I haven't got the science, if any, but my feeling is that because I always cycled to school and then work it is very natural to me and very easily crosses over.

If you never cycled much then maybe you wouldn't get the same benefit (either in reality or maybe a bit of the placebo effect - it felt it helped me so it did help me)

ger664

Peterx wrote: »

2k reps at tempo pace with recovery back down to about 100bpm in between are an awesome training primer 4 weeks before a race.
I did them building up to 10 x 2k starting at 5 x 2k over the course of two marathon training cycles. I never did a good marathon due to neglecting the long hardish runs but these 2k sessions made me much better at racing over shorter distances - both hillrunning and adventure racing.

How much of a BPM drop is this in relation to a) BPM @ Tempo pace or b) Max HR ?

When I do tempo/Interval work I would normally walk until it drops to 130-135 (HR Max -50-55) and then jog the remaining time in the recovery.

conavitzky

Running I think is all about the long play in my opinion. If you can train consistently for 2-3 years without long breaks due to injury it's amazing what improvements can be made. Sometimes we can get bogged down in the science about lactate and hydrogen ions, shuffles and the like - there is also a place for this. But I genuinely feel if you can get out 5-6 days a week do a long run and two other session days keeping other days easy you cannot but improve. This is where the largest gains are made especially for beginners. From my experience I have had great improvement from two hard winters of xc training and xc racing. The pain experienced in the muck is like nothing I have ever felt on the road. Maybe I'm not pushing hard enough on the road! Serious strength gains in xc. My opinions for what it's worth.

happygoose

Spot on Conavitzky. Few here are at a level whereby some training theories are brandished about discussed are relevant - they come into play at a higher level, sub 31, 2:20 etc., consistency, perseverance, persistence, knowledge, being able to pick the best and trash the rest is what will help anyone progress at whatever level they are at. Progress comes years after year, being able to avoid illness and injury, building on what has gone before.

Ceepo

conavitzky wrote: »

Running I think is all about the long play in my opinion. If you can train consistently for 2-3 years without long breaks due to injury it's amazing what improvements can be made. Sometimes we can get bogged down in the science about lactate and hydrogen ions, shuffles and the like - there is also a place for this. But I genuinely feel if you can get out 5-6 days a week do a long run and two other session days keeping other days easy you cannot but improve. This is where the largest gains are made especially for beginners. From my experience I have had great improvement from two hard winters of xc training and xc racing. The pain experienced in the muck is like nothing I have ever felt on the road. Maybe I'm not pushing hard enough on the road! Serious strength gains in xc. My opinions for what it's worth.

But the problem with this approach is that for the most part people want the gains NOW and are looking for a magic formula

ger664

conavitzky wrote: »

Running I think is all about the long play in my opinion. If you can train consistently for 2-3 years without long breaks due to injury it's amazing what improvements can be made. Sometimes we can get bogged down in the science about lactate and hydrogen ions, shuffles and the like - there is also a place for this. But I genuinely feel if you can get out 5-6 days a week do a long run and two other session days keeping other days easy you cannot but improve. This is where the largest gains are made especially for beginners. From my experience I have had great improvement from two hard winters of xc training and xc racing. The pain experienced in the muck is like nothing I have ever felt on the road. Maybe I'm not pushing hard enough on the road! Serious strength gains in xc. My opinions for what it's worth.

My take on this is, improvements come from been consistent with your recovery after hard sessions. For some 1 Long and 2 hard in a week is too much and with inadequate recovery the body cannot adapt to the training thus no improvements will be got. In my experience I have made more gains doing 1 long 2 hard every 10 days and race specific training I switch to 1 hard one long (with specific intervals) a week.

rom

ger664 wrote: »

My take on this is, improvements come from been consistent with your recovery after hard sessions. For some 1 Long and 2 hard in a week is too much and with inadequate recovery the body cannot adapt to the training thus no improvements will be got. In my experience I have made more gains doing 1 long 2 hard every 10 days and race specific training I switch to 1 hard one long (with specific intervals) a week.

I have found for myself that tues/thur and long run on sun leaves me wrecked compared to wed/sat and long run on sunday. Also it works much better around family life as you only have one session during the week. I run a lot at lunchtime but there is no time for a session at lunch. For the second configuration it would be recovery 4M on Fri and Mon which would be just above a walk pace.

demfad

happygoose wrote: »

Spot on Conavitzky. Few here are at a level whereby some training theories are brandished about discussed are relevant - they come into play at a higher level, sub 31, 2:20 etc., consistency, perseverance, persistence, knowledge, being able to pick the best and trash the rest is what will help anyone progress at whatever level they are at. Progress comes years after year, being able to avoid illness and injury, building on what has gone before.

Great post.

With a couple of young kids (3yrs and 1yr) and the resulting sleep/recovery issues, I struggled with avoiding the illness.


For anyone in the same boat this is what worked for me:

- reducing the overall 'effort' of the training. My ongoing weekly perception of tiredness is very low, only as high as 'pleasantly tired' on effort days.
- reducing the overall effort on effort days. If you're not sleeping you can't recover /adapt as much anyway. and you're risking illness. Only as much stress as you're able to adapt to.
- reducing 'easy' effort on easy days. Slow these right down if needs be. It allows the immune system to fully recover between effort days, stay strong and do it's job.
- having more easy days between the effort days. Similar reasons to the two points above. I take at least 2 easy days after every effort day, but different strokes etc.
- any sign of infection, immediately take your trusted 'nip in the bud' remedy. It should be enough if the immune system is strong. I usually pop two of those Vitamin C effervescent tablets into a glass and down it. Does the job.

I do strides and speed maintenance to counteract all the slow easy running. Works for me and I honestly wish I'd always done more of it.

Once my 'easy feeling' week was intact I was able to gradually increase the volume with the same general low perception of fatigue . I managed five months of this without illness and I was delighted with a breakthrough run in the great Ireland run at the not Spring chicken age of 42.

I'd also add that enjoying the running is vital to sustainability and helps with perseverance. Variance, nice routes, different surfaces, in groups etc. have all helped me.

A race every now and then is great for the enjoyment factor too and can be a great stimulus to the following training if its a good one.

Ososlo

demfad wrote: »

. However, I also know (from my hill-running experience) that the ability to crest a hill can be trained significantly. (Just adding a hill crest to the end of the rep will do it). All other things being equal it means you have trained the ability to make a break or gap around a hill.

Super interesting post. Can you elaborate a bit on the bolded bit and how specifically (type of rep etc) one would put that into practice in training? Haven't heard that before. Thanks T.

robinph

Thread tidied up.

conavitzky

Ceepo wrote: »

But the problem with this approach is that for the most part people want the gains NOW and are looking for a magic formula

True, if you have any success with finding this elusive magic formula be sure to share!!! I have been on the look out for a while.:)

davedanon

All this reminds me of a big sign outside Salzburg airport in Austria. It reads:



THERE WILL BE ORDER

eldiva

You are right I was that young lad back in that 5k in 2013, and I've learnt from that race as I do every race as I'm sure nearly every runner does. The runner of 2013 and the runner of 2015 are very much a different being or athlete. I'm more than happy to jump in a 5k with yourself and see if i have learnt anything as you said

In terms of how I apply my sport science knowledge to a practical setting, I think is very evident in my progression in athletes in the 3 years I've been involved in the sport. My times have come down from a 21:xx for 5km to a 15:33 at the end of 2014 with some respectable times run at the shorter distances too and the goal this year to break the 15min barrier for 5k and 4min barrier for 1500. If I do great if I don't so be it. This has all been down by training the aerobic and anaerobic capacity, the majority of which I owe due to my educational/employment background.

No I haven't worn the Irish vest and respect most people, but if I had the experience of donning the green singlet I certainly wouldn't be mentioning on a site like this in what could only be described "look at me I'm an international runner" gloating style of post.

My issue with you wasn't about the hill training, believe me I love hill training and you can ask the top dogs in your Rathfarnham club what I'm like on the hills as I've missed with them on a weekly basis all last year nor was it about you beating me on a hill in a race (lets face it i'd have a lot of grudges if that was the case). My issue was your inaccurate terminology and knowledge of lactate threshold/lactic acid/lactate which for a knowledge thread like this which I felt could be misleading to a novice runner who uses the likes of HR or HRV as a training tool.

eldiva

In terms of a training sessions I've locked to incorporate into my training blocks is mas training. Basically you are working in ranges of 100%-130% of your maximum aerobic capacity. I've done blocks of 8weeks in the last 18 months and have noticed an improvement in both my aerobic capacity and leg turnover. An example would be cover 110m in 15seconds with a 15second recovery and this is done for 2-3 blocks of 4-8min. I can give more info to anyone that is interested in it

kit3

That's a really impressive improvement Eldiva - what you are doing is obviously working !

eldiva

kit3 wrote: »

That's a really impressive improvement Eldiva - what you are doing is obviously working !

Cheers kit. Just played around with different workouts and obviously joining a club has helped too.

demfad

eldiva wrote: »

I'm more than happy to jump in a 5k with yourself and see if i have learnt anything as you said

Would a five miler do?

Raheny 5 results.

Peterx

eldiva wrote: »

In terms of a training sessions I've locked to incorporate into my training blocks is mas training. Basically you are working in ranges of 100%-130% of your maximum aerobic capacity. I've done blocks of 8weeks in the last 18 months and have noticed an improvement in both my aerobic capacity and leg turnover. An example would be cover 110m in 15seconds with a 15second recovery and this is done for 2-3 blocks of 4-8min. I can give more info to anyone that is interested in it

What race distance(s) is that block of work most effective for?

adrian522

demfad wrote: »

Would a five miler do?

Raheny 5 results.

Lads can ye take this to PM? No one cares which of ye is faster.

tunguska

adrian522 wrote: »

Lads can ye take this to PM? No one cares which of ye is faster.

I dunno I think it'd be an interesting showdown. The lads couid race it out at the National track 5k in July? Loser is banished from boards forever, no re-regging, no off shore accounts, never to be heard from again.....

eldiva

Peterx wrote: »

What race distance(s) is that block of work most effective for?

It generally translates to 3k, 5k & 10k. Basically it improves your VO2max so it should translate to most distances. It depends what % you work out ie. 110, 120, 130 to get the most bang for your buck

eldiva

demfad wrote: »

Would a five miler do?

Raheny 5 results.

Jaysus pick the worst race result possible. One weeks training and two races in the 6 weeks prior to Raheny. Jeez talk about kicking a man while he's down. I'll leave this debate here as people are sick of our bickering

Peterx

eldiva wrote: »

It generally translates to 3k, 5k & 10k. Basically it improves your VO2max so it should translate to most distances. It depends what % you work out ie. 110, 120, 130 to get the most bang for your buck

Thanks. I'm not quite clear on the differences between using 110% and 130% though- is it that 110% is better for 10k and 130% is better for 3k - or am I taking it up wrong?

Peterx

ger664 wrote: »

How much of a BPM drop is this in relation to a) BPM @ Tempo pace or b) Max HR ?

When I do tempo/Interval work I would normally walk until it drops to 130-135 (HR Max -50-55) and then jog the remaining time in the recovery.

I think I would have been up around 170 ~ 175 during the intervals.

I suppose the reasoning behind the drop back to 100BPM was to be sure that we were fairly well recovered upon starting the next one. One of the lads might know better, I just did the prescribed sessions as given out by coach Adam and loved that one.

Ceepo

conavitzky wrote: »

True, if you have any success with finding this elusive magic formula be sure to share!!! I have been on the look out for a while.:)

It is hand carved on a tablet of stone and you find it right beside the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow ; )

Ps don't tell anyone