Training load video

Testosterscone

Following 5 minute video could be worth endless progression in your running career. It has always been a bugbear of mine that the Greg McMillan 10k thread keeps getting bumped as a good training plan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVz2nWMgxJg

Came across this one this morning and it is arguably the best training video I have seen and makes great points about training load and raised the point of why plans are limited, not because they training stresses need to be individualized but because the athletes physiology is individualized. More does not always mean better.

sideswipe

Testosterscone wrote: »

It has always been a bugbear of mine that the Greg McMillan 10k thread keeps getting bumped as a good training plan.

Thanks for that. Struck a chord with me because I feel I'm guilty of doing too much in relation to my ability as a runner (or a recoverer).

I was thinking of doing the McMillan plan again having had success with it before, my question is how do I gauge how much is enough to enable proper adaptation? Is it simply a case of trial and error?

Testosterscone

sideswipe wrote: »

Thanks for that. Struck a chord with me because I feel I'm guilty of doing too much in relation to my ability as a runner (or a recoverer).

I was thinking of doing the McMillan plan again having had success with it before, my question is how do I gauge how much is enough to enable proper adaptation? Is it simply a case of trial and error?

Generally I find this is where background and ability come in and there are a number of ways you might be able to do this depending on how you want to approach it.

Time base reps - 1k reps on some plans generally would swap for 3 min running likewise 1 mile reps for 5 min efforts. These are rough guides based off some higher level training as a reference point you could work from and base on say 20-25 min of effort for 10k sessions depending on appropriate mileage to support it (while it is not a reference point for how much intervals you should do for adaptation it can make a difference in how much your body can handle structurally much like not doing majority of mileage in long run)

Race pace calculators - Many of these can give you a predicted vo2 equivalent in the absence of an actual vO2 max lab report. If you take the example from the video of 6x1 mile for elites and put that as roughly 75-80 (male or 65-70 female) then for say the likes of a 20 min 5k runner male (50 vdot) might do closer to 3.75 miles worth of reps (maybe 6x1k at same paces and recoveries)

Form - Length of reps for me should be adopted to the weightlifting principle. Pace and length should be as long as you are able to hold good form. If you are falling all over the place to finish the session it is time to call it a day. 5x2 min with good form is better that 5x3 min and gritting through. Reps teach you to be economical at race efforts as many times for most of us it is not the lungs and heart that slow us down its the body.

These are reference points from here you can tinker depending on recovery etc. It should be worth nothing that the coach in that video just coached the winner of the US National Marathon championships (2.12 marathon) with there being a one session focus for the majority of the build up mainly built around of 7x3 min as primary part of the session

sideswipe

Thanks for taking the time to give that breakdown. Much appreciated.

M.m.m.

Testosterscone wrote: »

has always been a bugbear of mine that the Greg McMillan 10k thread keeps getting bumped as a good training plan.

I would never have viewed Mc Millans 8 week plan as a 'training' plan per se. I always thought it was a race prep plan to see if you're ready for your intended goal time.



I don't know anyone who could go to even his first workout and complete it at intended race pace if they hadn't already done the pre-req training for the 10km.


Good video though, I would love to think that all of the online coaches and experts who offer training for events at a cost would consider this for their clients. Unfortunately in my experience they offer a one size fits all plan and only ask about your current running times. There is no mention of anything else.

Testosterscone

M.m.m. wrote: »

I would never have viewed Mc Millans 8 week plan as a 'training' plan per se. I always thought it was a race prep plan to see if you're ready for your intended goal time.



I don't know anyone who could go to even his first workout and complete it at intended race pace if they hadn't already done the pre-req training for the 10km.


Good video though, I would love to think that all of the online coaches and experts who offer training for events at a cost would consider this for their clients. Unfortunately in my experience they offer a one size fits all plan and only ask about your current running times. There is no mention of anything else.

Interesting would never have viewed an 8 week approach as a race fitness gauge. Personally I think would be very hard to maintain peak fitness in that case. Tend to see it on that thread regularly and just not a fan of it at all it is basically a carbon copy of what he had some of his elites do in build up for their race and I don't think its comminicated that it is appropriate for those specific athletes (guys running sub 5 miles for 10k pace)

In an ideal world all coaches would individualize unless they actually saw merit of trying to tailor group training as a more appropriate approach (i.e for helping an athlete gain confidence or something like that)

Sadly Online Coaching is seen as a quick fix and handy revenue stream so athletes and coaches don't fully buy in alot of the time. Getting to the stage where some online coaches are looking for money up front with no mention of credentials or coaching philosophies or any insight as to why you would be coached by them or what they expect from an athlete.

M.m.m.

Testosterscone wrote: »

Interesting would never have viewed an 8 week approach as a race fitness gauge. Personally I think would be very hard to maintain peak fitness in that case. Tend to see it on that thread regularly and just not a fan of it at all it is basically a carbon copy of what he had some of his elites do in build up for their race and I don't think its comminicated that it is appropriate for those specific athletes (guys running sub 5 miles for 10k pace)

In an ideal world all coaches would individualize unless they actually saw merit of trying to tailor group training as a more appropriate approach (i.e for helping an athlete gain confidence or something like that)

Sadly Online Coaching is seen as a quick fix and handy revenue stream so athletes and coaches don't fully buy in alot of the time. Getting to the stage where some online coaches are looking for money up front with no mention of credentials or coaching philosophies or any insight as to why you would be coached by them or what they expect from an athlete.

Maybe its just me personally but in 8 weeks I would never make much progress so in my opinion its not a training plan. I can see what you mean by peaking too soon but you would defo have to be just about there for the pace you're targeting otherwise it is just another training event and not a target race plan.



I've often read about people getting injured after taking up online plans from experienced athletes who should know better. They should be held accountable and named and shamed.


I got my money back from one of them, they basically charged me for a generic plan that you would get off the internet. They didnt even try to alter it towards what my current times were. They just asked me what my goal time was and told me the training paces I need to do for 10 weeks.


Another ''successful'' athlete who loves tooting his horn, sent my friend some outlandish paces based on his marathon goal time and when he asked him was it not a bit fast for his current fitness he told him to see if he can hit the paces or see how close he can get. Thats all well and good for a once off trial to see where you are but he was giving him these paces for all runs and eventually he did get injured. Pure laziness and a quick buck.

El CabaIIo

I know people will laugh at me having a divided opinion to an elite coach like Tinman, in the spirit of where he started on an online forum, I'll have a go anyway.

I completely agree with his point re scaling back sessions for slower runners. You see this across pretty much every generic plan, pfitzingers 7 mile LT Tempo's, Daniels 15 mile MP runs which are workouts you will never or rarely see an actual elite athlete do because of the stress they create but yet they get reccomended to people running 3-4 hour marathon runners which is stupidity.

7 miles at LT for an elite athlete is say 34 minutes at 1 hour pace

For a 1:25 runner- that workout is close to 45 minutes at 1 hour pace

It makes no sense that an athlete running a 1:25 half should be doing 11 minutes more work at LT than a 62 half guy(the slower runner should be doing less time. I also don't think I've ever seen an elite athlete do 15 miles at marathon pace. I've seen them do 10 miles or broken intervals going a bit farther and 30k at a highend aerobic pace but still a good bit slower than MP. On McMillian, 3x2m at LT is a big workout for a slower runner nevermind 3x2m at 10k pace. I completely agree with him on that principle.

Where I'd differ slightly is that I do think overall volume does make a difference too. People who are running more will have a higher tolerance to stress because they've thought their body to adapt to a higher workload. If you have two guys who are running 20 for 5k, one is running 50mpw and the other 10mpw, you'll feel a lot safer giving the guy with the higher mileage a harder workout because his tolerance to training is higher. This is where periodised training originates from, the methodology behind Lydiard and Canova and pretty much every great modern coach. Something tinman still adheres to himself. You can take it even further and look at a strength diesel engine runner vs a speed orientated runner both running the 5k in the exact same time and each would need a different workload.

I agree completely that you shouldn't be doing elite level workouts unless you are elite especially mileage based ones and not time(even time should be scaled back) but I don't believe that it is as simple as you run this time for this race so you only do this much volume. There's more at play to get the balance right but I also accept that he might be slightly overemphasising the point in reaction to modern training.

Testosterscone

M.m.m. wrote: »

Maybe its just me personally but in 8 weeks I would never make much progress so in my opinion its not a training plan. I can see what you mean by peaking too soon but you would defo have to be just about there for the pace you're targeting otherwise it is just another training event and not a target race plan.



I've often read about people getting injured after taking up online plans from experienced athletes who should know better. They should be held accountable and named and shamed.


I got my money back from one of them, they basically charged me for a generic plan that you would get off the internet. They didnt even try to alter it towards what my current times were. They just asked me what my goal time was and told me the training paces I need to do for 10 weeks.


Another ''successful'' athlete who loves tooting his horn, sent my friend some outlandish paces based on his marathon goal time and when he asked him was it not a bit fast for his current fitness he told him to see if he can hit the paces or see how close he can get. Thats all well and good for a once off trial to see where you are but he was giving him these paces for all runs and eventually he did get injured. Pure laziness and a quick buck.

For me generally I would say an 8 week specific phase is a perfectly acceptable time frame to make big gains but all depends on what has come before it. You aren’t gonna make huge improvements in 8 weeks of you have to build fitness up enough to be able to handle the appropriate training it effectively comes back to a base phase rather than specific

Regarding the plans yes there are some out there you will see that from but I don’t think it’s always as simple as saying plan got an athlete injured or even the paces prescribed for sessions

It is a two way street and athlete needs to make sure they are doing the external factors that make sure the are going into the sessions well recovered (doesn’t necessarily mean fresh mind you) this is major draw back of online coaching is that you need both athete and coach to be in same page about lifestyle factors: a lot of top coaches at elite level will change up sessions runs etc just looking at the way an athlete is performing mid session they are able to spit something is amiss

With online coaching you would have to ask 101 questions questions before the start every session which is not always possible which is why there is an element of trust needed to be put in the athlete to assess themselves which is not always easy with something who is relatively inexperienced in this regard.

Then there is the human nature element which occurs at all levels. Saw recent interview with Stephen scullions coach basically prescribed a session and paces which were effectively ignored somewhat by the athlete (an elite professional runner) so even conveying he right message does not always translate to the athlete being on same wavelength

Testosterscone

El CabaIIo wrote: »

I know people will laugh at me having a divided opinion to an elite coach like Tinman, in the spirit of where he started on an online forum, I'll have a go anyway.

I completely agree with his point re scaling back sessions for slower runners. You see this across pretty much every generic plan, pfitzingers 7 mile LT Tempo's, Daniels 15 mile MP runs which are workouts you will never or rarely see an actual elite athlete do because of the stress they create but yet they get reccomended to people running 3-4 hour marathon runners which is stupidity.

7 miles at LT for an elite athlete is say 34 minutes at 1 hour pace

For a 1:25 runner- that workout is close to 45 minutes at 1 hour pace

It makes no sense that an athlete running a 1:25 half should be doing 11 minutes more work at LT than a 62 half guy(the slower runner should be doing less time. I also don't think I've ever seen an elite athlete do 15 miles at marathon pace. I've seen them do 10 miles or broken intervals going a bit farther and 30k at a highend aerobic pace but still a good bit slower than MP. On McMillian, 3x2m at LT is a big workout for a slower runner nevermind 3x2m at 10k pace. I completely agree with him on that principle.

Where I'd differ slightly is that I do think overall volume does make a difference too. People who are running more will have a higher tolerance to stress because they've thought their body to adapt to a higher workload. If you have two guys who are running 20 for 5k, one is running 50mpw and the other 10mpw, you'll feel a lot safer giving the guy with the higher mileage a harder workout because his tolerance to training is higher. This is where periodised training originates from, the methodology behind Lydiard and Canova and pretty much every great modern coach. Something tinman still adheres to himself. You can take it even further and look at a strength diesel engine runner vs a speed orientated runner both running the 5k in the exact same time and each would need a different workload.

I agree completely that you shouldn't be doing elite level workouts unless you are elite especially mileage based ones and not time(even time should be scaled back) but I don't believe that it is as simple as you run this time for this race so you only do this much volume. There's more at play to get the balance right but I also accept that he might be slightly overemphasising the point in reaction to modern training.

I think the key to this is the difference between tolerance and adaptation. I completely agree with you I would feel more comfortable with prescribing more volume to a higher mileage runner but I think what is being conveyed here is that sometimes tolerance of a session does not mean optimal for adaptation and that some runners may well benefit from less in there sessions despite overall volume being higher. I think he is trying to get away from the direction proportions of workout to volume as a metric.

FWIW I have tend to be seeing this as a more common thread in runners making big improvements on observation (could be because I am evaluating there training from this side though)

M.m.m.

Testosterscone wrote: »

For me generally I would say an 8 week specific phase is a perfectly acceptable time frame to make big gains but all depends on what has come before it. You aren’t gonna make huge improvements in 8 weeks of you have to build fitness up enough to be able to handle the appropriate training it effectively comes back to a base phase rather than specific

Regarding the plans yes there are some out there you will see that from but I don’t think it’s always as simple as saying plan got an athlete injured or even the paces prescribed for sessions

It is a two way street and athlete needs to make sure they are doing the external factors that make sure the are going into the sessions well recovered (doesn’t necessarily mean fresh mind you) this is major draw back of online coaching is that you need both athete and coach to be in same page about lifestyle factors: a lot of top coaches at elite level will change up sessions runs etc just looking at the way an athlete is performing mid session they are able to spit something is amiss

With online coaching you would have to ask 101 questions questions before the start every session which is not always possible which is why there is an element of trust needed to be put in the athlete to assess themselves which is not always easy with something who is relatively inexperienced in this regard.

Then there is the human nature element which occurs at all levels. Saw recent interview with Stephen scullions coach basically prescribed a session and paces which were effectively ignored somewhat by the athlete (an elite professional runner) so even conveying he right message does not always translate to the athlete being on same wavelength

Its a trust issue as well, when I got the generic plan and knew that was the offering that was enough for me. I shouldn't have to question basics, whatever about the detail of 101 questions.


The friend should have had the sense not to go along with the tough plan they were given but probably trusted the coaching and perhaps an element of wishful thinking to get to desired goal time.


If the recovery times you're being given are probably more like a steady pace then there is no recovery runs.



Some of these coaches have 100's of clients as well as their own training and when you're at their level it takes up quite a bit of time I imagine.

El CabaIIo

Testosterscone wrote: »

I think the key to this is the difference between tolerance and adaptation. I completely agree with you I would feel more comfortable with prescribing more volume to a higher mileage runner but I think what is being conveyed here is that sometimes tolerance of a session does not mean optimal for adaptation and that some runners may well benefit from less in there sessions despite overall volume being higher. I think he is trying to get away from the direction proportions of workout to volume as a metric.

FWIW I have tend to be seeing this as a more common thread in runners making big improvements on observation (could be because I am evaluating there training from this side though)

Yeah, no doubt. I'm probably being a bit pedantic to be fair as race times will be the first thing you should look at when thinking about a session and how much volume or intense it should be. That will give you the big baseline and then overall mileage and the type of runner will follow that in priority but just adding another layer of thought on top of it.

On the improvement side of things, I'd definitely agree from what I've seen over the last while from not just Tinman but even the NAU guys, what blew my mind when I saw what Mike Smith was doing was that nothing blew my mind:pac: It was all about repeatability. If people remain healthy, they run well simple!