Don't train harder, train smarter

skyblue46

I just thought I'd throw this up here as there has been some lively discussion on the sub 3 thread which has been very interesting and probably deserves a thread in it's own right. It also saves the sub 3 thread from getting derailed and might make those of us not Sub 3 feel that we're not contributing to a thread we have no place in. On the other hand there may be nothing left to say!! Haha.

Some questions have arisen for me as a result of the debate though. How many of you are following plans to the letter? How many are randomly 'following' a plan but changing it beyond recognition on a whim? Who tries to find out the reasoning behind the plan they are following? Are people following plans that are appropriate to their present abilities?

El C makes a very valid point. This is a discussion/ debate forum. There is much more to be gained from constructive criticism and questioning of training than misplaced back-slapping.

Swashbuckler

skyblue46 wrote:

Some questions have arisen for me as a result of the debate though. How many of you are following plans to the letter? How many are randomly 'following' a plan but changing it beyond recognition on a whim? Who tries to find out the reasoning behind the plan they are following? Are people following plans that are appropriate to their present abilities?

And here was me thinking you were posting about running by feel vs running with a watch. Haha.

Anyone that follows my log k oes at thia stage I don't follow a textbook plan as such but I do have some opinions and contributions from following the various logs in here.

Four very good questions above and to be honest I have seen all four approaches on here and in real life. For instance a buddy of mine used to be very bad at following a plan and always always ran too fast. We drilled that out of him but the flipside now is he is insistent on never ever deviating from said plan. So he's gone from one extreme to the other. But I do think this is part of the journey and I'm going to use Boards as an example. If you follow the typical pattern of a Novice marathoner. They usually come here and have it drilled into them to stick to the plan. This advice is wise as they are relatively inexperienced. Once they get through that experience many graduate to a new plan. Again this is usually stuck to rigidly. As the years pass by, people pick up more and more and only then start to get confident enough to start questioning or changing things.

Its only in the last year, after ten or so years of running (most of which were run 'wrong') that I would be confident enough to tinker with a plan. Running is far from simple. It's so easy to get wrong. But I'm very much of the opinion, stick to a plan starting out, don't deviate, get some experience and then start questioning things. It's very risky for a novice to start tinkering.

Anyway that's my ramble

skyblue46

Thanks P. There were some interesting things on the sub 3 debate. One was in relation to the topping out of the tempo run based on time. I'm convinced from following Strava that not everyone who follows that plan is aware of that. I was also interested in the opinion that certain paces should be achieved before increasing mileage based plans.

BeepBeep67

At this stage, I write my own plan based on what has worked in past, plus some research into new/different training to keep it fresh. I feel it is important if targeting a race to get a plan down on paper and commit to it.

I mainly train in micro cycles aimed at a target race or series of races over a short period. I will have 1-2 blocks where I'll step away from structured speedwork and focus on a mileage build up over 6-8 weeks. I may still race in this period and will do some strides/drills/hills to stay in tune.

I have a good sense for what I need to do to get 'match fit', mileage, types of sessions, tune-up races, sleep and weight, but as a master athlete, I let how my body feels dictate the frequency and intensity of my sessions. As a rule of thumb, I try to have 2.5/3 days been sessions and long runs. Only occasionally will I fly close to the sun and put together a condensed intensive block to accelerate fitness, but you still have to play the long game.

I'll plan the progression of sessions I need to do 8-10 weeks out, the final 3 weeks are the critical ones, I'll have a weekly mileage target where I'm flexible with the frequency, duration and pace as I just view this as transportation to get me to the next session.

OOnegative

I plan on starting a P&L 12 week 10k plan from next week but won’t be following it to the letter as I want to race more which the plan doesn’t advocate. Apart from that I will follow it to the letter best as I can depending on life/tiredness/body etc. I followed a plan I made for myself this time last year to the letter for the CPC Loop off what I learned from ecolli or from what i’ve read here or in books, I ran over a 5 min PB but that may have been pot luck but I made certain to include enough in the plan that had worked successfully for me in the past.

Regarding the tempo idea, i’ve always followed the rule of 40mins Max is more than enough as that’s what i’ve read or have been advised to do.

Wottle

skyblue46 wrote: »

Some questions have arisen for me as a result of the debate though. How many of you are following plans to the letter? How many are randomly 'following' a plan but changing it beyond recognition on a whim? Who tries to find out the reasoning behind the plan they are following? Are people following plans that are appropriate to their present abilities?
.

It's impossible for me to follow a schedule as I run for work and have to do what the groups are doing. Yet I've started running PBs again, nearly 40 and running over 20 years (on and off).
The main elements contributing to this (imo) is the consistency, now 2 years of decent mileage, quality long runs as the weekends are mine alone and during the week sprinkling some easier runs with strides, some of my mileage can be 4 minutes a mile slower than 5k pace but I've learned to run with good form on these runs and all others.

For those I coach, it's a similar pattern, aim for consistency and being patient, 1 or 2 yrs building up to 6 days. Trying to slow people down on easy runs, sessions of long reps with plenty of recovery so as to be able to hold good form in the base phase before attacking longer tempos, alternating long runs, time on feet one week and quality long run session the next which may include half marathon efforts. I do expect the guys I'm coaching to follow it to the letter but there's active weekly communication where things can be altered.
Running is a long term project, gradual steps accumulate to something massive.
A certain clown helped me with that.

Huzzah!

skyblue46 wrote: »

Thanks P. There were some interesting things on the sub 3 debate. One was in relation to the topping out of the tempo run based on time. I'm convinced from following Strava that not everyone who follows that plan is aware of that.

I think this is one of the downsides to following a book plan as they are, by their very nature, static. Pfitzinger updated his thinking on this in his subsequent book Faster Road Running and LT runs are based on time in that book.

skyblue46 wrote: »

I was also interested in the opinion that certain paces should be achieved before increasing mileage based plans.

Again, my experience of most plans is that they do have this built in or maybe more that they're aimed at specific targets, which is problematic in itself, I suppose. Advanced Marathoning is specifically aimed at the sub-4 marathoner, AFAIR and the Advanced Hanson plan is, I think aimed for the sub 3.30 marathoner. I guess whether people choose the appropriate plan is then up to them.

robinph

The nature of this discussion will clearly be well beyond my understanding and I'd only have a vague notion of what half the things you chat about in your discussions of training plans are. No idea what you are on about with thresholds and tempo runs, can figure out intervals and know what fartlek means, but have absolutely zero interest in trying to follow any kind of prescriptive plan of doing X on this day and Y on that day at pace Z.

There is a point to this and I'm not suggesting following a plan is a bad idea in the slightest.

But, there isn't any reason to think that you MUST follow a plan in order to improve or do so many types of sessions at that pace in order to knock time off and get PB's. Just by going out running when I can be bothered, and not when I can't, in my time hanging around these parts I've knocked about an hour off my marathon time, set plenty of PB's, won county medals, and even national ones if you stretch the definition a bit. It is absolutely correct to try to figure better ways of doing things, but remember that isn't the only way of doing things. Even just simply "go for a run if you can be bothered" is a valid approach.

For example, I think some of the emphasis on marathon training plans of for this many weeks before the marathon you need to go out and do this and then that can actually be half of what would put some people off then being able to complete to the best of their ability. A new runner coming along will look for a plan because they know nothing, but is then sticking a 16 week schedule in front of them a good idea? That is just going to scare some of them off I think. Yes some people will need a detailed plan of how to get better at running, but we shouldn't in the process of providing that assume that is what would work for everyone. Same goes for more experienced runners as well though, as if I had believed that the only way of being able to run sub3 was to follow some particular plan then I'd have just stopped altogether as it wouldn't have been worth the effort.

Running is really quite simple, and in the famous advertising slogan sometime you should "Just do it".

Wottle

robinph wrote: »

Running is really quite simple, and in the famous advertising slogan sometime you should "Just do it".

Just do it can lead a lot of beginners to overdoing it, not realising that the skeletal, muscular system lag behind the aerobic system. I feel everyone would benefit from having an experienced coach or runner point out certain rookie mistakes.
For this thread though I'm of the impression that this is aimed at those who've made it past the rookie/beginners stage. A few I've coached recently were very experienced runners but needed a little structure and guidance and as a result improved, the just do it can only get most so far, seems to work very well for you though.

Swashbuckler

On the theme of discussing our own approaches (coaches approach) to training smarter;

Similar stuff to what Wottle suggested.

My easy runs were slowed right down. Had been running these too fast. It made a world of difference.

Conservative build up of intervals and tempos. Tempos/threshold runs split into intervals for quite a while to build up strength.

Focus on ensuring good form throughout. Not sacrificing form to try and achieve a prescribed pace.

Learning to run on feel. Some days a threshold effort might be 6.10 pace. Other days it might be 6.20. That being said up to recently I have still be guilty of trying to force the pace. Getting better though.

Always two days between hard sessions for me. Two sessions a week, one long run and the rest easy.

One days rest for me as it suits me. This isn't a hard rule for everyone. Plenty people running 7 days a week plus double days.

Long run typically 25% of weekly mileage.

Base building applies to everyone. This was something that surprised me. I always though base building was for novices. In hindsight that was naive.

Consistency is key. Training every day, every week, every month, every year is where the massive gains come. Anything that inhibits this is counter productive i.e if you find you're wrecked or injured a lot then you're overreaching with your training. Step it back.

In terms of cycles I always find this one interesting. This is really where the individuality comes in. Some people would benefit hugely from a marathon cycle, followed by base building, followed by 5k/10k and repeat. Others would benefit hugely from 6 months of tempo/strength based training. This is where it really gets tricky for people I thing - how to structure your year(s) to maximize potential. It's something I know I'd struggle with without the guidance of a coach.

OOnegative

Don’t think anyone was in huge disagreement with you on the other thread E but maybe saying it in different ways. What you posted above is double Dutch to me and I can’t decipher one bit of it and that’s you simplifying it as best you can. I just don’t have a scientific mind like yourself as does a lot of other runners.

Luke coached me for two years & I don’t think I asked him the purpose of a workout once as I was happy it was working and confident he was guiding me down the right path, some of the running terms still confuse me and i’m running nearly 8 years at this stage. Point I suppose i’m trying to make badly here is some of us need to be spoon fed still, the technical jargon goes over our heads sometimes.

Gonna miss El C!!

Murph_D

Well, let’s not get too wrapped up on who agrees with what parts of whose posts - it’s all civil discussion and interesting to boot.

Let’s talk some more about that 7 mile P&D tempo at LT pace.

One of the problems with the P&D Advanced Marathoning book is that the authors are not really specific about who it’s aimed at. On the one hand, LT tempos are described as “one hour race pace”, and on the other, as 15k to HM pace. The implication there is that the plan’s ‘entry level’ is a runner who can run at least 15k in an hour, which equates to a three hour marathoner. These ‘slower runners’ are advised to run the LT (up to 7m) at 15k pace (about 6:26) - a run lasting about 45:30. Faster runners are actually asked to run relatively slower, at HM pace, so a 2:30 marathoner would end up running it at around 5:28 pace, or 38-39 mins. So by this reckoning, it seems pretty clear that P&D think the tempo should top out around 40-45 mins for their target market.

The trouble is the book never says outright that slower runners (like me - aiming for a 3:20 target the first time I did this plan myself). In fact, the LT workout charts included in the book (2nd ed) are derived from HM times from 64 mins to 2 hours, implying that the plan is suitable for up to 4 hour+ runners. For this last category, the 7 mile tempo split is actually supplied - 64 mins, at 9:09/mi.

So it’s not a given that P&D meant to top out the LT at 45 mins - even though that is implied in the text, it’s contradicted in the charts. Perhaps we should question the assumption that the 7 mile LT run is only for ‘fast’ runners? The charts imply that Pfitzinger and Douglas think it’s OK for slower runners to run longer (by time) threshold runs - that’s what’s in the book, and their names are on the book.

Personally, I’ve run that workout once. According to my log, on 24 Feb 2016, it was a tough run and I came in a couple of seconds slower than target pace on a windy day. But nothing in the notes (one of the good things about having a log) says to me that it was particularly difficult within the context of the overall plan, and in fact I competed a 20 miler a few days later without any apparent extra difficulty.

In other words, nothing in the book or in my experience, the first time following the plan, screamed, ‘That’s too tough a run, adjust the plan’ - I just followed the plan!

FWIW The training cycle was for Boston 2016 - a race disaster but I don’t think the plan was to blame. I’ve never gone into a race feeling as good, but didn’t adjust the 3:20 target well to the conditions on the day. (I did use the plan subsequently and modified it quite a bit, around club sessions etc. Again, the results were disappointing.

So I failed following the plan and not following the plan - what am I supposed to conclude about P&D?

Eventually I moved on to Hanson - more to change things to keep fresher mentally than out of frustration with P&D.

RayCun

" In fact, the LT workout charts included in the book (2nd ed) are derived from HM times from 64 mins to 2 hours, implying that the plan is suitable for up to 4 hour+ runners. For this last category, the 7 mile tempo split is actually supplied - 64 mins, at 9:09/mi."

That's half marathon pace then for that category. Tough, but not as hard as seven miles at ten mile pace.

Murph_D

RayCun wrote: »

" In fact, the LT workout charts included in the book (2nd ed) are derived from HM times from 64 mins to 2 hours, implying that the plan is suitable for up to 4 hour+ runners. For this last category, the 7 mile tempo split is actually supplied - 64 mins, at 9:09/mi."

That's half marathon pace then for that category. Tough, but not as hard as seven miles at ten mile pace.

Right, but only if the runner decides himself or herself to do it at HM pace - against P&Ds advice for slower runners to run at 15k pace.

AuldManKing

OOnegative wrote: »

Gonna miss El C!!

Have we lost him too??

skyblue46

AuldManKing wrote: »

Have we lost him too??

Seems so. Posts were deleted yesterday it seems. Never got a chance to read his last post with Bohermeen yesterday! I think there is one derivative of El C still alive but he's fast running out of ways of using l, I and 1 for his username! :pac:

average_runner

Why did he do that?

KSU

Wottle wrote: »

For those I coach, it's a similar pattern, aim for consistency and being patient, 1 or 2 yrs building up to 6 days. Trying to slow people down on easy runs, sessions of long reps with plenty of recovery so as to be able to hold good form in the base phase before attacking longer tempos, alternating long runs, time on feet one week and quality long run session the next which may include half marathon efforts. I do expect the guys I'm coaching to follow it to the letter but there's active weekly communication where things can be altered.
Running is a long term project, gradual steps accumulate to something massive.
A certain clown helped me with that.

Interesting, I feel coming at it from a different approach works best for the very same reasons as yourself. Personally I avoid longer reps because people can't hold good form so I break them down or opt for blended workouts (for example instead of 5x1 mile I might do 1 mile, 4x400, 1 mile, 4x400, 1 mile) Recoveries would be generous enough on the shorter reps but keep them similar pace or a shade quicker so it promotes good mechanic's without breaking down form due to fatigue and reduces common overuse injuries in relatively novice runners (PF, Shin Splints and other issues resulting from insufficienct trunk stabilty)