DCM 2017 Graduates: Onwards and upwards!

skyblue46 · 28-03-2018 12:47AM

Swashbuckler wrote: »

I can stick my beak in and throw around opinions if you like??

I've looked at the Graduate 5k-10k plan previously. And I'm also aware of the McMillian 10k plan too.

The Graduate plan has a really good mix. The Tuesday sessions really do build up your speed massively with a very nice mix of paces, hills etc. And also a very nice mix of paces either side of your race pace. The Saturday sessions build up your strength. Again with a big variety of sessions and paces.

The McMillian plan is ok but its fairly limited in my opinion. Alternating between race pace sessions and speed sessions is ok but theres nowhere near the variety of sessions.

I guessed I'm a bit biased for two reasons - Grad plan was created by my coach. lol. But also, that type of running and variety (in the Grad plan) is what I love. I tried McMillian and it didn't give me the gains that Testosterscones plan has - possibly due to the fact that there's a little too much self tweaking in the McMillian plan. But also the lack of variety I think.

Given you will only be running four days, why not try the Grad plan and make sure you do the two key sessions and the long run, plus one other run? OFF is an option on two of the days. Maybe just drop a third Easy day. I think you would see big gains from the Grad plan to be honest - moreso than McMillian.

I couldn't agree more and I have been singing it's praises from day one. Anyone who tried the half plan had excellent results. I think the paces suggested in conjunction with the plan were felt by a few to be too slow and that coloured perceptions of the plan.

Swashbuckler · 28-03-2018 05:52AM

skyblue46 wrote:

I couldn't agree more and I have been singing it's praises from day one. Anyone who tried the half plan had excellent results. I think the paces suggested in conjunction with the plan were felt by a few to be too slow and that coloured perceptions of the plan.

Out of interest what paces in particular? because I looked again yesterday and I saw CV, AP, VO2max, threshold and tempo paces, all of which I find challenging in particular the first few. I'd be surprised if people thought anything on the sessions was too slow

skyblue46 · 28-03-2018 06:48AM

Swashbuckler wrote: »

Out of interest what paces in particular? because I looked again yesterday and I saw CV, AP, VO2max, threshold and tempo paces, all of which I find challenging in particular the first few. I'd be surprised if people thought anything on the sessions was too slow

It's not the sessions. It's the easy and very easy paces. To be honest I find it a hugely interesting subject and it has led to me doing an inordinate amount of Strava stalking to try to understand it. As a result I am totally convinced that the paces are accurate. If this topic gathers momentum I'll explain why! Hahahaha.

Swashbuckler · 28-03-2018 10:23AM

skyblue46 wrote:

It's not the sessions. It's the easy and very easy paces. To be honest I find it a hugely interesting subject and it has led to me doing an inordinate amount of Strava stalking to try to understand it. As a result I am totally convinced that the paces are accurate. If this topic gathers momentum I'll explain why! Hahahaha.

Well from what I can see from T's plans the easy runs are designed to have you fresh for the priority sessions. But there are so many ways to approach running. I know plenty of people running much faster easy runs but a bunch of them are always injured too.
I think anyone basing a choice of plan off the easy run paces is focusing on the wrong thing entirely. Look to the column beside the easy run and you'll see your challenge.

Testosterscone · 28-03-2018 11:13AM

The plan (in particular the paces) is a hard sell no doubt. The reason for this is because it challenges the norm, however the norm has become the norm simply because it was simple and easily available so this is the information people learn and pass on which is why the same plans get recommended here over and over with testimonials and I felt this approach gave people an introduction into the variety to hopefully open them up to training which would be very much of the similar model to traditional coach training (with rise in numbers without rise in coaching this is not always exhibited in all clubs these days)

Most of these plans are designed with good intentions but often the material surrounding the plan often gets lost/ignored and the plans lose value. One great example of this is the Jack Daniels Running Formula book and it's training plans. Many people view this plan as extreme and hardcore but if you actually read the book and listen to the man speak in lectures you see that the plans are meant to be adapted down to suit your level.
Our Lifestyles have changed since many of these plans were first devised, we are less active in general and as such our bodies aren't able to handle the training as well as we used to so the approach needs to be adopted and developed to get us to the point where we can handle the training laid out the way it is.

The pace thing is something that was drilled into me from my last coach (a 2.16 marathon guy) and re-iterated in current coach (2.14) they showed me that the easy days can be very easy without impacting aerobic development while also getting more out of the sessions as you are fresher. This is something that I saw the proof in as my easy run pace has probably slowed over a minute in the last 10 years on average despite my times coming down across every distance from 3k upwards significantly in that time. To this day despite all the improvements I look at my college paces and shudder at the thought of trying to sustain that despite the fact I am faster and fitter now. I couldn't understand why races didn't reflect my training times.

I also tend to have a relatively low injury risk in general and majority of the athletes I work with generally wouldn't have a very high injury risk history in the time I have been working with them (bar some notable exceptions recently unfortunately) I don't think this is a coincidence as the focus of the training tends to be towards benefits made from consistency.

Injury niggles and stagnation tend to be the biggest reason why runners lifespans (in the sport) can be limited. People bust there a$$ for a short term and burn out or get discouraged when improvements level off a bit. With the easier aerobic runs you are not investing so much mental effort while still seeing the gains. It becomes more sustainable and keeps people enjoying the sport long term

This is not a sales pitch for the plan as to be honest you need to buy into any approach you make so if you don't have confidence in the approach then it won't succeed no matter but hopefully gives a bit of insight into the thinking behind the plan.

skyblue46 · 03-04-2018 06:08PM

Testosterscone wrote: »

The plan (in particular the paces) is a hard sell no doubt. The reason for this is because it challenges the norm, however the norm has become the norm simply because it was simple and easily available so this is the information people learn and pass on which is why the same plans get recommended here over and over with testimonials and I felt this approach gave people an introduction into the variety to hopefully open them up to training which would be very much of the similar model to traditional coach training (with rise in numbers without rise in coaching this is not always exhibited in all clubs these days)

Most of these plans are designed with good intentions but often the material surrounding the plan often gets lost/ignored and the plans lose value. One great example of this is the Jack Daniels Running Formula book and it's training plans. Many people view this plan as extreme and hardcore but if you actually read the book and listen to the man speak in lectures you see that the plans are meant to be adapted down to suit your level.
Our Lifestyles have changed since many of these plans were first devised, we are less active in general and as such our bodies aren't able to handle the training as well as we used to so the approach needs to be adopted and developed to get us to the point where we can handle the training laid out the way it is.

The pace thing is something that was drilled into me from my last coach (a 2.16 marathon guy) and re-iterated in current coach (2.14) they showed me that the easy days can be very easy without impacting aerobic development while also getting more out of the sessions as you are fresher. This is something that I saw the proof in as my easy run pace has probably slowed over a minute in the last 10 years on average despite my times coming down across every distance from 3k upwards significantly in that time. To this day despite all the improvements I look at my college paces and shudder at the thought of trying to sustain that despite the fact I am faster and fitter now. I couldn't understand why races didn't reflect my training times.

I also tend to have a relatively low injury risk in general and majority of the athletes I work with generally wouldn't have a very high injury risk history in the time I have been working with them (bar some notable exceptions recently unfortunately) I don't think this is a coincidence as the focus of the training tends to be towards benefits made from consistency.

Injury niggles and stagnation tend to be the biggest reason why runners lifespans (in the sport) can be limited. People bust there a$$ for a short term and burn out or get discouraged when improvements level off a bit. With the easier aerobic runs you are not investing so much mental effort while still seeing the gains. It becomes more sustainable and keeps people enjoying the sport long term

This is not a sales pitch for the plan as to be honest you need to buy into any approach you make so if you don't have confidence in the approach then it won't succeed no matter but hopefully gives a bit of insight into the thinking behind the plan.

Thanks for this. It's very informative. Just wondering if you have any idea why it seems that so many are resistant to the approach? Is it a simple case of individuals wanting to run as close to their fastest as often as they can?

I'm just prompted to ask this in light of advice given to someone who posted looking for advice in advance of an upcoming HM. The advice given was to run easy runs at a pace less than a minute slower than their planned race pace. Personally I would not be able to sustain that for long. Is the approach you have explained so well above an approach which is not agreed with by many coaches?

Safiri · 03-04-2018 07:14PM

skyblue46 wrote: »

Thanks for this. It's very informative. Just wondering if you have any idea why it seems that so many are resistant to the approach? Is it a simple case of individuals wanting to run as close to their fastest as often as they can?

I'm just prompted to ask this in light of advice given to someone who posted looking for advice in advance of an upcoming HM. The advice given was to run easy runs at a pace less than a minute slower than their planned race pace. Personally I would not be able to sustain that for long. Is the approach you have explained so well above an approach which is not agreed with by many coaches?

Many coaches differ in their opinions on what is right but that also has to factor in the level and strengths of runners. For instance, having someone like Mo Farah go out and run so slowly most days will give him no stimulus at all, so he reguraly does long runs and general runs at 5:30 pace. Many kenyans may go out and start a run at 8-10 minute miles on recovery days(talking about 27 minute 10k guys here) but there training volume and workouts can be huge.

It is generally accepted that easy runs have to easy but as people progress and grow tolerance towards low intensity training, it may be time to introduce moderate paced runs or adding more mileage into their training to keep gaining that stimulus. High mileage guys in the 80's would have been running most of their base mileage between MP and MP+1min for instance as they would lose aerobic fitness by just running slowly due to already being able to easily tolerate slow running. This is just coming from the opposite side of the spectrum to show how things can change and how training needs to evolve as you get faster and stronger. The top high mileage guys are at one end and newer runners at the other and in between is kind of a mish mash of both.

There is a place for faster aerobic running in training but also for slow running. It just depends on where in training you are. i.e during base, you might have a few moderate days followed by an easy day or during specific training;one hard day might need two easy days.

It's not really that coaches don't agree on these, the vast majority do; it's that many runners who run hard every day have had no feedback from coaches in their life or the thirst for knowledge to go out and find information on it. The most intuitive thing to do when you have neither of these is that you only learn to run fast by running fast but this is one of those counterintuitive things and that is what causes resistance. I like to think of it a bit like someone who wants to learn how to swim, they dont/shouldn't just jump into an olympic size pool and start trashing it out; First they gotta work on the basics like feeling comfortable in the water, then learn basic technique and then gradually build up from there. It might not seem like it but those early basic things are what will make them faster down the road. Faster than the self-taught person who trashes out lengths of the pool everyday and is well ahead of the person who is learning the basics at first. Those short term early gains are addictive and the results will improve for a beginner no matter what they do so all the evidence nd results will point to thm doing the right thing in their own mind. It's extremely difficult to get through to a person who already has their beliefs set on a certain thing.

Kellygirl · 03-04-2018 07:34PM

I’m only speaking for myself here as I’m not following Testosterscone’s plan. It’s not because I don’t believe in the approach or am resistant to it - I’d love to follow it but I feel I’d need to tweak it so much to fit into my availability and schedule that it may then not work for me. Therefore I went looking for a plan that seemed to work with the number of days I can run and am trying to apply what I’m learning on boards to that plan. I would be doing every run as fast as I could if it wasn’t for here. Yes I could certainly do runs slower but I only run 4 days a week so I don’t see the need to be super slow unless they are recovery runs or an extra run that I got to slot in the other day for example.

I don’t have the confidence to follow the plan when I can’t follow it exactly and I’m only confident doing the marathon by following a plan to the letter or as close as possible.

skyblue46 · 03-04-2018 07:41PM

Yeah that all makes sense. It's one of the things I have developed a great interest in over the past year. I initially thought it was a case of doctors differing, patients dying but I now realize it's a case of patients self diagnosing and treating!

I understand your points about athletes at different levels and at different stages of training blocks.

Anyway I think I will just continue to read training logs, look at Strava and keep my opinions to myself before frustration drives me nuts!

Testosterscone · 03-04-2018 07:45PM

skyblue46 wrote: »

Thanks for this. It's very informative. Just wondering if you have any idea why it seems that so many are resistant to the approach? Is it a simple case of individuals wanting to run as close to their fastest as often as they can?

I'm just prompted to ask this in light of advice given to someone who posted looking for advice in advance of an upcoming HM. The advice given was to run easy runs at a pace less than a minute slower than their planned race pace. Personally I would not be able to sustain that for long. Is the approach you have explained so well above an approach which is not agreed with by many coaches?

Everyone will have there own reasons for different approaches. Generally times like that might come from some running literature or coaching materials, run calculators. These aren't necessarily wrong and sometimes it's a case of intensity needing to rise due to volume or frequency being low.

The one thing I would say with reading running books etc is look at the background of the coach. Jack Daniels, Renato Canova or Steve Magness for an example come from background of US/Kenyan athletes. Many of these are full time (be it Collegiate athletes or Kenyan's) who generally would have good sleep patterns etc (not even taking into account that when looking at some of the elite athletes there might also be other enhanced recovery methods which are not always apparent, which is always worth bearing in mind when you are looking at what the elites are doing right as an example) . This plays a role on recovery

Likewise looking to the high mileage 70/80s marathon runners who were thrashing there runs. In the absence of social media, digital tv and constantly being switched on generally had better uninterrupted sleep patterns.

I definitely err on the side of caution with paces I prescribe. My own background is shift work and burning the candle at both ends which is why even though my paces would be alot slower than many running at my level I feel it works well for me. Many of the athletes I coach would tend to be Masters athletes so again recovery plays a role. The training volume tends to be high enough (even some of the runners I have at say the 4 hr marathon level) would be climbing to 40/50 miles with the view of long term development as such I feel that the cautious paces still provides benefits. You will see it with many of the newer athletes I coach even here are usually coming to me in an overtrained state and are generally tired. Despite the mileage usually actually increasing initially generally they tend to feel fresher after the first few weeks than they did when they started.

This also opens up to more frequent racing etc.

Faster paces usually see quick results but more often than not I find that those results either lead to unreal expectations of linear progression after initial benefits and as a result overreaching and ultimately overtraining in order to get more stimulus.

skyblue46 · 03-04-2018 07:54PM

Testosterscone wrote: »

Everyone will have there own reasons for different approaches. Generally times like that might come from some running literature or coaching materials, run calculators. These aren't necessarily wrong and sometimes it's a case of intensity needing to rise due to volume or frequency being low.

The one thing I would say with reading running books etc is look at the background of the coach. Jack Daniels, Renato Canova or Steve Magness for an example come from background of US/Kenyan athletes. Many of these are full time (be it Collegiate athletes or Kenyan's) who generally would have good sleep patterns etc (not even taking into account that when looking at some of the elite athletes there might also be other enhanced recovery methods which are not always apparent, which is always worth bearing in mind when you are looking at what the elites are doing right as an example) . This plays a role on recovery

Likewise looking to the high mileage 70/80s marathon runners who were thrashing there runs. In the absence of social media, digital tv and constantly being switched on generally had better uninterrupted sleep patterns.

I definitely err on the side of caution with paces I prescribe. My own background is shift work and burning the candle at both ends which is why even though my paces would be alot slower than many running at my level I feel it works well for me. Many of the athletes I coach would tend to be Masters athletes so again recovery plays a role. The training volume tends to be high enough (even some of the runners I have at say the 4 hr marathon level) would be climbing to 40/50 miles with the view of long term development as such I feel that the cautious paces still provides benefits. You will see it with many of the newer athletes I coach even here are usually coming to me in an overtrained state and are generally tired. Despite the mileage usually actually increasing initially generally they tend to feel fresher after the first few weeks than they did when they started.

This also opens up to more frequent racing etc.

Faster paces usually see quick results but more often than not I find that those results either lead to unreal expectations of linear progression after initial benefits and as a result overreaching and ultimately overtraining in order to get more stimulus.

Well as a shift working master, new to running, being only a tad under 4 hours and running 40/50 miles weekly I guess I tick most of the boxes!! That probably explains why I have been so taken by the plans....

Baby75 · 03-04-2018 08:04PM

skyblue46 wrote: »

Yeah that all makes sense. It's one of the things I have developed a great interest in over the past year. I initially thought it was a case of doctors differing, patients dying but I now realize it's a case of patients self diagnosing and treating!

I understand your points about athletes at different levels and at different stages of training blocks.

Anyway I think I will just continue to read training logs, look at Strava and keep my opinions to myself before frustration drives me nuts!

Keep asking S, we all learn then

I guess, depending on what pace calculator you use pace recommendations can vary so much sometimes!

for me, I like running my easy runs easy and LSR slow, but without doing any races lately and some of my runs on trails I just look like I am getting slower lol

skyblue46 · 03-04-2018 08:08PM

Baby75 wrote: »

Keep asking S, we all learn then

I guess, depending on what pace calculator you use pace recommendations can vary so much sometimes!

for me, I like running my easy runs easy and LSR slow, but without doing any races lately and some of my runs on trails I just look like I am getting slower lol

You're doing a huge amount between road runs, trails, spinning etc. You couldn't make it high intensity or you'd kill yourself! Haha

Kellygirl · 03-04-2018 08:13PM

skyblue46 wrote: »

You're doing a huge amount between road runs, trails, spinning etc. You couldn't make it high intensity or you'd kill yourself! Haha

Especially considering the trails you ran the other day! You couldn’t approach them at speed!

Baby75 · 03-04-2018 08:18PM

skyblue46 wrote: »

You're doing a huge amount between road runs, trails, spinning etc. You couldn't make it high intensity or you'd kill yourself! Haha

true

I am feeling very inspired and motivated by all the success so far from others following the grad plans, I am looking forward to the end of may and using the plan for DCM anyone else going to!

Baby75 · 03-04-2018 08:23PM

Kellygirl wrote: »

Especially considering the trails you ran the other day! You couldn’t approach them at speed!

No, you have to run by time rather than distance/pace on trails esp if they are technical

skyblue46 · 03-04-2018 08:23PM

Baby75 wrote: »

true

I am feeling very inspired and motivated by all the success so far from others following the grad plans, I am looking forward to the end of may and using the plan for DCM anyone else going to!

I'm going to use the grads plan. I know it won't suit some people as the long runs top out at distances they feel are too short. Then again I'll be doing it as an all or nothing run. Last year was just about getting around. No point in having that as the ambition again.

Kellygirl · 03-04-2018 08:28PM

Baby75 wrote: »

true

I am feeling very inspired and motivated by all the success so far from others following the grad plans, I am looking forward to the end of may and using the plan for DCM anyone else going to!

Once I’ve finished Cork I’d like to do the 5-10km plan for the summer though that would take too far into September so maybe i’ll do the base plan instead and then I’ll have to see what I can do. Kids summer holidays are going to scupper my plans big time I think!!

Baby75 · 03-04-2018 08:34PM

skyblue46 wrote: »

I'm going to use the grads plan. I know it won't suit some people as the long runs top out at distances they feel are too short. Then again I'll be doing it as an all or nothing run. Last year was just about getting around. No point in having that as the ambition again.

that did concern me, but others have had success and at least I can pick your brain

I agree, last year for me it was all about getting around and finishing, it even turned out slower than I planned because I stuck with my hubby

so this year I like to see what I can do and go for it.

Baby75 · 03-04-2018 08:36PM

Kellygirl wrote: »

Once I’ve finished Cork I’d like to do the 5-10km plan for the summer though that would take too far into September so maybe i’ll do the base plan instead and then I’ll have to see what I can do. Kids summer holidays are going to scupper my plans big time I think!!

are you doing DCM again

skyblue46 · 03-04-2018 08:40PM

Baby75 wrote: »

that did concern me, but others have had success and at least I can pick your brain

I agree, last year for me it was all about getting around and finishing, it even turned out slower than I planned because I stuck with my hubby so this year I like to see what I can do and go for it.

It's the go for it bit I like! I think of Lazare throwing himself over the line in pain to hit his target in last year's FD10, Omeceron and Browneyes in Bohermeen, Damo in some 5k races, Sheep getting a PB off very little training, Ariana chasing a time that she initially thought was out of reach.... that's just brilliant, getting out of the comfort zone.

skyblue46 · 03-04-2018 09:16PM

Baby75 wrote: »

that did concern me, but others have had success and at least I can pick your brain

I agree, last year for me it was all about getting around and finishing, it even turned out slower than I planned because I stuck with my hubby so this year I like to see what I can do and go for it.

Are you looking at the intermediate plan?

Baby75 · 04-04-2018 07:42AM

skyblue46 wrote: »

Are you looking at the intermediate plan?

No the beginner one

ariana` · 04-04-2018 04:45PM

skyblue46 wrote: »

I'm going to use the grads plan. I know it won't suit some people as the long runs top out at distances they feel are too short. Then again I'll be doing it as an all or nothing run. Last year was just about getting around. No point in having that as the ambition again.

The long run is by time though right? So say for you it might be 18-20 miles whereas for some of us it might be more like 16 miles? I must have a proper look at it :eek:

Baby75 · 04-04-2018 05:01PM

ariana` wrote: »

The long run is by time though right? So say for you it might be 18-20 miles whereas for some of us it might be more like 16 miles? I must have a proper look at it :eek:

I think the session the day before is important and the pace will be a little faster for the long run compared to easy runs so I think it means you get the same benefits as running x miles ??

open to correction on that though

skyblue46 · 04-04-2018 05:12PM

ariana` wrote: »

The long run is by time though right? So say for you it might be 18-20 miles whereas for some of us it might be more like 16 miles? I must have a proper look at it :eek:

By then I'd be hoping to fit about 21 into the one and only 3 hour run... and trust the plan.

Baby75 wrote: »

I think the session the day before is important and the pace will be a little faster for the long run compared to easy runs so I think it means you get the same benefits as running x miles ??

open to correction on that though

Long runs will be easy paced most of the time. It is a cumulative thing where every day serves a purpose.

Kellygirl · 04-04-2018 05:45PM

Baby75 wrote: »

I think the session the day before is important and the pace will be a little faster for the long run compared to easy runs so I think it means you get the same benefits as running x miles ??

open to correction on that though

It’s not a session the day before the long run though in the Beginner plan - it’s a 60 min very easy so slower than the long run as you said above.

Baby75 · 04-04-2018 08:33PM

Kellygirl wrote: »

It’s not a session the day before the long run though in the Beginner plan - it’s a 60 min very easy so slower than the long run as you said above.

oops I was confusing myself the 5km -10km has a session on saturday sorry about that

Kellygirl · 04-04-2018 08:42PM

Baby75 wrote: »

oops I was confusing myself the 5km -10km has a session on saturday sorry about that

Been a while since I’d looked myself. The intermediate plan has the session the day before.

skyblue46 · 04-04-2018 09:43PM

Kellygirl wrote: »

Been a while since I’d looked myself. The intermediate plan has the session the day before.

The intermediate plan I have has a very easy run on the Saturday. Half and 5/10k plans have a session on the Saturday.

DCM 2017 Graduates: Onwards and upwards!

Comments