Head games on race day

Testosterscone wrote: »

If it is a new thing i would look to some of the factors which may have changed.

Don't discount work and home stress or tiredness. Going into races physically fresh is one thing but you also need to make sure that you are mentally fresh also. If you are stressing on a regular basis then your mental capacity is spent dealing with that stuff that there is nothing else in the tank needed when you need to tap into it.

Personally I am not a fan of straight tempo's of up to 7 miles I think it's generally far too long and usually ends up with people starting too fast and the average pace looking okay for the session but realistically you are slowing throughout. I have been getting better results recently from cutting back the length of the tempo to ensure that they aren't being overcooked.

Also in terms of training it is no harm in setting up some sessions that have you practicing mental resilience and coping with mental anguish as well as physical. It's often something we ignore with general plans and templates for training which deal specifically with the physiological.
I know there is one session which my coach has me do which is just about digging deep and surviving it. We don't do it too regularly but just enough to keep in touch with that pain Likewise things like "hammer reps" that you see in some training (for example 10x600m with reps number 4 and 8 being -5 seconds of the other reps with same recovery. It is controlled but it puts the body under stress within the constraints of sessions)

The Brave Athlete is a practical, step-by-step guide that solves the 13 most common mental conundrums athletes face in their everyday training and in races.

Safiri wrote: »

No two runners are alike and while mileage and workouts are a crucial part of running success, increasing mileage and/or intensity of workouts isn't always the answer. For most runners who are on the lower to mid-end(less than 60 ish for example);increasing it will probably bring some good success as you got to be doing some good mileage to become a good runner but say for instance you have 2 runners looking at 5k training.

Runner A is a natural 1500/5k athlete and runner B is a natural 5k/10k athlete. Would you train them the same way?

We'll call runner A fast twitch and Runner B slow twitch.

The answer would be no as you want to capitalise on their strengths and weaknesses. who is more likely to thrive on higher mileage? it should be your 5/10k athlete as they are more endurance inclined and should react best to that stimulus while your 1500/5k athlete will thrive on a lower mileage base with higher intensity even though the target distance is the same. much like natural marathoners love the long runs but your 1500m might despise them.

So if you were looking to coach both these athletes to run a good 5k, you should be looking at shortened long runs at a higher intensity and more focus on aerobic intervals to gain an aerobic stimulus along with higher volume but shorter, faster specific intervals for Runner A while volume at lower intensity and longer reps on runs and intervals will be more important for slow twitch runner B across the board.

To give a better perspective on this; We could compare two old school coaches; Mihaly Igloi and Arthur Lydiard. Igloi would be predominately dealing with middle distance runners and Lydiard was from 800m to Marathon but their training system could not be more different even at middle distance. Igloi was a huge fan of intervals but not in the same vein as people perceive them today; he knew his fast twitch speedsters needed the aerobic stimulus that you get from running long but didn't want these athletes slogging through miles upon miles so he decided that he would break down these runs into intervals to skin the cat another way. The way he done this was by having some crazy workouts like 40x100m @mile pace with short recoveries which would replicate steady aerobic running because the intervals would be short, the athletes would not be accumulating lactate and if you're not accumulating lactate; you are running aerobically, genius! It meant he could do a lot of really fast running while creating a similar effect to a normal easy or steady run.

Lydiard on the other hand was a slow-twitch runners fantasy, massive volume at moderate intensity; he would prescribe a 100mpw of running between a little faster than Marathon pace and a bit faster than easy pace during base and huge volumes of intervals during specific phase; The idea being that you're hugely strong aerobic runner can take that stimulus and reacts very positively to it. Some Lydiard focused athletes were known to run 200mpw at times.

Time has probably passed by those coaches at the top level today, definitely Igloi anyway but that doesn't take anything away from their messages. they are two extreme opposing examples of training approach and the answer probably lies somewhere in between but something I used to illustrate the point that there are many ways to skin a cat and your starting point and approach is hugely dependent on the most important aspect of training; The athlete.