browne_rob5 wrote: » Not open. Opened 30/03 last year so should open shortly.
shotgunmcos wrote: » Is 2019 registration not open yet or gone already?
browne_rob5 wrote: » Charleville half marathon is 5 weeks before hand so gives a good indication of fitness level heading into the DCM. Very flat course and well organised so good chance of a PB. Nice spread afterwards too.
Tommy Max wrote: » what races have you found very good preparation in training for DCM?
AuldManKing wrote: » Lets get back onto more important matters such as why Ray is grumpy?
shotgunmcos wrote: » On using plans for sub3 and staying on topic of experience, learning etc. What were boardies experience of using a generic plan for getting or nearly getting a sub3? What have you or would you do differently based on what you learned?
RayCun wrote: » Was the entire week's training prescribed by the club coach?
AuldManKing wrote: » A few years back, I spent the bones of 2 years putting myself into the hands of a club coach - I was fantastic at running 800's & 400's on a track. But became crap at racing 5k's or longer. I wasn't worried about the training plan or changing sessions as it was all prescribed. & I ran as much then as I did now.
RayCun wrote: » I was thinking about this more on the way home, and I think Worry less about the plan you are following Worry less about changing this session or that session Run consistently, run a lot, and keep challenging yourself. If you do that for a few years and you've reached a plateau, then you can spend some time on the ins and outs of different training plans.
EI Caballo wrote: » Honestly and sorry for making a scene but every thread always ends back here with the beginners. You know it's possible to be consistent and challenge yourself but to also work efficiently by doing the right things? If this is the approach you think is best, why doesn't everyone just go out and run like a headless chicken? We might as well close the Novice thread, not offer club coaching to people who haven't reached a plateau, never give or ask for advice from anyone until you/they hit a wall. Close the forum while we are at it because there is nothing to discuss. All that is a worthless soundbite because the sooner people people realise or can point out mistakes, the better they can run and more efficiently they can train. This is the sub-3 thread and if this is the level of discussion we are going to have on it, this is place isn't worth visiting for anyone as no one will learn nothing. Knowledge is a powerful tool that can aid in you been able to run more, run consistently and run faster. If your not thinking about these things and trying to learn. You will hit the plateau earlier, won't have a clue about anything when you do and will have to try learn more at once and be stuck at the plateau longer. All you are doing with approach is stunting your progression. As the old saying goes: Don't train harder, train smarter. All that happens every time these debates come up these days is debate is shutdown with all these absolute beginner focused soundbites. The days of all the fantastic threads like the boards plan by debates and training ideas threads are dead. The less those threads happen, the less knowledge thhat will be on the forum which means the level of general knowledge falls further. There is nothing like discussion to help you put your thoughts together and learn more but that's never going to happen because these threads always go back to this.
healy1835 wrote: I've a tiny brain
KSU wrote: » He deals with some of these topics belowhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LuwGIGju2o&index=6&list=PLlMHliIIR6Fm3aN2mOZ77fq-eovn5dNn0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO1hQ_kplgo&list=PLlMHliIIR6Fm3aN2mOZ77fq-eovn5dNn0&index=7 Here he specifically mentions 20-30 minutes.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1FPuqy9iu8&list=PLlMHliIIR6Fm3aN2mOZ77fq-eovn5dNn0&index=9
spc78 wrote: » Problem with Generic plans is people don't read the books behind them. Daniels plans are all miles but if you read the book, he is very clear that when he writes miles he means 'elite' miles - so the plan prescribes a tempo of 6 miles at so called T pace - thats based on a T pace of 5min/ml so if your T-pace is 5min/ml you do 6 miles/30min at T pace. If your T pace is 7min/ml you don't do 6 miles you still just do 30min so just over 4 miles. He discusses the nonsense of the slower runner potentially ending up doing 30% more volume of high intensity training if they try to do the same intense mileage as a faster runner.
shotgunmcos wrote: » Just looking at the generic book plans from a different perspective. Why are they all based on miles? To ElCs point7 miles at LT would be 38 odd minutes for runner A(A minorly stressful workout) 7 miles at LT would be over 60 minutes for runner B(impossible) So 2 people take a 50 mile a week book plan. Person A is 50% faster. Person A spends 8 hours running that week and person B spend 12 hours running.. both following the plan to the letter The 12 hours is simply more volume and the volume eats into life which eats back into the plan. Back to Hansons and the 16m LR - Person A runs it in 1:40 and person B in 2:30... are they both getting the same benefit for a long run? +1 great to see some good debate on this Forum again
El CabaIIo wrote: » So if we are not polar opposites, what do we have? This was the one question I asked but you dodged it. They problem I see with the galaxy brain meme is that you've included the ability to interpret a plan and added to experience. I know I'm been awkward as fook here but couldn't you put the evolving brain as just experienced based instead and do a switcheroo on that theory above.
Just on this, I think mileage in the Pfitz plans is a proxy for ability. The low-mileage plans are for slower runners, the higher mileage for faster runners. I don't have the plan to look at, but I'm guessing if someone has a problem running 6/7 mile tempos, there are going to be a whole lot of other things in the plan that cause problems, it isn't just one session to adjust.
I don't think we're polar opposites. It's like those galaxy brain memes (I of course am the galaxy brain :pac:) Tiny brain - Follow the plan Expanding brain - Understand the training philosophy and use it to adjust the plan Galaxy brain - Have the experience to know when it is necessary to adjust the plan, in line with the training philosophy The Hansons provide a plan, which is the output of a training philosophy. You have to understand the philosophy to understand the plan. BUT to know whether to choose that plan over Magness, Pfitz, Higdon, a plan written by Gary O'Hanlon... you can't just read more and more of the philosophy behind each plan. You have to have the experience to think, "My weaknesses are this type of run, but I'm good at that type of run, how is this plan going to work for me?", or "Last year the group I coached followed a plan based on Magness. Who did it work for? Do I need to adjust it for some people? Should I start over with something based on Hanson?" (And a complicating factor is that pretty much everyone will improve if they train consistently from a low level, so you can't just think "I went from 4:00 to 3:30 with Pfitz, therefor Pfitz is great (or great for other people going from 4:00 to 3:30)"
It's like his discussion on balancing scientific research and practical experience. If you don't pay attention to the science, you end up doing the same sessions as everyone has always done, because that's what everyone has always done. Too much attention to the science and you jump on things that have been tested for six weeks on a group of novice runners, that of course aren't going to be applicable to the people you coach. You have to strike the balance between being open to new training ideas and being able to observe how those ideas are working out in practice, either as applied to your own running or applied to the people you coach. And being able to observe that requires that you have a good idea of what the alternative is, how people would be developing under a different plan.
I think it's something that works both ways re Experience/understanding the philosophy. I think that's why they devote so much time in the books to try and get people to understand the why's and when's of the method and why we end up here discussing these things in detail. Training is always going to be interpretation and opinion driven. Some people are experience driven, others are scientifically driven and you have a glut of people in between who borrow bits from each.
shotgunmcos wrote: » I agree with most of what you say Ray but experience alone doesn't account for learning.
El CabaIIo wrote: » Pfitzinger is a perfect example of some of the stuff I'm talking about. a) because he never trained like that(listen to some of the top runners over on letsrun who trained with him and the problems with that plan). b) mileage based plans always lead to trouble when marketted at everyone from a 2:30 maarathon to 4 hour marathon. Pfitz methodology makes sense but it doesn't fit everyone perfectly just because they can run the requisite mileage. A big example is the 6/7 mile tempos at LT:
El CabaIIo wrote: » I just want to ask one question and then I'll shut up, Is there any common ground between what ye are saying and what I'm saying or are we polar opposites?
RayCun wrote: » " why is it that people don't have the knowledge to follow a plan or self-coach?" Following a plan is what you do when you don't have the knowledge. Self-coaching, or changing a plan, is where knowledge comes in handy. For example, a common thing in marathon training is to reach a point where you feel exhausted. Do you follow the plan or change it? If you are an experienced runner, you can make a judgement on whether this level of fatigue is normal, or is a sign of over-reaching, or is less fatigue than usual. If you are an experienced coach you can compare how your athlete is doing to how previous athletes have done. If you don't have either experience, you can't really tell. A plan might say "it is normal to be tired" but can't tell you exactly how tired is normal. So you follow through the plan or you adjust it, and at the end you have learned something to use next time.
