Don't train harder, train smarter

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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)