Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
The emphasis placed by Hadd on base-building makes sense, but the problem I have is that it seems to partially ignore the issue of neuro-muscular coordination training needed to run at pace. Therefore, a long period without pace work would worry me, as (in effect) the body "forgets" how to run at close to race pace. There is also the psychological value in reminding oneself of what race pace feels like, so that race pace on the day is not too unfamiliar. Then there is the issue of lactate threshold training - which doesnt figure too much in the Hadd approach.
I agree with WW that periodisation is a important, and I think the challenge for me is finding the balance between running a decent base of controlled aerobic miles, with a changing, but much smaller percentage level of "pace" mileage.
Do a test. If you can't run 2 miles in 12 minutes then you are not properly aerobically developed. Built up your mileage slowly and you will see results.
Also apply macro and micro cycles. Means build up the mileage in the winter and cut back during summer and do a race in the weekend.
I ran quite a lot in the winter (80m/w) but only ran (40m/w) during summer and still managed to signifantly lower down my PB to 35 mins over 10k.
My point is, there are many runners training for years, but they never improve much/at all and stay more or less always at the same level.
Ironically my last PBs was during my marathon training in the spring. I did lots of long slow runs then! Since an injury I have tried the fast track approach to fitness with mostly fast running (even the long runs!). That will now stop and I will now train correctly.
As a result I think all this base training is going to be fairly solitary.
btw URR - shouldn't the emphasis be on what how long you can last at various %ages of your HRmax rather than a particular m/mile pace? i.e. if you can run an hour easily at 20bpm below max then you probably do have a good aerobic base, otherwise not.
In my opinion the slower long runs was a step into the right direction. This would have resulted in a solid base and lowers your aerobic threshold.
The max. HR approach gives a good indication, I think it is max HR = 220-age, 20bpm lower than that would be race tempo and you would run just a bit under your anaerobic threshold. In order to run for an hour at that level you need to be in a very good condition. Hence, if you struggle already with a 7min/mile you would not be able to hold the level for an hour, you would run above your anaerobic threshold producing lactic acid which would result in
a drop of pace.
I'd totally agree with the club run turning into a race thing - the trouble is that I get much more motivated to run with the club than i do on my own. May have to just compromise and only do the club long run.
Just because someone is faster than me does not make them fitter
And how do I run slower? I know that sounds crazy, but last night I ran with the intention of doing a nice gentle 4 miles after the previous evening's 5 miles at tempo pace (8:18). Even though the run didn't feel fast and my breathing wasn't laboured, my average pace was 8:22 - only 4 seconds per mile slower than tempo pace, yet was supposed to be easy! I really seem to be completely incapable of 'feeling' pace. Short of buying a HRM, is there any other way of judging my pace more effectively? I suppose I could mark the mile points on all my runs and try to make sure that I get to each within a given time.
I think the key is that where the turnpoint occurs will be at varying percentages of MHR depending on aerobic fitness.
WW - maybe it's time to start introducing a bit of speedwork (if it fits in with your Ironman ambitions of course).
Regarding running slow, simply run 1 minute/mile slower than your race pace.
The best way I found for pacing is running on the treadmill and partipating in races, you will then get pretty quickly a good feeling what pace your are running.
Leave the watch at home, otherwise you are already in stress while running. During training I only use the watch for how long I run. You train to race and not race to train (at least I do).
I think improvements are possible even without high weekly mileage, but they probably won't be as dramatic. The point is we all have to work around the time pressures the rest of our life puts on us. If you're able to run 80+ miles a week, then that's great and good luck - but not all of us can afford the luxury of that much time spent running. I am aware of the fact that I would see greater improvement with more miles in the bank and more time spent running, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a certain amount of improvement within the limitations one may be forced to impose on oneself.
SR - Setting goals is good at least you have something to work towards. Unfortunately I can not give you a number x and this is what you should run every week. You have to experiment a bit on how much you can cope with and rest days. Important to run on a regular basis and increase mileage slowly, more important is to stay injury free. Maybe for a start try do the 5k in 23 minutes and build your way up, once you can comfortably do the 5k you can attack your 10k time. When you go out for a run try to run at least for 1h (easy), 30min sessions are not enough stress for the body. At this point I would stay away from hill work, risk of injury is too high. A speed session on the treadmill aim 30 mins at 7 min/mile would help.
Typically if I have had a long lay off I will do nothing but runs at between 150-155 bpm for around 3 months. (Minkin - get a HR monitor - judging how hard your running by how out of breath you are is a false indicator: when I am unfit 155 bpm has me out of breath, now I am fitter I can do around 170bpm and hardly be out of breath at all).
Yes you do have to slow to a crawl at times and it can be frustrating but the rewards are evident. On an 11 mile route I do, last year I had a time of 1:34 with an average bpm of 154. Now with 3 months of base training and 8 months of weekly training with at least two base training runs a week I can do the same route in 1:17 with an average of 152bpm.
An added benefit of doing a solid stretch of base training is that you are less likely to pick up injuries as you are not pushing your untrained body beyond its limits.
The non scientific way I see base training is that normally when we run we give muscles the oxygen and energy it demands by increasing the blood supply through raised HR.
When you enforce a lower than usual HR on your body at first it doesn't like it as it cannot cope without the extra oxygen and stuff it demands. But with repeated base training runs you teach your body to 'run lean' and to make better use of the oxygen etc you give it.
Then when it comes to something like a race and you send your HR sky high the muscles suddenly receive a 'richer' supply of oxygen which in terms allows you to run faster and for longer.
That may not be exactly how it works but its the way I like to look at it and I know it works for me!
Bigger mileages should lead to bigger improvements, but to say that somebody running 30 or 40 miles CONSISTENTLY week after week will not improve is plain wrong.
And as has been stated here your average HR for a 10k is normally your LT _ i try to run an even effort just below this for the first 8k then go for it and colapse at the finish
I also have a realy fast HR recovery rate (also atributable to large left ventricle) - I stop running and my HR plumets very quickly
TwoTon - I agree with your point, you refer to total lifetime mileage. Someone who has been running high mileage over years can still improve by running a bit less, his session will possibly look a bit different, doing intervalls etc.
My 'A' Races are:
FLM
The Longest Day (IM Tri)
Ironman Florida