Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Base training backlash
![[Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/fc3a046e47ecc11420004cc9f63709db_100.png)
[Deleted User]
✭✭✭
in Training
Can we have one please? I'm not saying I'm hugely against base training, but the vast majority of the argument on this forum has been very one sided. We need a backlash, if only in the interests of balance.
So Lydiard wrote his book three decades ago. Since then plenty must have been published disagreeing with him - think I saw a bit in Noakes the other day. Can we talk about that for a bit?
For example, Daniels suggests 24 week marathon build up, of four 6 week phases. Yes, the first phase is recognisably base training, but the speed work gets introduced pretty quickly. Sounds good to me...
So Lydiard wrote his book three decades ago. Since then plenty must have been published disagreeing with him - think I saw a bit in Noakes the other day. Can we talk about that for a bit?
For example, Daniels suggests 24 week marathon build up, of four 6 week phases. Yes, the first phase is recognisably base training, but the speed work gets introduced pretty quickly. Sounds good to me...
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
Is he still around ? Hellloooooooo ?
Since then it's become clear there are a number of sceptics, including (I believe)
sfh legs
Big Tim
Treadmill
Minkin (tried it & it didn't suit)
and bear in mind there are at least a couple who describe their (now more frequent) aerobic sessions as "base building", but include too many harder sessions (or races) for their overall regime to be characterised as one of pure "base building".
As I said last week on another thread, if you compare a "conventional" training regime to building a house, then base building (as advocated by its evangelists) is equivalent to constructing a nuclear bunker.
Must stop going on about this.....
I read all that at the time, I just thought it was worth giving greater visibility. I'm not having ago at any of the proponents of BT, it just strikes me that base training is spreading round these forums like cheap smack in a council estate, and only one point of view is being put forward.
I do like your bunker metaphor anyway!
Then along comes base building which in a simplistic form says eschew the conventional training sessions (speed/interval/tempo/fartlek and long slow run) that you do and instead run slowly and you will become a sub 6 min/miler.
Don't these principals have a similar appeal i.e they are pain/effort free ways to achieve your goals.
Also I have seen on these forums people who are currently doing Base Training have a go at RW magazine because it has run articles along the lines of "run faster by running slower"..
All slightly contradictory.
I shall now declare that whilst I believe all that I said above to be true.. I have done the Atkins diet (and it worked for me in achieving my goal) and I have been base training for just over 1 month (with less success so far)...
Personally, I struggle with the "run slow to get fast" principle. For instance, if you are running reasonably high mileage anyway, then it seems to me that it would be a much better idea to do recovery sessions on a bike/x-trainer/etc instead of runing very slowly. The only purpose of recovery runs is to get the blood (and the nutrients it contains) flowing to your leg muscles. This can be equally well-achieved by running/x-training/etc, and if you are running a lot of miles, then doing slow recovery runs will just inflict additional leg muscle damage (due to eccentric contractions / high impact) and teach inefficient running neural-muscular firing patterns, for no benefit. Why waste your bodies capacity for repair and growth on repairing unnecessary leg-muscle damage? This will surely just hinder your body's adaptation to other training-induced stresses.
And I just don't understand how doing 100miles a week of easy running (which will only stimulate endurance gains) can possibly be preferable to running 70miles a week with a mix of sessions that will also raise lactate threshold (/turnpoint)? Surely you want to target your sessions at the specific adaptations your goal-race requires? For a marathon lactate threshold work seems to important to only focus on for a couple of months at the end of your training.
I remember reading that athletes racing the marathon all run at almost exactly the same fixed percentage of their lactate threshold (/turnpoint) velocity (vLT). Therefore it would seem reasonable that running for 2.5 hours at 90% vLT where vLT is 11.5mph should not require any more ENDURANCE than running 2.5 hours at 90% vLT where vLT is 11mph. Raising LT running speed is what counts. So why the focus on endurance that base building teaches?
I am intrigued by the bloke that cougie mentioned who ran flat out every time he ran. It has often occured to me that intense sessions followed by sufficient recovery might be the best way to stimulate the body to produce maximal overcompensation (i.e. quickest/largest performance improvements possible).
However, it has also occured to me that although the body can cope with high levels of stress (be they training-induced or otherwise) in the short-term, there is very probably a limit to how long the body will tolerate these sorts of stress-levels before it starts to shut-down and requires prolonged recovery.
So finding the right balance must be key to maximising improvements - base building just doesn't seem to me to give you much bang for your bucks...
In the commentary on the NY marathon yesterday Tim Hutchins was talking about the Kenyans running 8 miles to school and then 8 miles home again from an early age. I know this is an old chestnut, but judging by the top few runners yesterday it would go someway to explaining their dominance.
And then there was that guy who won the Cyprus (I think) marathon at his first attempt, and at the back of a weekly mileage of 30m, or something ridiculous like that! I think we can classify that one as a freak!!
personally i'm in a base training period, but its very different from the dogmatic view of base training that seems to have arisen on these forums - basically for the first quarter of your race prep, do more steady sessions and fewer speed sessions, simple as that
Also from Noakes there is a description of Greta Waitz's training (no idea how to spell it) and she was certainly not a high mileage low heart rate trainer - it says all her training was sub 6 minute miling which is quite quick when you think she was running 2.30 marathons or thereabouts. Neither did she attempt to peak for certain races - rather she kept to a mixed training regime throughout.
Then again I am sure others could point to the success of people employing an extended base training strategy.
My feeling is that the type of training that will benefit you most will depend on you - what are your deficiencies and what are the potentials of your body to react to different sorts of training.
My main question about base training is why do we have to abstain from any hard effort during this base training phase. I have never seen any evidence that doing one fast run a week would somehow negate the benefit derived from doing a lot of slower running.
I don't think there is any magic system for training - it is just a cause of applying the right amount of training-induced stress at the right times. You have to balance your training so that you see continuous performance gains whilst also being able to consistently sustain this level of training effort over long periods without "burning out".
I'm just starting my 2nd week of FLM training and I'm already planning to fit in three fairly short Lactate Threshold sessions, a hill-session, plus some strides...
And anyway, it's only the FIRST STAGE, speed and hills come next to build on the base ready for a fast marathon. So I don't really see the problem - speed isn't being sacrificed, it's being added once the body has already developed a strong and efficient aerobic system.
The point is that by the SECOND STAGE you've already missed x months' potential training time that could have been utilised to improve lactate threshold, vo2max, neuro-muscular efficiency at race-speed. In fact, all you have achieved with the first stage of base training is to increase the heart's efficiency at a fairly low work-rate (whilst inflicting increased leg-muscle damage because of the required higher mileage).
You don't race at a low heart-rate, so I fail to see the logical step that says improving your efficiency at low heart-rate will make you faster in races at a much higer heart-rate... Specifity of training is absolutely key - this is one of the few proven facts in sports science!
Any reasonable training schedule should see you running faster for a targetted heart-rate (although you would usually not see this gain during training - you would see it AFTER recovery) - however, for a marathons your target race heart rate will be much higher than your easy-run base-training heart-rate...
HA HA HA HA HA HA
chuckle
snigger
HA HA HA HA!!!
Sorry, just had to get that out of my system.
As someone who is often blamed/credited with promoting such training, please note:
1) My approach to training does NOT eschew speed training - on the contrary it enables on to do MORE of it.. EVENTUALLY.
2) It is NOT a simple system - it is quite complex in latter stages.
3) It is most certainly NOT an easy fix - how many have the patience to take time out to do a serious base. How many are prepared to get slower first? How many are prepared to do LOTS of miles?
It seems to me that doing less and making your fewer runs faster, doing the same stuff year round, is teh easy fix - maybe it's just a matter of perspective.
4) This is NOT just slow running - I advocate 3 runs at (or close to) Lactate Threshold (which, before AC arrives, *I* define as the pace you can absolutely flat out for 1hr, although you would not do that in training!). NOT slow! Also I have frequently recommended alactic speed work to base builders - faster than "speed work"...
5) A lot of misunderstanding seems to have arisen over my "base for a base" theories. All I have said is that I advocate dropping all faster running (inc. LT work) and long runs to enable milegae to rise as easily as possible. The higher the mileage the more you'll get out of base building, if you remove as many stresses as possible (long run, faster work) you can increase the mileage quicker/more easily. This is only to get you to the point where you can get more out of "proper" base building which DOES include long run, LT speed & alactic drills.
6) Not everyone is willing or able to take the time out to do this work - it is easy to adapt to one's desires/life/etc. What BR is doing is "95% pure" base building and will, obviously get 95%, off the results. He wouldn't want to do it or enjoy it if he did it 100% - so HIS way is the best way for HIM.
Quick question for those advocating 400m reps for marathon runners. When is someone aiming to run 8 m/m pace for 26 miles going to benefit from running almost 5 m/m pace? In the 1st mile? In the last one?
It is all well and good talking about "conventional" methods, but MOST people on these boards do NOT know WHY they train as they do. At least MOST of those base buildin know why they are doing it.
Before anyone criticises something, make sure you understand it...
the only thing i'm not sure about (asked on venom's other thread) is why very short intervals?
Pantman, you say that before you criticise something, make sure you understand it. I completely agree. I think the opposite also applies - before you advocate something, try to make sure you understand it. With base training, there's a lot of people on this forum (not including Pantman, who is obviously well informed) who are advocating base training without a full understanding of what's going on. That's leading to what feels suspiciously like a bandwagon, which is why I wanted to start this thread.
This is all making interesting reading though, which is the primary purpose fulfilled!
Well, that may have made us fitter, but it was (a) not very useful for technique in a race situation and (b) extremely boring.
The faster I go in training, the more I enjoy it, so much of my training inevitably ends up being not very far off race pace.
So base training, schmase training.
I think the two approaches are not that far apart if done sensibly. I think they approach the same goal - to build up eventually to high mileage AND intensity - but just different angles. Your body can only tolerate a certain amount of training stress so you can't initially do big mileage AND lots of intense sessions. Therefore your take on base building seems to suggest (mainly) building up mileage first, then increasing intensity. The other alternative approach is to (mainly) build intensity first then increase mileage. Both seem valid, but my feeling is that there are bigger gains to be made by attempting to maximise LT gains early than by attempting to maximise endurance early. As I said in an earlier postvLT is the limiting factor to marathon time: "athletes racing the marathon all run at almost exactly the same fixed percentage of their lactate threshold (/turnpoint) velocity (vLT). Therefore it would seem reasonable that running for 2.5 hours at 90% vLT where vLT is 11.5mph should not require any more ENDURANCE than running 2.5 hours at 90% vLT where vLT is 11mph. Raising LT running speed is what counts. So why the focus on endurance that base building teaches?"
In answer to your question about how someone who is aiming for 8m/m pace can benefit from 5m/m pace running. The main benefit is that it teaches your brain the correct neuro-muscular firing patterns to enable you to run efficiently. Running fast forces you into better running "form" - it teaches you to minimise the amount of time your feet contact the ground for with each foot-fall, gets your legs used to faster turnover, requires you to keep your hips solid, etc. At slow sppeds you can get away with all sorts of running flaws - you just don't notice them (or the fact that you are wasting energy). Start running fast and these flaws are quickly exposed.
Also, fast running will raise your velocity at lactate turnpoint, although, admittedly, you can probably get a bigger increase for less training "stress" by doing lactate turnpoint intervals or tempo runs.
I have had e-mail contact with the coach of one Kenyan runner who ran 5M to school and 5M back, and often came home for lunch too! 10/20M from 6-16yrs! No wonder at 18 he was running with the top seniors...
The relevance of this to this thread is that, as Hadd (coach well known to those on base thread) once put it, if you want to get all the toothpaste out of the tube squeeze from the bottom - if you don't at first you'll have to eventually. Those aerobic miles have to be done to run your best and aerobic fitness is the factor that affects endurance training the most.
Very short work periods are usually suggested for high intensity intervals where you want to focus on teaching your body efficient neuro-muscular firing patterns for fast running. You don't want to build up lactic acid as this inhibits this process. These intervals should be run comfortably fast (not all-out sprinting - more like 800m - mile pace) so that you can maintain the best running style possible.