Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Base training backlash
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
But my point is why do you think it is more important to start building endurance before lactate turnpoint speed? There is just no scientific evidence behind the apparently commonly held view that endurance takes much longer to build than lactate turnpoint. In fact there are probably much bigger gains to be made with lactate threshold than endurance - you could keep training to build lactate threshold for several years and still not reach maximum vLT potential. There is also no evidence that building endurance first will allow you to do a greater volume of lactate threshold work at a later stage of your training schedule. So my point is simply: Why waste the first x months training solely for endurance? (Unless, of course, like Pantman you are doing LT sessions as well - in which case disregard everything I've said
1) "I think the two approaches are not that far apart if done sensibly" - Agreed
2) "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." - Exactly!
3) "Raising LT running speed is what counts" - TOTALLY agree! This is THE bottom line for endurance running, but especially Marathons.
So why endurance mileage before more focused LT work?
a) It is easier to adapt to a higher mileage workload without LT work. The benefits of lower-end aerobic work will not be lost but BUILT ON when LT work begins, but LT work must be maintained to prevent loss of LT when doing lower-end work.
b) It is better for the muscles and joints (i.e. lack of injuries) to do it this way round. There is less stress on them at slower speeds. Seeing as most folks will be getting faster even before LT work, this seems the more logical way to do it.
Can agree with your point on 5m/m pace if the person is EVENTUALLY going to run at that pace. Otherwise no need to be efficient at it. You can argue that running slightly faster than race pace is of help, but many runners are doing speeds on the track that they will NEVER do anywhere else other than on that track in training.
Good points raised on both sides.
It serves as a great stepping stone to be doing proper base work (inc. reg LT work, reg Alactic speed/form work) on a med/high mileage (50-100+mpw) with less risk of injury. Just so that people walk before they run, so to speak.
Rereading speed section - might have misunderstood you. Alactic speed for biomechanical purposes - agreed. I was addressing longer (400m+) reps done anaerobically...
This makes it hard to argue for when people here have only done it for a few months at best.
I won't bore you with all the stats and times but base training is working for me.
I'm running a at a variety of different heartrates for different sessions, including LT runs (which double up as x-c races).
I race more than I would if I was pure base training. Someone hit the nail on the head when they said it was less hard running, more steady running for this period.
I've been running my 2 speedwork sessions a week for 3 years now, noticing a plateauing off and wanted to try something different.
Last week I ran faster than I could have imagined on a 15 mile race. I believe this was down to greater aerobic fitness.
Some have said it could be down to the higher mileage I am currently doing, which could be true but which is also inextricably linked to steady state running.
Look, it's my hobby not my job. I am perceiving benefits and am enjoying my runnning more than in ages. I don't perceive I am putting in any less effort than before, just a different type of effort.
Re. Gravy - surely if I can run 30 secs per mile faster @ 75% WHR than 6 weeks ago then there is going to be some improvement in race pace also already? Then, as PM says, the speedwork goes on top of that.
KK
I think many runners could benefit from adopting a base-building approach, particularly new runners, and Pantman deserves praise for bringing it to our attention. It is certainly not a new or faddish type of training and has a lot of merit, although I accept that what works for one person doesn't necessarily work for another.
When I was younger I used a rather simplistic form of base building - three months of steady running (Oct, Nov, Dec) followed by four months of long reps twice a week while keeping up the mileage then dropping the miles and running lots of short reps and races from late spring and through the summer. Short break at the end, then start the process over again.
Over the past couple of years I've been struggling with injured calfs. (No one seemed to suffer from this years ago, but judging from the forums it's become quite common). There have been periods when I literally couldn't run a step. The classic mistake I kept making was doing too much too soon - but not too much mileage; too much speed. I kept starting, then breaking down again because I was trying to force myself to run 6.30miling. I was on the verge of giving up competitive running, but thanks to Pantman I have 're-discovered' base training and have committed myself to taking a long-term approach.
So, I started running slowly - very slowly. Slower than 8min miles - which for me is really, really slow and I found it a struggle at first. I wasn't getting out of breath or tired but gradually I've noticed a difference. The pace of my steady runs is increasing and I don't feel as if I'm trying. I've just finished my 8th week of base building and am starting to notice big changes. I'm still not doing mega-miles but last week was my highest total so far (52miles) and I've only missed three days during those 8 weeks. I'm also doing the calf strengthening exercises that were highlighted in the traiing forum a little while back and they are definitely helping.
I've been running for almost 19 years, and I still get confused by a lot of the science stuff. I've never worn a heart rate monitor - I don't know what my resting heart rate is, nor my maximum heart rate but I did manage to break 32mins for 10k a couple of times so I guess I wasn't too bad (that was back in 1993 mind...).
Last Saturday I ran in the Birmingham X/C League (Rebok Challenge) and felt great despite the fact that I was running at a pace much faster than I've been doing in training. I was beaten by some people I would normally expect to finish ahead of but I'm confident that by the end of the season I'll be back in front of them. I'm feeling much better about my running than I have done for ages.
Each of us is an experiment of one, but for me it's so far so good.
Initially, like you, I was quite sceptical about there being any point to running faster than just above vLT when training for the marathon. However, NickJ and other top runners seem to think that it helps, so I am inclined to believe them. Also, it certainly seems to have helped me iron out some flaws in my running style and get the *feel* of running correctly, which suggests that the theory converts well into practice...
On the endurance or LT first discussion:
a) But if you are going to continue your focus on increasing LT throughout your training schedule - doesn't it make sense to start it as early as possible in order to maximise potential gains? Also I haven't seen any hard evidence that LT is lost quicker than endurance. But this is irrelevant to my real point which is that I think you are likely to approach maximum endurance quicker than maximum LT.
b) I find high mileage and slow running to be much more injury-inducing than a lower mileage of faster running. The most common running injuries are knee injuries and achilles tendon injuries which are both caused by a lack of muscle strength and overuse. Slower running requires more steps per mile, and therefore increase the number of impacts / muscle contractions for a given mileage (and it does NOT decrease the size of impact for each step). And if you are doing a higher mileage then the amount of impact of damage to the muscles will increase even more. In my opinion faster running only causes injuries if warm-ups and stretching are not done properly.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and, if you are running the FLM next year, then we can see how our thories work out in practice!
Think we cross-posted there - just noticed your last post regarding fast speed-work so please disregard the first section of my last post.
Also, I totally agree that beginners need to build up gradually and think that base training makes a lot of sense for them.
Personally, I just don't like running slow. I just feel like I'm actively putting the brakes on, rather than pushing the pace, even at marathon-pace. I feel most comfortable running between marathon-pace and 10K-pace so like to spend as mnuch time there as possible. This probably biases my opinion somewhat...
KK
BTW I spend the other 15% at eyeballs out pace
He runs more to how he feels, rather than in HR zones like I do.
Makes for interesting training runs!
"surely if I can run 30 secs per mile faster @ 75% WHR than 6 weeks ago then there is going to be some improvement in race pace also already? Then, as PM says, the speedwork goes on top of that."
That is my point exactly - all the evidence points to specificity being the key to all training. There is just no guarantee at all that being able to run 30sec per mile faster at 75% WHR will directly convert to you seeeing a 30sec / mile increase in speed whilst working at 85% WHR (or whatever your race HR will be). It could potentially convert to almost zero improvement at race HR. The reality is that it will probably be somewhere in between, however, if you are racing a marathon then it is almost certain that also doing some LT focused training would lead to a raised starting platform for your vLT when you begin your speedwork...
Re. What causes injury - we have to agree to differ! I swear that it is more to do with speed than miles, but normally a combination of the two in practice.
The low-end first approach allows a more gradual and continual increase in speed at LT which allows the body time to adapt to speed increase and also provides continual motivation.
Thanks, Bazza, for your post - didn't know that - most encouraging!
It is aerobic limits that are the issue here, not your 400m speed!
Should also like to add that base building is greatly dependent on mileage. You cannot run slowly for 40mpw instead of 30mpw of "eclectic" training and expect to suddenly be faster. IMHO, if you are not able/willing to do more than 40mpw then you are better off doing "eclectic" and leaving base alone for the most part. You read it here first!
- Don't most of the great marathoners come from shorter distance backgrounds - 3k, 5k, 10k and move up. I'm sure most of these would have done large amounts of speed work throughout their running careers. People can talk about Kenyan kids but do we really know that kenyan kids aren't going anaerobic (who knows what kids get up to when their parents backs are turned!!)
- How come the people I know that get into ultra running and do very long periods of steady running all (OK it is a sample of 3) lose speed in doing so and the 2 I know best complain they are finding it hard to get it back.
I'm glad that it is now recognised that some faster paced work is necessary - I don't remember this being said early on in the base training thread (when I was following it). Faster running (not just short alactic bursts) can have benefits such as improving strength and efficiency (is there any evidence that lactic acid causes much muscle damage anyway - it seems to me the evidence seems to be swinging away from that point of view). In fact sports science is not a settled body of knowledge (as reading Noakes makes clear) and so it is as important to look at what works as well as trying to figure out what should work. I think if you look at top athletes there is no real consistent evidence that very extended periods of base training are beneficial (I'm talking about 6 months plus). If it were I'd expect to find good marathoners coming from longer distance backgrounds rather than them stepping up from the shorter distances - but this never seems to happen. If we are just talking about changing the emphasis of training in the off season (which is what BR is effectively doing) then isn't that just what people have always recognised was a good thing - certainly in cycling that is standard.
In short base building may be a useful reminder to people that have neglected this aspect of their training but it is by no means necessary for beginners to achieve a reasonable improvement and I don't agree with the idea that the longer the period of base building the stronger the foundation - I'm more inclined to say that you risk losing speed.
I have also read Jack Daiel's book and remember him saying that marathon-pace and half-marathon pace were in the dead-zone (although 10K was ok as it was in the "stamina" LT zone). I don't tend to do "steady-state" MP or 1/2MP-pace runs - I tend to play around with the speed a bit and try to criss-cross the LT with bursts of faster speeds. Or I build up to MP over the course of a long run.
As for "cappilarization" - I have often wondered whether this is not like the mythical "fat-burn" mode on gym machines that suggests you burn more fat by going slowly, when the reality is that you burn PROPORTIONALLY more fat than carbs at low intensity, but you actaully burn more fat in total by doing the same duration of exercise at a higher intensity. OK, so we're all going to strugglew to do 100miles a week at MP - but I'd like to see some hard evidence that more miles at low intensity leads to much greater cappilarization than less miles at higher intensity, especially as the higher intensity stuff gives you additional benefits like raising vLT. I've also heard it said many times that the Kenyans do their training runs fast - if it is true then it is not a bad example to follow...
However, this is not to say that I don't do any easy-run stuff - it is more that I'm trying to focus my efforts on raising my vLT, even if this is at the expense of some mileage.
Apart form ramping up training volume or intensity too quickly, I think the biggest cause of injuries is the neglecting weight-training and streching. You can't expect your tendons and joints to stay injury free unless they have the muscle strength and flexibility to support and cushion them from the high impact forces of running. I think ALL runners should be doing a couple of running-specific weight-training and stretching sessions every week if they want to stay injury free whilst increasing training stress (and new runners should start these at least a couple of weeks before they start running)...
Yes, I think we are in total agreement that there is not much point doing any VO2max focused training for marathons... From reading Tim Noakes' "Lore of Running" it quickly became apparent to me that VO2max has absolutely no bearing on marathon times. Some world records were set by people with VO2max values in the 60s, others by those with VO2max values in the 80s. And many athletes with very high VO2max values never achieved anything when they moved up to racing the marathon distance. LT and endurance are certainly the key to a fast marathon.
I'd be interested to see what an average training week looks like for you at the moment - I think it is probably a lot more similar to my training than our discussion has probably led people to believe!
As soon as I could shuffle a couple of miles, at 12 mins/mile, as a beginner, someone told me about intervals. Oh Joy!! In pushing my threshold, even at that stage, my legs suddenly knew what they were meant to do...
I built up my stamina to long weekend runs, well into double figures, and my legs were grateful, as it made the shorter runs so easy. My resting heart rate plummeted. The hr at which I could manage any given pace plummeted - my VO2max benefited from weight loss. My threshold shifted, so that I could cruise at a heart rate that would have crippled me previously.
Who cares? For me, the joy of running was letting my legs take control - and what they really, really wanted to do was sprint up hills. Now the BLOKE in me (sorry to be sexist, but it is a shorthand way of signalling subjective/objective views) still wants to maximise my training, in anyway possible, to achieve my race goals. But I just can't follow a training program, no matter how logical, that takes no heed of what my legs are thinking.
As someone who is just back to running after a 5 year layoff, BT has been music to my ears (not to mention feet)
For a year now I've been training and raced 2 halfs, 2 10ks and a 16k. My speed over the year gradually increased from 10mm to 9mmfor the last 1/2 I did. Until the last few weeks; however, I haven't been able to get my mileage up past 20 per week.I was just too shattered to run further. I ran 30 last week and feel great.
I'm convinced it's because I stayed at a low intensity that I could put in the extra miles. I intend to keep at this until I've run a few weeks of 40 miles and then hopefully my body will be able to cope with intensity of hill training and faster reps once more.
So, for us plodders it's worth a try.
I don't know yet if it will work for me but i believe you have to give it a good go first. But one thing has materialised i actually enjoy my running now i'm not thinking how long left i have to run and trying to think of things to pass the time.
It was only a fortnight ago i realised i'd done 27 miles in that week and i wasn't tired or anything (though i was off work on a weeks holiday)
I will carry on till at least jan and feb, and at moment now i can run all the way without going over my maximum, which i am pretty pleased about just hope now my mile pace will start to come down.
And am looking forward to when the road races start proper next year and can see what improvement i've made (see positive thinking)
I must say as a returner since june Base training is good to me. some people have said it kills your speed, but i've no speed to kill at the moment.
The reason it exists is because base building is a strict regime requiring patience, following rules and a slightly obsessive character - the advocates tend therefore to be quite evangelical, and the naysayers quite sceptical.
Let's keep the arguement going if we want, it brings fresh breath to various theory, however, it's a big forum...
I am learning that the hard way...
But injury aside, I think we do train very similarly - the key thing is to maximise vLT.
Well I was basically running at 4 different speeds in my training programme.
First on the long and steady runs, I was trying to run soemwhere between 10 and 20% of marathon pace. To be frank, i often failed and ran the latter parts slower than I would have liked. (Generally one very loing run at weekeneds and one midweek long run of up to 15 miles)
For recovery, i was running as slow as I could without getting bored and at a max of 75% of heart rate. (2 per week generally)
Then I was doing basically two types of speed work and would normally do one of each most weeks but sometimes swapping one for a hill session.
Tempo runs of up to 45 mins as close I could get to half marathon pace but again to be frank often not getting there as I was tired from the training.
Vo2 max runs - these were in the form of intervals and were generally something like 10 1km intervals or 6 mile intervals or 5 2km intervals. I was running these as close as I could manage to 10km pace and trying to keep pace steady over session. I sometimes for variety did a pyramid/structured fartlek session mixing bursts of up to 5 mins at 10km pace with gentler running also.
As for base training, i think it serves a purpose and is useful for those who are beginning running and want for example get their bodies to be able to cope with up to 50 mile per week, those who are targetting a breakthough in particular on the marathon side and want to put in a long base building session beforr moving into a 16 week sharpening period.
But I am am still not convinced of its ovewrall merits for the avergae runner although the progress BR is making is outstanding and I have been reading quite a bit in the Tim Noakes book on this and it is not just Lydiard putting this forward. Many of the coaches seem to be advancing merits of a period of time each year spent putting the miles in.
Simon
Armed with my 'O' level biology I've read Noakes, Daniels, Parker, Pfitzinger and more recently Hadd. What is consitent throughout is the need to build an aerobic base from which to work.
I've been an intermittent runner over the years but have maintained fitness throughout. What the BT or Pre-BT approach is allowing me to do is build up the mileage safely without incurring injuries. I can run at 'the 145 bpm' and maintain a pace of ~7:45 per mile, which doesn't feel too slow.
What all the afore mentioned authors (including Hadd) note as a key point in improving marathon performance is increasing the LT threshold/turn point.
That's what I will attempt once I'm consitently running 50 mpw.