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
Coming to running late in life since never before, my aim is to build up to a marathon next year. (Apologies to those who've read all this before.) I first started to run/walk with a lot more walking for a month or so after pulling a calf muscle through ignorance. (I found I could walk or cycle without causing pain in said calf so used that as my touchstone). When it was back to normal I went back to r/w and kept within my capabilities. Then I was introduced to this website and found there's a lot of advice, but that it's difficult to sort out what's relevant to me and what's not. What seemed sensible was to run without pushing too hard and to build up not more than 10% per week. The prevalent advice was to run continuously rather than r/w and I achieved this by running slower. Sounds a bit like BT doesn't it? At the time I was doing 5 mile r/w stints in just under 1 hr. After a few weeks I am nearly down to 1 hr for the same 5 miles with just running. That sounds and feels like progress to me.
Now for the questions.
1. How does all this (academic?) stuff about mitochondria and capillarisation affect me? Can they be measured other than intrusively? Aren't they just part of what I would call muscle tone?
2. I don't have a HRM would I really be better off with one? I know my resting HR is sub 60-ish but I've no idea what my max is. I know HR has gone above 160 but not by how much, possibly 180-ish. At my level would I really benefit from continually monitoring and controlling the HR I'm running at?
3. What about LT? Should I really bother about it? Is it likely to be crucial to a low-level runner for enjoyment? I suspect that turning my running into a science would actually tend to turn me off running, whereas at the moment it is a pleasurable activity if a bit demanding.
4. Is it not good enough for someone like me to simply stick to rules of thumb like 10% weekly increase, get used to the level you're at, do long runs for stamina, do some speed work for strength and pace, taper off before an event? Basically keep taking the tablets? (steroids excepted:-))
This is as far as my understanding goes and there may be errors in what I've said. Feel free to put me right. The thing is if what I'm saying is basically right then I can happily go away and not trouble myself at what's being discussed here except to enjoy the cut and thrust which I have to admit is entertaining.
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
_W
Anyone can run. Whether or not you want to get into the 'science' of it is another issue entirely. I suspect that it's easy to get bogged down in all these theories and to actually lose sight of WHY you run in the first place - hopefully because you enjoy it.
The bottom line is no, you don't need any of the fancy gadgets to make progress and there's actually (IMHO) a lot to be said for listening to your body rather than becoming reliant on technical products to tell you what it's saying.
Like you, I started out with a run/walk programme. I already had a decent level of fitness from a couple of years of gym-based cardiovascular exercise, but when I took my running outdoors I found it harder than running on a treadmill and decided to play it safe with a gradual build-up. Once I could run for 30 minutes non-stop I stuck at that for a while until it felt comfortable, then aimed for a 5K race. I kind of stuck at around 3-4 miles 3-4 times a week for a while, then this year decided to move my running on and completed a 5K, 2 10Ks and a half-marathon this year. All with no gadgets other than a stopwatch.
When I decided I'd like to try a marathon, I realised that it was unlikely with the way I'd been training that I could ramp up enough weekly mileage to cope with the demands of a marathon. Coincidentally, I came across all the base training stuff at about the same time. My race performances were fairly good based on the training I'd done, but I felt I wasn't getting significantly better, and the idea that I was probably running too few miles at too fast a pace each week made sense to me. Then I read all the BT articles, bought the HRM and became really anal about my running!
I have to say I get a bit of a buzz from all the 'academic' stuff. But I managed perfectly well before I read anything about BT. The bottom line is that there are no real rights and wrongs with running. Everyone's different. What works for one may not work for another - it depends on the kind of person you are and what you want to get out of your running.
The most important thing is that you enjoy it. Period.
I have just read the entire thread (yep, I really should do some work) and have found it interesting, educational and entertaining.
My 2p worth.
I ran FLM 2002 and 2003..both quite slowly but interestingly in about the same time (circa 4.30)..
The big difference for me was that in 2002, I was happy just to get round and ran slowly all the way and had fun (in a marathon? - yep)..in 2003, I trained much harder and even did a PB for the 1/2 (1.46 on a hilly course)..I thought I was on track for a sub 4 marathon (please bear with me)..OK at half way and feeling OK...but I crashed and burned in a big way at 16 - 18 miles and struggled through to the end actually a minute or so slower than the previous year..
My point is this (at last)..what I read on the Hadd article struck a chord..I was either running not enough miles or too fast on 'slow' days..
For me it was maybe a bit of both but definitely more of the latter...
I hold no particular brief for BT but I am willing to give it a try..after FLM 2003, I have run very little and had lost my motivation so the biggest plus for me in BT is that has got me out there again..
Each to their own, I guess but I'm happy to go for this as I have no race commitments in the near future. For those of you racing regularly this may not be right for you....at the moment.
All the best,
RB
Useful comments both and syaing very similar things. I think the thing that has really come through strongly from pretty well all the advice I've been getting is the bit about listening to your own body. It seems most important to tailor evrything to the way it's going to suit you. I suspect that's likely to hold true however technical, scientific or academic you want to be.
All the best and happy running both of you.
_W
For what it's worth, I'd say that as a beginner you should concentrate on endurance first and foremost. Increase your running by no more than 10% at a time, as you've said. Only when you're VERY comfortable with each increase should you consider moving on to the next. Then perhaps work on increasing the length of one of your weekly runs (usually Sunday for most people) a bit, so it's longer than your others. Perhaps target a short race (5-10K) if you'd like to, or need the motivation of something to aim for. No pressure - aim to finish it comfortably. I don't honestly think you need to worry about speedwork at this stage - that comes later, when you've built your endurance. For now, just concentrate on building up gradually, and enjoy your running.
Where you take it is entirely up to you. There's nothing wrong at all in running simply for fitness and pleasure, and never entering a race. That's the beauty of running - you can take it to whatever level you want to.
Enjoy!
I've stayed with the BT except for today because I have an important 10k race on Sunday week. It seems to be working (based on HR) but boy, was it nice to break loose today with some speed work!
I hope the ocassional speed session doesn't ruin things because without it I'd die of boredom. Does anyone else find BT boring and what is the solution?
If you don't have a HR monitor, just make sure that you run the majority of your runs at a slow pace (say 60-90 seconds per mile slower than your 10K pace), then you can run 1-2 runs a week at a faster (tempo) pace - say 15-30 seconds per mile slower than your 10K race pace.
I can't get through BT without allowing myself the luxury of one tempo run a week. So far this hasn't adversely affected my BT, although I may have progressed faster without it - who knows? But I'm happy to slightly sacrifice progress for the sake of pleasure!
Well I wish you happy, injury-free running.
_W
I just took 2 mins off my 10K PB (which had been set on a slightly downhill course) having been base training only for the past 2 months, NO SPEEDWORK, NO TEMPO RUNS, NO INTERVALS.
I ran more comfortably at 7:44 pace than I ever did before at over 8. I had plenty in the tank and finished feeling springy and full of energy, despite the step up in pace.
Base training has made me fitter and faster... so when the faster runs are added to this aerobic base in 2004, the sky's the limit!
But 10 min miling is no longer unusual for me
Last week on my 6-mile route (which is somewhat less hilly) I managed 9:49 per mile. On that route my time has gone down by 10 seconds a mile on each of the last three occasions I've run it, all at below 149 bpm.
As my HRM doesn't record average HR it's slightly tricky to work out the improvement, but I use 149 bpm as the 'ceiling' and aim to keep below this.
Good to see the base training is working for so many now!