Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
How hard should you run ?
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
If an athlete has overtrained and their races have suffered, they haven't done as well as they could have.
However, I think 99% of people don't reach this - and often the overtraining is caused by increasing the wrong thing/component and not being patient. I.e. the training can be increased, but it's not being done properly.
I also think you would probably get to a point where you wondered if say some major lifestyle change would be worth knocking 0.5 second off your time.
"Are runners able to identify the point at which increasing the training isn't going to make any difference?"
This was the point I was touching on when I suggested the the sensibly focused person would recognise that they would get much more satisfaction out of a new activity, rather than trying to wring out the last ounce of improvement from a sport, at which ultimately their standard of performance is destined to deteriorate.
I think thats the reason that most successful runners rarely make it through to the vet ranks. Most successful vets tend to have come in to the sport during their mid life health crisis and are still improving. Even BR has implied that there will be a time when he will no longer be driven by competitive goals. My attitude to the sport will also change when the inevitable decline sets in.
You specifically refer to increasing training in the quest for improvement. Most runners (committed, ambitious, obsessive what ever) will probably continue increasing their training until the decline in their performance becomes real and is staring them in the face. At that point they will happily walk away from their competitive running. However, one hopes that they can look back on the experience in a positive way. This is how some runners such as BR see it, but sadly for the reasons you have outlined other runners, such as your F-I-L carry away a feeling of unfulfilment.
After FLM, and reaching 35 I'm going to have a crack at my 10k time whilst I'm young enough to hope to make a significant difference to the pb.
Once I think I'm not going to do much more there I may concentrate on trying to medal in a XC series, or going back to marathons. That's why I admire Ron Hill so much - he always has a goal in mind - something to drive him on.
Of course I could hit 38 and decide I'm fed up of competitive running and just run to keep fit. Who knows?
I agree with themoabird’s assertion that PBs are constrained by physiological limits. No amount of training is ever going to make you into a 2.20 marathon runner. Obviously the problem is, how do you know that you have achieved the limit?
When we consider our PBs there is always a realistic chance that a second or two can be shaved off the time. But in my view I would question whether, after a sensible time, the training and gut-wrenching effort is really worth it? What are we trying to prove to ourselves? That we haven’t yet reached our limits? That we can take yet more pain? 20 - 15 years ago I would spend almost every weekend doing all sorts of races and the gains were fairly spectacular. When I realised that I wasn’t going to get any faster I eased back and rarely punished myself in a race. The chief reason for entering races was simply the social interaction with other runners, whose company I’ve always enjoyed. I still love to run (off road) and cannot see why I should ever give it up – but training long and hard to perform well in races – well I would like to think I’ve moved on.
Like BR, I am driven on by new challenges - I'm finding myself fed up with marathon training before I even reach the start line of my second marathon. Once this is out of the way I intend to spend the summer on the track regaining some of the speed I seem to have lost along the way. I can't wait.
As I get older, I hope there will always be new challenges. My greatest running experiences have not all been the PB races.
Why are you not comfortable with these 'limits' and why do you state they are 'immaginary'? Are they not a reality facing all runners? No matter how hard some runners train they will not be able to improve (for example) their lung capacity. Why is it negative to realise 'limits to your potential in any field of endeavour' - I would have thought it was rather mature. Your approach (unless you are extremely gifted) can only lead to disappointments, like themoabird's F-I-L.
I agree with your desire to seek new challenges - I do exactly the same - one reason why I took up off-road running.
I'm not content to think, 'I can never run a 2h20 marathon' however strong the evidence. Or a 2h00 marathon for that matter. I just don't see the benefit in that line of thought.
Scientifically I think the no-limits argument is strong (i.e. hard to disprove), but that is not important. It's really just a matter of how one likes to look at things.
This way of thinking hasn't led to any disappointment for me Whether on top of my game, or staggering around races in very pedestrian times - I still love it.
Errr. Then you'd be wrong. You're not seriously suggesting there are no limits to how fast a human can run a marathon?
Three minutes?
Anyway, there's all kinds of evidence out there ranging from variations in the adaptability of humans to training, different muscle types (Type 1/Type 2), efficiency of oxygen systems, etc. Not all of this is susceptible to a training effect; and none of it is infinitely adaptable.
The other point is that the merit of a proposition doesn't reside in how hard it is to disprove.
Sorry to get philosophical, but it seems to me that some of the more 'competitive' people who have posted messages have been rather dismissive of those who aren't in it for the PBs. I'm a scientist and having just completed a PhD, I know a thing or two about losing sight of the love of the thing you're doing, and just wanting to bang out results, and I also know a thing or two about being dismissive of people who aren't so goal driven.
But I'm not having a go at the competitive ones either - I guess I'm just trying to say
'to each, their own...'
Cheers! Mat
Fortunately I have a wonderful club, who despite regularly winning stuff will put up with me limping back late & lost & muddy to the eyeballs - & grinning my head off!
you have a GFA place for FLM
thats fast
"but training more means i can run more & feel happier when i run. which for me is the reward. i love races for the social atmosphere & the chance to talk to other runners, & i enjoy pushing myself round them - but i don't care much how i do compared to the rest of the field."
Which more or less sums up my attitude.
The choice of a 2:20 marathon is a poor one. It was Seb Coe who said exactly the opposite - that almost anyone could become a 2:20 marathoner by training, but sub4 milers were born.
The reason is the adaptability of the FT fibres with regards to oxygen uptake. A FT guy can become an aerobic monster, but a ST guy will never become a top miler.
There were over 200 brits breaking 2:20 one year in the 80s (I think it was '83) - a couple of years ago it was in single figures. The reason that figure is so low now and the reason why 2:20 seems so unattainable to most is people do not have the inclination to put the hard work in.
People choose to invest their time elsewhere. That's fair enough, but please do not blame the void on physiological limitations that do not exist.
Of course there are limits - it's just most people never have the opportunity/inclination/perseverence to discover where theirs lies.
"The choice of a 2:20 marathon is a poor one. It was Seb Coe who said exactly the opposite - that almost anyone could become a 2:20 marathoner by training, but sub4 milers were born."
Appeal to authority? Almost anyone can become a 2.20 marathoner? Surely the evidence is almost completely against this assertion. Are you really suggesting that the only difference between top marathon runners and the ‘also rans’ is just the level of training?
"The reason is the adaptability of the FT fibres with regards to oxygen uptake. A FT guy can become an aerobic monster, but a ST guy will never become a top miler."
How many class milers have become ‘aerobic monsters’ ? I presume by this you mean runners who run a marathon at 2.20 or less? [What is Seb Coe’s marathon time? 2.48? Hardly an ‘aerobic monster’. (OK - I know this is all anecdotal evidence.)
"There were over 200 brits breaking 2:20 one year in the 80s (I think it was '83) - a couple of years ago it was in single figures. The reason that figure is so low now and the reason why 2:20 seems so unattainable to most is people do not have the inclination to put the hard work in."
What evidence do you have for the assertion that 20 years on runners no longer ‘have the inclination to put the hard work in’. Surely the proportion of people running marathons has declined. I started running in the mid 80s and marathons were amazingly popular. All the major UK cities would put on a marathon and attract far more runners than today.
"People choose to invest their time elsewhere. That's fair enough, but please do not blame the void on physiological limitations that do not exist. Of course there are limits - it's just most people never have the opportunity/inclination/perseverence to discover where theirs lies"
Not sure what you mean by ‘void’ in this context. Anyway you seem to contradict yourself here. First you claim there are no physiological limitations, followed by ‘of course there are limits’. I would certainly agree with you that most people don’t know where their limit lies – but I would claim that is a fairly healthy approach.
there is a difference between someones physiological limit, and the limits imposed on them by work, family, etc
think thats what pantie means
I think though, if I didn't enjoy it, BUT was very good at it, I wouldn't do it. Life's too short!
Other people criticising my working conditions etc is one thing that really makes me laugh. I chose to do this, anyone else could too, the fact that I take lower pay as a trade off for the job security, working hours, holidays and pension is just part of the deal.
I may be at my desk at 5:30 am like the boys working for the amercian banks, the difference is by 2pm I'm back home and out on a run.
Oh, and BR, I think whatever happens when you hit 38, when you hit 39, and realise vet's prizes are just around the corner you'll be on the phone to TwoTon to compare weekly milages!
Re - marathon time decline.. things were different in the 80s than they are now. For a start, now there are so many more different sports that the pool from which we draw on is way less. There also has been making marathons accesible for everyone.. people would have been pooed away by running clubs in the past for wanting to run for fun or other reasons than PBs.
I personally think it's more of an achievement to have a larger proportion of the country running and improving their health than having a small core of competitive runners 200 deep having better times.. but that's just me.
A lot of other areas of athletics have improved in standard - look at recent results from u17/jw indoor track for e.g.
there is a difference between someones physiological limit, and the limits imposed on them by work, family, etc
think thats what pantie means"
Yeah - I sort of thought that whilst quickly writing my reply - apologies to pantman or 'pantie'.
love hippo
(ok, not RUN all of them but yknow)
and don't scare me with the mention of ultras
hehe
im probably a good case in point of other limits
soc
we will get you one day
If you want to make an impact as a vet you may have to wait until you're 50 or 55, when all the godd 40 year olds will have retired with damaged joints, and the new arrivals on the scene haven't worked out how to train hard yet.
For example... in this years crop of 38/39 year olds in the Surrey League are Doyle, Lockett and Corpes who seem to be running better than ever.
yeh there are a few ultra runners on this thread. Ultra training is another matter, it might be very time consuming but its also more relaxed, less busting your ass doing speed sessions etc.
The only real added dimension that ultras bring to the table is more mental trauma for your money.
the way you get round an ultra HAS to be conservative---avoiding injury
On the old chestnut of the 2:20 marathoners in the 80s, I agree that harder training and higher mileage was more normal than now. I also think diet has a lot to do with it. Not necessarily in terms of what a runner is eating now, but in terms of what a runner ate whilst growing up.
The 80s runners would have been kids in the 60s and 70s, when most food was bought from greengrocers, butchers etc and was less full of preservatives and additives. There was hardly any fast food joints around, therefore the whole body did not become deprived of nutrients as much as someone growing up in the 90s.
Also longer working hours. The 8 hour day used to be the norm back in the 80s, but now you either try and do a steady job and get pulled up for not driving yourself into the ground, or trade off earning potential against free time and security like MikeB has pointed out.
I await tales of Bill Adcocks crawling under floorboards fitting gas boilers 8 hours per day, but I bet he didn't have the pressure of performance management reviews etc. Turn up, do the job, go home, train.