|
|
Post by journeyman on Jan 18, 2010 16:57:48 GMT -5
There's 30 seconds I can't get back. "Rough race" and nothing about his training since NY(actually, nothing on NY). Pretty well sums up why I won't be a twittee or twittor and maybe Steller's question about de-evolution holds some water. SI, you've got to commit! Reading one tweet is useless. You've got to get the full tweet-sperience. Set up your account, post your minute-by-minute musings, and follow along as others do the same! The reason you were disappointed in what you read is because all that happened, like hours ago. Of course it's not interesting anymore. Like, duh! ps More seriously. I do have a twitter account for Canadian Mountain Running, and I hope that it at least helps to communicate what we have to say to those who want to hear it, but as a daily, or hourly "thing" I'm not sure I get it. But again, I'm not committed. I tweet maybe once a month. |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Jan 18, 2010 21:23:53 GMT -5
I hope I "stall out" as well as Hall did in 2009: 2009 - 1st Place. 2009 15K - Publix Super Markets Gasparilla Distance Classics Race (43:26) in Tampa Bay, United States 2009 - 3rd Place. 2009 Boston Marathon (2:09:40) in Boston, United States 2009 - 3rd Place. 2009 NYC Half-Marathon (1:02:35) in New York City, United States 2009 - 1st Place. 2009 ING Philadelphia Distance Run Half-Marathon (1:01:52) in Philadelphia, United States 2009 - 4th Place. 2009 ING NYC Marathon (2:10:36) Simon's career continues to improve with the move to Portland and the Oregon project boys. Contrast that with Ryan's career seems to have stalled over the last two years, after a fantastic 2007-2008. Will done Simon! Very impressive racing. |
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Jan 18, 2010 21:53:10 GMT -5
does that mean u r running a marathon soon Sully?  How to start rumours...i say we begin a Kevin Sullivan is running his first marathon rumour thread on letsrun..... |
|
|
|
Post by kmaser on Jan 18, 2010 22:18:27 GMT -5
Hey MB- With his1500m /5k /10k speed wouldn't surprise me if he ran a good one. It's way to early for him to "retire". Hope you and the family are doing well.
Cheers
KM
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Jan 18, 2010 22:27:22 GMT -5
There is no way Sully is a marathoner.... With his combination of leg speed (probably 50/50 ft/st, or somewhere around there), and his red hair (total lack of patience), I figure he tops out at about 10 miles....  |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 18, 2010 22:54:07 GMT -5
There is no way Sully is a marathoner.... With his combination of leg speed (probably 50/50 ft/st, or somewhere around there), and his red hair (total lack of patience), I figure he tops out at about 10 miles.... Probably true, but he also likes to do his easy running at a decent clip. I bet he'd go at least 2:17 without any really specific prep, and probably sub-2:15 if he cared at all-- which he shouldn't! |
|
|
|
Post by feens on Jan 19, 2010 1:12:02 GMT -5
I hope I "stall out" as well as Hall did in 2009: I'm a fan of Hall, but at least having seen his goals and then the results for his peak races the last year or so, I think I'd agree with him having "stalled" (though, I think I'd say he's just "flat"...but I imagine same idea, different term). Sure, there are some great results in there...he has a ton of ability...but when is the last time he ended up truly pleased with a result from one of his peak races? (I'm guessing London in 2008). I think after his 59:43 and 2:06:17 (his third marathon), everyone expected more of him, and I'm guessing he's expected more of himself. Perhaps he just needs a shake-up. |
|
|
|
Post by Steller on Jan 19, 2010 5:08:18 GMT -5
RE: Hall “stalling” the last year or so…
Feens mentions that Hall needs a shake-up...totally agreed:
But, this is a question to the wider audience beyond Hall. But is it me, or do all of you really see huge changes and general improvements in athletes who first either 1) join a new training group or 2) undertake training for a new event (e.g. undergoing marathon training for the first time)? This, after a few years, is then followed by a general plateau.
Given this, should we as coaches really be trying to more radically (key word: radical) periodize certain yearly training emphasis? (e.g. Ritz, dropping down from the marathon to do 5K’s again and setting the American record etc. etc. or, for a 1500m runner, after a year or two of 1500m/3000m strength training, actually undertaking some pure 400m training, just to shake it up some more?).
Supporting this thinking, there are several recent well done scientific studies on different weight lifting protocols to induce optimal adaptations (ie. Increase strength outcomes). Interestingly, the undulation training, where every single day you through a different stimulus on the muscle, results in much more training adaptation than the normal periodized approach of endurance phase, followed by hypertrophy phase followed by strength phase. However, these studies were done in groups of untrained subjects, undertaking training for the first time -- but I actually think in well trained strength atheltes, this undulation training would also be very effective. It does raise questions around periodizing towards an effective peak for a championship event.
I think sometimes, as coaches, we get stuck in our normal, typical periodized systems. Yes, the training volume/intensity is hard, perhaps we add a bit more volume or % quality per year – but after a few years it is also predictable for our well trained athletes physiology. Instead, should we be thinking more outside the box and really providing a radically new stimulus to our bodies to induce/bump up the required adaptation?
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Jan 19, 2010 7:55:16 GMT -5
How radical are you talking? Or should I say, what do you mean by radical? It sounds like you just mean change event focus. From the perspective of an elite athlete in a 4-year Olympic cycle, say a 1500 runner, years 1 and 3 might work on that 400 speed, while years 2 and 4 (championship years) would stay focused on the championship event. Or event year 1 train for 400, year 3 train for 800. But is shifting event focus enough? If you trained with a 1500 focus all four years, how would you make a "radical" change to training? Are there enough viable different ways to train for a distance race? I mean really different, not just different workouts (of which there are an infinite number).
They say a change is as good as a rest, however, some athletes change coaches and it does not go so well. So maybe the change in and of itself is not enough.
I really like your suggestion, and I have to say I try to never use the same exact program twice. There are always tweaks, at least, and a full overhaul fairly often (every 1-2 years). I'm not traditional or stuck in any way myself, I don't think, but I just want to know more exactly what you mean. Can the weight training idea be transfered to distance running?
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 19, 2010 8:14:31 GMT -5
There is no way Sully is a marathoner.... With his combination of leg speed (probably 50/50 ft/st, or somewhere around there), and his red hair (total lack of patience), I figure he tops out at about 10 miles.... Probably true, but he also likes to do his easy running at a decent clip. I bet he'd go at least 2:17 without any really specific prep, and probably sub-2:15 if he cared at all-- which he shouldn't! The ridiculous thing is that I bet the "odd" person probably asks him every once in a while if he has run one or when he is going to. |
|
|
|
Post by tundra on Jan 19, 2010 8:35:11 GMT -5
The ridiculous thing is that I bet the "odd" person probably asks him every once in a while if he has run one or when he is going to. <SI>
When a lot of non-runners find out that I run, they ask if I have run a marathon or if I am going to the Olympics. As soon as I say no to both, I am summarily dismissed as a "real" runner. Don't several of you find this? I would imagine the more competitive that you are, the more the questions get asked.
|
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Jan 19, 2010 9:04:15 GMT -5
I hope I "stall out" as well as Hall did in 2009: I'm a fan of Hall, but at least having seen his goals and then the results for his peak races the last year or so, I think I'd agree with him having "stalled" (though, I think I'd say he's just "flat"...but I imagine same idea, different term). Sure, there are some great results in there...he has a ton of ability...but when is the last time he ended up truly pleased with a result from one of his peak races? (I'm guessing London in 2008). I think after his 59:43 and 2:06:17 (his third marathon), everyone expected more of him, and I'm guessing he's expected more of himself. Perhaps he just needs a shake-up. yes, by stalled i meant 'flat' or something comparable, relative to his initial performances (Kevin, may disagree). Given the 59:43 debut and then fantastic trials race, in my opinion Ryan has stalled. His last 18 months performances are great for anyone other then Hall, but for him this must be hard (as evidenced by his comments in interviews the last 18 months). I think this 'stalling' may be in part to his almost complete conversion to a marathoner at the expense of his track and xc background. I see some parallels (though Hall certainly isn't Alberto) to Salazar in 83-84 after the great initial success in the marathon Alberto had. What i like about Ritz is his almost fanatical desire to succeed and willingness to keep experimenting with the training 'formula' when he feels like he has stopped improving. just my thoughts. Only Ryan would know for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Jan 19, 2010 9:08:28 GMT -5
When I was at Fifth Ave Mile a couple of years ago I was in the elevator at the hotel and was asked if I was running the marathon (despite the fact NYC 'thon was over a month away). When I explained I was in a mile race down 5th Ave the man turned his back to me, stated "I could run that s*&t backwards" and walked out the elevator. Probably true, but he also likes to do his easy running at a decent clip. I bet he'd go at least 2:17 without any really specific prep, and probably sub-2:15 if he cared at all-- which he shouldn't! The ridiculous thing is that I bet the "odd" person probably asks him every once in a while if he has run one or when he is going to. |
|
|
|
Post by Steller on Jan 19, 2010 10:08:55 GMT -5
ohhh....i am not talking that radical, or crazy of training changes-- but radical enough that it is a concerted change, and not just a mild shift in training emphasis.
I agree that the longer your target event, probably the harder it is to implement distinct changes in training on a yearly or bi-yearly (or mesocycle) basis. But, there are perhaps ways that people don't consider, even in the marathon, of providing alternative training stimulus.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 19, 2010 11:30:59 GMT -5
ohhh....i am not talking that radical, or crazy of training changes-- but radical enough that it is a concerted change, and not just a mild shift in training emphasis. I agree that the longer your target event, probably the harder it is to implement distinct changes in training on a yearly or bi-yearly (or mesocycle) basis. But, there are perhaps ways that people don't consider, even in the marathon, of providing alternative training stimulus. Trent, thanks for initiating what could be one of the more interesting training-related threads on here in quite a while. Those of you who follow the weekly Daniels' interviews on Flotrack-- or simply know his work well-- we recall him referring to his series of longitudinal test on elite athletes he initiated back in the late 60s. One of his more counter-intiutive findings, he suggests, was that athletes who had been injured more frequently tended to have had longer careers, and to have as a consequence retained more of their peak V02 than athletes who had not been injured as frequently. One interpretation of this finding might have some bearing on your basic question, Trent: It may be that injury time inadvertently introduced the kind of potentially revitalizing "variety" you refer to in the careers of more the oft-injured athletes. In this case, it may have perhaps been as much a break in the routine (and in the old days the regimes of distance people would probably have been even more routine than today) as the introduction of a new training stimulus that kept the more oft-injured athletes going; although, perhaps the x-training that the more frequently injured athletes may have done could have played a more direct role here. The point here is certainly not that athletes should pursue training programs that are likely to injure them more often; there is an enough evidence, after all, that certain kinds of injuries can also drive athletes out of the sport for good. The lesson, rather, is that perhaps we should be open to experimenting more with engineered breaks, or changes in training stimulus that may have the same effect as a break. Or, perhaps we should be looking at things like radically reducing the amount competition an athlete does in certain years, even if healthy. Both of these things would run up against practical problems (like the demands of carding qualification, sponsorships, etc.); but, on the purely theoretical level, perhaps we should be open to exploring this angle a little more. Training for distance running is a very psychologically demanding enterprise; and I, for one, am always worried about the pressures it brings to bear on young athletes, who can be taken by surprise at how suddenly a feeling of stagnation and futility can set in. I think this usually starts with the physical-- i.e. a feeling deep down that the body is simply not responding to the training stimulus as before-- but very rapidly become psychological, in the form of feeling like training isn't worth the effort anymore. Training is, after all, very difficult even when the body if responding robustly; when it is not responding, or worse, degrading, training can feel like torture. Going through "flat" periods in training is, of course, perfectly normal, and athletes are usually able to work through them without having to change much. It is certainly worthwhile, however, to be open to exploring strategies and techniques for reducing these periods in number and severity, as well as for heading off more prolonged periods of stagnation in athletes who have been training and competing uninterruptedly for long periods of time. In most cases, this probably wouldn't involve more than some fairly minor changes in focus. But, for some athletes, it may involve much more (e.g. the wholesale introduction of new training and x-training techniques). Anyone have examples/stories to offer? It'll be very interesting to see how the Ritz experiment turns out in a couple of years. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 19, 2010 13:01:43 GMT -5
When I was at Fifth Ave Mile a couple of years ago I was in the elevator at the hotel and was asked if I was running the marathon (despite the fact NYC 'thon was over a month away). When I explained I was in a mile race down 5th Ave the man turned his back to me, stated "I could run that s*&t backwards" and walked out the elevator. Coolsaet's take on the ridiculous question from his blog: Q : Am I running a marathon to impress all the wankers who ask me if I run marathons when they learn I run professionally? “Oh, you run… like marathons?” A : Absolutely! |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Jan 19, 2010 13:58:29 GMT -5
Trent, Steve,
I am not sure if you guys are suggesting that some of the variations in training and racing emphasis, as suggested by Trent, haven't been included in some of our athlete's development in the past. Is that what you are saying, or just that "we" haven't been open enough to trying some "radical" approaches?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 19, 2010 14:49:58 GMT -5
I'm thinking anything from changing racing emphasis (as in Ritz's decision to step back to the 5 and 10) all the way to people training but not competing at all for an entire year, or adding in completely different training stimulae, such as cycling, swimming, or mountain running, and perhaps even competing at one or more of these-- you know, the stuff that runners are sometimes forced to do by injury.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Jan 19, 2010 19:33:24 GMT -5
So Sully...this must mean you are planning on running a marathon then!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by oldlegs on Jan 19, 2010 21:17:52 GMT -5
Steller and Oldster,
Great posts. I have been thinking about this idea for nearly 20 years and I am convinced that both the psychological and physiological aspects of training are totally underestimated and lead to athletes being stale at the wrong times, or stagnating (often for years). I think what is misunderstood is just how quickly adaptation occurs in training. If no new stimulus is introduced regularly (and I mean every 3 weeks), then plateaus are reached. Sure there must be build-ups in training, but in my experience I have seen many of these build-ups look like they were basically plucked by coaches from a 25 year old training manual. Steller's point is bang on here...
I think every athlete has gone through stages when they seem to be training "harder" than ever, but they can't seem to turn on the gas for months. On the flip side, I am sure we have all suprised the hell out of ourselves with PB runs when least expected, but then when we follow the "old training model" we flatten out again. My best experience was when my first child was born, I was getting so little sleep and had so little time (work etc.) that I could barely run. I resorted to something I had never done since being in high-school. Running about 20 minutes 4 or 5 days a week, basically as hard as I could for the last 15 minutes. It was weird but after about 4 weeks of this I ran damn close to my PB in the 10k--it made no sense, my mileage was abysmal, and I was exhausted all the time--but my body seemed to like the change and the up-tempo nature of what i was doing.
Daniel's insight in interesting, and I would suggest it is one of the reason we often see the best marathon being the first one from athletes. The body isn't quite sure what is going on through the new stress, (often the first time huge mileage or extensive long-tempos are introduced), and the mental stress of the amrathon hasn't quite grabbed hold in the conscience... I have seen this with 800m runners taking on 400m programs and really seeing jumps, and I have seen 5k runners adapting quickly to the 800m (Anna Willard, Jenny Barringer).
I think the key is keeping athletes engaged with constant change--hey, why not try a summer of Billy Mills fartlek running to see what can happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by runningaddict on Jan 19, 2010 21:47:08 GMT -5
Another marathoner dropping back down to the 5 and 10 000 is Reid Coolsaet. On his blog he says he's planning on doing a fast 10 in the spring and likely going for the 5000 at the Commonwealth Games. It will be interesting to see what kind of times he'll run (including when he goes back to the marathon in 2011).
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Jan 19, 2010 22:23:44 GMT -5
Steller and Oldster, Great posts. I have been thinking about this idea for nearly 20 years and I am convinced that both the psychological and physiological aspects of training are totally underestimated and lead to athletes being stale at the wrong times, or stagnating (often for years). I think what is misunderstood is just how quickly adaptation occurs in training. If no new stimulus is introduced regularly (and I mean every 3 weeks), then plateaus are reached. Sure there must be build-ups in training, but in my experience I have seen many of these build-ups look like they were basically plucked by coaches from a 25 year old training manual. Steller's point is bang on here... I think every athlete has gone through stages when they seem to be training "harder" than ever, but they can't seem to turn on the gas for months. On the flip side, I am sure we have all suprised the hell out of ourselves with PB runs when least expected, but then when we follow the "old training model" we flatten out again. My best experience was when my first child was born, I was getting so little sleep and had so little time (work etc.) that I could barely run. I resorted to something I had never done since being in high-school. Running about 20 minutes 4 or 5 days a week, basically as hard as I could for the last 15 minutes. It was weird but after about 4 weeks of this I ran damn close to my PB in the 10k--it made no sense, my mileage was abysmal, and I was exhausted all the time--but my body seemed to like the change and the up-tempo nature of what i was doing. Daniel's insight in interesting, and I would suggest it is one of the reason we often see the best marathon being the first one from athletes. The body isn't quite sure what is going on through the new stress, (often the first time huge mileage or extensive long-tempos are introduced), and the mental stress of the amrathon hasn't quite grabbed hold in the conscience... I have seen this with 800m runners taking on 400m programs and really seeing jumps, and I have seen 5k runners adapting quickly to the 800m (Anna Willard, Jenny Barringer). I think the key is keeping athletes engaged with constant change--hey, why not try a summer of Billy Mills fartlek running to see what can happen. Wow....where to start? How about with the "25 year old training manuals"? Is that a reference to the time when non-Kenyan and non-Ethiopian runners ran much, much faster than they do today, in most Countries, and most distance running events? Change, for the sake of change? Is that the message? If so, I don't buy it. Stagnation - define please...Is that when you don't PB for a year, 2 years, 3 years? At what stage do you go hiking in the Alps for the Summer instead of trying to improve your PB's? By the way, I have been thinking about this for the last 43 years, and don't think there are any easy answers to these questions.... But I do think there are some relatively basic principles in our sport, and individuals can stray a certain number of degrees on either side of these principles, as it meets their individual makeup - both physiological and psychological, and still be "successful". I would love to be enlightened if there is something incredibly "new" under the sun, as long as it is legal of course. |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Jan 19, 2010 22:43:48 GMT -5
ohhh....i am not talking that radical, or crazy of training changes-- but radical enough that it is a concerted change, and not just a mild shift in training emphasis. I agree that the longer your target event, probably the harder it is to implement distinct changes in training on a yearly or bi-yearly (or mesocycle) basis. But, there are perhaps ways that people don't consider, even in the marathon, of providing alternative training stimulus. Can you give a specific example? I understand Ron's skepticism. I agree that there is pretty much a range of training that will make a distance runner faster. The hard thing is finding the right mix for each athlete. I guess the question is how much and how often to change the mix, if necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Jan 20, 2010 0:50:23 GMT -5
Could perhaps doing Lydiard's form of periodization be enough of a change? So to go from doing lots of aerobic running, to doing hills, to doing hard track intervals to doing some time trials? A pretty severe change in training from one phase to another.
We certainly see some athletes really come to life just by switching coaches. But often it is only for a short time which could suggest that that athlete was just missing something in his former coach's program.
Interesting topic for sure.
I wonder if perhaps just going from one extreme to another on a day by day basis is enough? So going really hard and long one day to just an easier run the next day.
|
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Jan 20, 2010 6:47:54 GMT -5
We certainly see some athletes really come to life just by switching coaches. But often it is only for a short time which could suggest that that athlete was just missing something in his former coach's program. Matt, interesting point. From Ritz's comments on his blog, he notes three specific changes that have occurred under Salazar. 1. renewed belief that he can still run much fast at shorter distances. 2. much greater emphasis on shorter faster intervals in the racing season (ex. 3 x (600,400,300,200)). (Under Hudson it was primarily 1/2 marathon pace work so it will be interesting if he can avoid his history of stress fractures). 3. much greater emphasis on periodization in training very interesting thread. P.S. my original comments regarding Hall appearing to be 'stalled' shouldn't be taken that i think he necessarily should change coaches or that he won't get back to setting new pb's. I just think he needs to return to his roots of track and xc for a while and refresh and refocus (ie. take a break from being the RunnersWorld poster boy). Perhaps the $$$ in the marathon vs track and xc are hard to resist. Still an amazing athlete with a great future. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 20, 2010 13:30:36 GMT -5
Ron, the way I interpreted steller's original question was not: Can we discover an entirely new master principle for distance training?; but rather, are their perhaps new combinations of things, or new arrangements of things, that we can try within the programs of individual athletes? We all know of instances in which various kinds voluntary or involuntary interruptions-- e.g. pregnancy, injury, failure in a big meet, parenthood, relocation, religious missionary duties (as in the case of a few U.S. Mormon athletes in the past)-- have suddenly revitalized athletic careers, so why not be more open to experimenting with them in order to possibly revitalize and extend athlete's careers?
Another example: American Amby Burfoot writes about how he "accidentally" discovered the benefits of very long and relatively slow running (for himself, that is-- runners in other places had already being doing it) when he became utterly sick of running hard intervals every day, as was the orthodoxy in the U.S college system at the time. In his mind, he was actually quitting the sport when he decided to just run long and slow every day and forget about the hard interval sessions he'd been doing. He then describes how, lo and behold, he actually ran faster over his track distances after weeks of simply "jogging around". One could argue that, had Burfoot been more determined, and stronger mentally, he never would have gone on to discover his ability to respond to longer, slower running, and never would have become the runner than he did! He would have simply gone on cranking away at the hard track stuff and going nowhere until deciding to retire, believing that he had done all he could. The lesson here is that perhaps we should be more open to experimentation in our own programs before we're actually forced to make changes by unforeseen circumstances.
P.S. Lord knows I'm not talking about embracing fads, or change for its own sake. After all, I'm the guy who's been training continuously, and without great variation, for 30 years! I believe only Ed Whitlock has a longer period of serious, uninterrupted training.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steller on Jan 20, 2010 15:24:20 GMT -5
sorry-- swamped at work this week and next...so i started something that i don't have time to follow-up on.
Oldser is getting at what I mean. Maybe, the world "radical" was too extreme of a word to use. I am not talking about fads etc. Instead, I am wondering -- when you really look at an athletes training breakdown (e.g. % of mileage that is below threshold, at threshold, or at VO2peak or HR Zones 1, 2, 3 etc.) how much does it change from year to year?
The reason, I am thinking about this is more, is it is becoming more apart in the science / exerc. physiology world that to train (or get a response from a given stimulus) in an already very adapted muscle is very difficult, compared to an untrained muscle. For example, a study out of the AIS (with biopsies) showed nearly a zero response to endurance training in edurance trained athletes, but a large response in the weight trained athletes, and the exact opposite when changing training mode. I, know, not surprising for the coaches in the room, but in terms of adaptation.
So I am talking more about ramping up and down the periodizing in a more agressive manner (e.g. 2 to 3 weeks of SERIOUS trainign stimulus, and then a more robust recovery week of only a single workout and a 50% reduction in volume)
OR undertaking a fall training where a middle distance athlete might push out long runs, very easy to over 2 hrs, while the next fall they might focus on 25% less volume, but keep all runs at decent clip.
Or a bit more agressive weight training mesocycle-- even in a marathon runner?
etc. etc.
Oldster-- just curious, if one were to look at you trainign logs over the last 30 yrs, other than injury, or post season R&R do each of the training weeks look pretty similar? I wonder how many athletes would say this?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Jan 20, 2010 20:23:22 GMT -5
Oldster, et al, I am totally open to listening to new ideas on this subject. I thought I had captured that sense, in the final sentence of my previous post. However, I did lots of experimenting, trial and erroring, etc., during the first 10-15 years of my coaching career. And a lot of that was based on "slightly" differering perspectives offered by the dozens of top athletes and coaches that I either listened to or read of or talked with, during the late 60's/70's/ early 80's. From which, I arrived at some principles that I based my subsequent coaching methods on. Lots of individual concerns of course, but within a general framework that worked, and still seems to work very well. It has been a long time since I started working with various training methodologies, such as circuit training, weight training, cross training, fartlek runs, progressive tempo runs, long easy mileage, hyper-intense anaerobic sessions, speed maintenance during aerobic buildup, accerating runs for speed development (and confidence in tactical races), all possible approaches to periodization, aerobic "recovery" weeks (I used to call them training absorption weeks), where we would push hard for 3 to 4 to 5 weeks, and then try and run very easily for at least 5 or 6 days... To be clear, I think coaches should be open to new ideas, and especially with regard to development of individual athletes. But, I still wait to hear any brand-new ideas. Of course, I am older, and have gone through a lot of "new ideas" in my time... |
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Jan 20, 2010 20:48:19 GMT -5
......do not underestimate the psychological concept of plateauing.....
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 20, 2010 20:49:15 GMT -5
Steller, when you've been at for as long as I have, you inevitably end up returning again and again to the basics that ron referred to: consistently high volume; lots of work at MV02; and quite a bit of tempo running. And in my case, since I was so consistent--missing only about 10 days per year on average for the first 20 years, with several years of only 3-4 days off, then maybe 12-14 days a year off for the next decade-- things tend to become even more uniform. So, yeah, the weeks tend to look pretty similar when you survey the big picture.
However, there were some periods when things changed fairly abruptly. When I finally gave up trying to be a mid-distance guy (FAR too late in the game, at age 24) I started doing much longer interval sessions and more mileage. Then when I tried the marathon in my mid/late-30s, I did more volume (obviously). Aside from that, there were some key periods when I did no workouts of any kind and just ran as long and fast as I felt like doing every day. And once I even went through this brief period where I tried to train like I'd heard the Kenyans did-- 17-20k in a single run every day, starting fairly slow and finishing at tempo pace. Wasn't long before I was really tired and flat! Then, of course, there were the years my kids were born, which were surprisingly good years, but also ones that ended in injury each time. All this time, I had the advantage/disadvantage of not having regular coach or training group. The advantage was that I didn't ever feel trapped doing any one thing, and could experiment a little when I felt like it-- i.e. without having to go through the awkwardness of disobeying a coach, or changing coaches entirely. The disadvantage was that I made some mistakes that a good coach would have seen and corrected fairly quickly, and I missed having a regular group to take some of the pressure off in workouts.
As it happens, I'm experimenting a bit this very season. I'm doing a phase of faster stuff on the indoor track, which I haven't done since 2003 (haven't really felt like it till now).
|
|
