oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Apr 13, 2010 14:33:32 GMT -5
Like the subject title states I am extremely over analytical and believe it has created a negative vibe to my running. For example I am always concerned with hitting certain splits on sessions and get depressed when I don't. After a bad race(haven't had a good one for awhile), the wheels start turning in my head and begin to over think what went wrong. I need to go to AA(analytical anonymous) For training I am considering trying to run by feel, which in the past has been very difficult for me. I think I can feel easy pace good but only really know what hard feels like. Guessing I should do fartlek sessions instead of track intervals but not sure. any advice would be greatly appreciated
|
|
|
Post by lukesteer93 on Apr 13, 2010 14:46:25 GMT -5
It's possible you need to set more realistic goals for your training and racing, sit down and talk it over with your coach.
Of course it's useful to attempt to run certain splits for a track workout, that's how you ghet an estimate of where your fitness is at, but those splits should be based on feel. For example, don't try to run 6x1000 @ 3:15 for a tempo workout, if that pace isn't tempo for you. The splits you're trying to hit should reflect your current ability, and the level of intensity that running said pace will create for you needs to be taken into account.
You can also just relax. I;m sure you have some ambitious goals, and the tools necessary to achieve them, but it's obvious you aren't a professional. Most runners aren't. Treat the sport as a fun pastime, rather than a stress creator, and you'll probably see more success while enjoying yourself too.
|
|
jdome
New Member
"Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt."
Posts: 39
|
Post by jdome on Apr 13, 2010 20:13:42 GMT -5
Oasis... I know how you feel. I used to do all of my runs (including my off-day runs) with a stopwatch and since I live in the country and don't have too many directional options, I would get super stressed when I didn't hit certain times as I hit different landmarks, even on easy runs. The same thing used to happen on track workouts or fartlek workouts where I was able to gauge how far I'd run (like I said, I live in the country).
Anyways, my own neurotic issues aside, I think what really helped me was ditching the watch, which is something you seem to have alluded to yourself. IMHO running by feel is the way to go because it is first and foremost, less stressful and second it makes you more aware of your body. Also, depending what kind of racing you're doing, running by feel can be a beneficial training tool since most people don't run with a watch for a short race or get to hear every single one of their splits.
As I was saying... what I usually do, which has helped me a lot, is to not time any runs except fartlek type runs (I make sure I run somewhere where I don't know all the km markers...) and to only time a couple (usually first, middle and last) track intervals to make sure I'm running the pace I want to be running. Other than that, I go by feel.
Good luck?
|
|
|
Post by lukesteer93 on Apr 13, 2010 20:40:37 GMT -5
I'm thinking runners are an over analytic bunch in general though
|
|
davidson
Full Member
"only the struggle makes it worth it, only the pain makes it sweet and only victory is the answer"
Posts: 131
|
Post by davidson on Apr 13, 2010 21:01:41 GMT -5
I'm completely with you. It's hard to not pay attention to the times when you're working out. I have this problem a lot and then all of a sudden I realize I've been over training for weeks. Not a fun place.
What you could try to do is to take a step back and relax. Being analytical isn't really a bad thing. I know it's hard to let go of the numbers, but try to. I'm not saying to stop timing yourself, but to be less worried if the numbers aren't what you had hoped. When I do a workout, I usually try to set a specific goal. Afterwards, I adjust my future workout goals based on what I just did. You can be analytical, but it's the emphasis you put on it that will cause the stress and the self-doubting. If you set your goals too high and are constantly missing them, then like a previous poster mentioned, lower them. The goal is improvement, right? So find out what you can do right now, and then make your goals based on that.
Another trick is to make a level of goals: 1) Awesome workout goal, 2) Great workout goal, 3) Minimum you want to hit.
Also consider that you might also be overworked at the moment and that is causing you to have trouble. Slow it down for a bit and then get back when your legs feel better.
Wow, what I just wrote is a bit wishy washy. The bottom line though: don't fret about stuff like times. It's all about how you view your progress. Sometimes we try to do too much and that wears us down mentally. Set yourself up for success and then when you start hitting your goals a few times and it feels good, make them a bit harder.
Good luck to you, I've been where you are...
|
|
|
Post by firstorlast on Apr 14, 2010 8:27:50 GMT -5
I use to have the same problem. I ditched the watch when doing any mileage and try to stay away from workouts that would require one. Maybe find a tempo loop you know that in the past has taken x minutes and just run that without a watch? Or even doing intervals find a km loop and focus on how easy you can make going fast feel then just set a 200-400m jog ez for the recovery. You won't need a watch for those. For me, throwing away the watch helped me make some big improvements last year and I enjoyed the process a lot more. Although I do recommend using it about 6 weeks out from your key race when you start doing more specific training and you want to know where you're at.
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Apr 14, 2010 9:12:48 GMT -5
Something to think about that has been alluded to is to remember that each workout has a particular purpose. That purpose is not always running as fast as you can. So learning to run by effort can make the process more efficient, and give you a different checkpoint to hit. So instead of looking at your watch hoping to see 5:13 for the mile, you do a self-check and see how comfortable you are, how comfortable you want to be, are you relaxed, how's your turnover...there's lots to be analytical about without being a slave to the watch.
If you have a training group or a coach at workouts, you can put your trust in the group and follow along behind. Sometimes that can help you get more out of yourself, or make sure you stay within yourself. You can let the coach worry about the splits, and ask for non-numeric feedback. So instead of having him or her yell 68! 71! the coach can say, good job, keep it relaxed, give a little more. Having a range as your goal time can also help (3:25-30 per k). It gives you room to vary, and not get stressed out about it.
It's true that this is a common problem. You are not alone!
|
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Apr 14, 2010 10:03:48 GMT -5
Thanks for the feedback.
I have difficulty running by feel but plan to continue trying to become more accustom to it. Unfortunately don't have a coach and train alone which could be the root of the problem, just don't have any one to train with where I live.
My problem is I have no clue what tempo pace feels like or 5k pace effort feels like, I know what easy feels like and I know what all out feels like, that's why I use a watch. I definitely try to have a goal for each sessions and not run workouts too fast but with tempo sessions probably do and interval sessions are slow in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by powerboy on Apr 14, 2010 13:12:40 GMT -5
I thin k your problem is not the running everything for time, but the obsessing over it. In my opinion, particularly because you don't have a coach you need to time most workouts and run for time, but learn tom accept. If the workout is 10x400@68 and that is normal for you, but on this day you are struggling, that is the sign to back off and run 70 or so. On the other hand, if you are truly over obsessing, then at least a couple of days a week run without a watch
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 14, 2010 17:39:30 GMT -5
I think it's a natural tendency for nearly all north American runners to overthink too many runs. Here are my few cents worth of suggestions, to use or happily ignore as you see fit.
Easy runs - if you know what route you plan to cover, leave the watch at home. There's absolutely no value in knowing your exact pace on easy runs.
Easy runs II - if you don't know where you plan to run, wear the watch, but ONLY to get an indirect measure of how far you ran, if distance is what you like to record in your log. Then resist the temptation to google-maps the thing and figure out your pace. There is STILL absolutely zero value knowing what your pace was on this run.
Fast (short) interval workouts - set out at a pace you think is a little slower than you can average for the planned session, and try to work your way a bit quicker with each rep. When you reach a point where you can't go any faster, call it a day. Doesn't matter if you did the planned 8, squeezed out 10, or bailed at 5. You've reached the smart point to wrap it up, so wrap it up.
Long (cruise/tempo/etc) interval workouts (like 8 x 1000, 4-6 x 2000, 2-3 x 3000, 2 x 5000 etc). Set out at a pace a little slower than you think you can manage for the session, and again aim to finish a little faster. As a GENERAL rule, finish these kinds of sessions knowing you could do another 1000-1600 without dying.
"Tempo" runs - set out at a pace you think should be manageable for the planned distance. If it starts to feel like a race effort, pack it in. If you've got some legs left when you've reached the planned end, squeeze out some more if you like.
These all assume you're trying to work on your own without guidance from a coach. If you work with a coach, then do what HE/SHE says instead.
Never be afraid to pack in a workout early. When you reach a point where it's becoming exponentially more difficult, you've done all the good you're going to do that day. Call it a day, pat yourself on the back, and do it all over again in another 2-4 days.
|
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Apr 14, 2010 18:47:26 GMT -5
Some great advice, thanks.
I for one do not thrive on being self coached, I know how to work hard but can't get myself to ease off when needed, e.g. doing a session and feeling terrible but grind my way through with times getting slower, need to stop the session (like pq refer to) and get some rest.
Backing off when self coached (at least for me) is difficult, my mindset is don't want to miss a session or long run because will set me back, realize this is a wrong but difficult to break when you have no one telling you to rest.
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 14, 2010 19:05:39 GMT -5
Never be afraid to pack in a workout early. When you reach a point where it's becoming exponentially more difficult, you've done all the good you're going to do that day. Call it a day, pat yourself on the back, and do it all over again in another 2-4 days. While this is good advice, I think an important addendum is that you should aim to reach a point where you're in tune enough with your body that this never happens. If you're aiming for 10 reps, you should have received enough feedback on how you're feeling by the time you've finished two or three to adjust your effort to make sure you'll finish the workout. If you have to drop out after 7 or 8, my question is "Why the hell were you going so hard in the 4th, 5th, and 6th intervals that you wouldn't be able to finish the planned session?" Obviously there's always a bit of uncertainty, so you might give yourself a range to aim for -- say 10-12 reps. And this doesn't apply if you're seriously overtrained, in which case you might really have to pull the chute early in the session. But you have to start listening to the cues your body provides. And with a few exceptions, if you have to abort a workout or if your times tail off in the last half, that means you've failed to listen -- and so you need to adjust by starting more slowly the next time.
|
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Apr 14, 2010 19:26:47 GMT -5
While this is good advice, I think an important addendum is that you should aim to reach a point where you're in tune enough with your body that this never happens. If you're aiming for 10 reps, you should have received enough feedback on how you're feeling by the time you've finished two or three to adjust your effort to make sure you'll finish the workout. If you have to drop out after 7 or 8, my question is "Why the hell were you going so hard in the 4th, 5th, and 6th intervals that you wouldn't be able to finish the planned session?" Obviously there's always a bit of uncertainty, so you might give yourself a range to aim for -- say 10-12 reps. And this doesn't apply if you're seriously overtrained, in which case you might really have to pull the chute early in the session. But you have to start listening to the cues your body provides. And with a few exceptions, if you have to abort a workout or if your times tail off in the last half, that means you've failed to listen -- and so you need to adjust by starting more slowly the next time. I falling into the mentality of, "if I can do this session at these times then I can run this time in a race". Lately I have been trying to so sessions like ahutch describe. Any thoughts on group sessions vs. workouts alone for improvement. I would imagine each has their advantages and disadvantages. My thoughts are if you do workouts with others in and around your fitness level and not race the sessions it would have a greater impact than alone.
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 14, 2010 19:41:08 GMT -5
...I think an important addendum is that you should aim to reach a point where you're in tune enough with your body that this never happens. If you're aiming for 10 reps, you should have received enough feedback on how you're feeling by the time you've finished two or three to adjust your effort to make sure you'll finish the workout. Respectfully, I disagree, particularly if the session is a "razor's edge" workout where the plan involves reaching pretty close to the bottom of the well. Not every workout should push you to the same place, and the ones where you dig deeper, it's harder to gauge correct effort at the start of the session by feel. And if you go out too fast, ... you will pay. It's like a law of nature. If you err on the side of going to fast and have to run fewer reps to account for it, IMHO you lose very little by stopping early, once the legs tell you they're don. However, if you err on the side of going too fast and insist on finishing the planned session to hell with feedback from the legs, you incur a significant risk of overtraining (especially if this is a habit). One more suggestion back to the OP in response to a thought in his last post. You mention wanting to run faster workouts because you look at them as an indication of what you "can run." Again, this is a north American "gotta have it all now" tendency. You need to run sessions based on what you've already proven you can run, not what you wish you could run, or what you ran a couple of years ago. Going a little easier than optimum in training is MUCH more beneficial than going a little harder than optimum. It's almost impossible to nail what's optimum, so if you want to improve, force yourself to train (most of the time) a bit easier than your instinct would have you do. IMHO
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 14, 2010 20:50:08 GMT -5
I understand your disagreement, pq -- and I know (from the actions of so many of my training partners!) that many others agree with you. But I don't think a "razor's edge" workout is that much different from a "razor's edge" race. Yes, you'll occasionally go out too hard (and, like a law of nature, pay for it) in both workouts and races. But top runners are surprisingly consistent at pushing their limits without blowing up, all things considered. And I think part of that results from learning, within the context of workouts, the difference between "very, very hard" and "unsustainably hard."
I'm not arguing that there's a "right" and a "wrong" here -- just advocating my particular philosophy of training! To reiterate, there's nothing wrong with reaching a bit too far now and then, in which case you'll have to stop early. But if you're doing this over and over again, it shows that you're not learning from your mistakes and getting better at gauging effort -- which is a crucial determinant of racing success.
In fact, I'm in full agreement with your last paragraph -- that people get obsessed with running workouts to show that they're ready to run a certain race time, and that they've got it backwards. But I would change "You need to run sessions based on what you've already proven you can run, not what you wish you could run, or what you ran a couple of years ago" to "You need to run sessions based on what you can run RIGHT NOW, not what you wish..." In other words, pay attention to the real-time feedback from your body.
Lastly, just to clarify: YES, I agree that you should halt a session where you've overreached. I just think that, rather than patting yourself on the back about it, you should chalk it up as a failure -- not because you weren't tough enough, but because you weren't smart enough to get your pacing under control earlier in the session.
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 15, 2010 7:02:57 GMT -5
Alex, I think maybe we're splitting hairs to find subtle ways to disagree here, but I was answering the question to the OP, who, if I understand, is a decent masters runner, not a "top runner," and someone who's admitted he has no real idea of appropriate effort from feedback he's getting from his body.
I'm also not a "top runner," and when I scan back through my logs I can find many workouts that I've cut short (maybe 8-12 in a year, say). I suppose I could call them failures because, by your reasoning, they indicate I wasn't learning appropriate pace judgement over time. But I don't really accept that, at least not for myself. In the first place, I find that ability to survive a very hard session varies from day to day for a whole host of factors (maybe it's too hot or windy, or the previous workout is still in the legs, or there's a lingering bug, or maybe extra stress at work...), some of which don't reveal themselves until you're in the middle of the session. And second, and perhaps more importantly, I have seen a very strong correlation between cutting a workout short and then running a very strong race within 3-4 weeks.
So personally, anyway, I just let the "failed workouts" roll off my back and consider them a normal, and in fact "good," element of my training.
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 15, 2010 11:12:04 GMT -5
Oasis, you're being too hard on yourself. Masters athletes need to be very flexible when it comes to minimum performance expectations and longer term goals. The aging body is very mysterious, given that its decline is determined by unseen and unpredictable forces, such as genetics and the effect of real world stress on the body. I have a masters athlete who ran low 14mins for 5k as an open athlete who, in spite of training fairly long and hard, has not managed to run any better than 16:20, and frequently runs much slower (he is now 47). And, on the other extreme, I have masters athletes who have been training aerobically more or less all their lives who are knocking on the door of outright P.B.s at the age 50-51! All runners must learn to love the training process for its own sake, excepting results as they come, and being happy with feeling strong in races as often as possible; but, this is doubly true with masters athletes. The masters athlete who has rigid ideas about how fast he/she should be able to run based on past performances will be an unhappy masters athlete. Your only goals should be to feel good and strong in your training-- like you're training hard and responding favourably to the work-- and to compete hard against whomever you happen to find around in you in races. You may not ever run any faster than you have, but you will be giving yourself the best chance of eventually doing so if you take this approach (this is, of course, assuming that your training plan is generally sound; if it is not, then there are other problems). I don't think the watch is really the issue here, as some have suggested (although, as pq says, there is no need to use it for easy runs, unless you're running an unknown route for time). The watch can be useful in helping you regulate your effort within a given session. I often use the watch only to establish a "benchmark" on the first rep of a session. If I run the proper effort on rep one, then the time on the watch, whatever it may be, becomes the basis for how I pace the rest of the workout. Sometimes this benchmark is much slower than I'd hoped (and I swear, and wonder how I got so slow); but, I move on and try to finish the session at or slightly faster than the pace I started it.
Re: the question of aborted session, if this happens, then clearly mistakes have been made. Either you shouldn't have started the session, or you should have matched pace and volume a little more accurately going in. I actually don't think part of a planned session is better than no session at all, unless the plan wasn't very good to begin with. I also think that, for most athletes, an aborted session feels like failure, and makes them feel less confident. I know that I make an effort to finish every session as planned (albeit often at a pace slower than intended), unless I think it is clearly doing more harm than good (this ends up being maybe once or twice a year). That said, the extent to which an aborted session undermines an athlete psychologically depends largely on the extent to which it bothers an athlete to do so. I know some athletes who are devastated about not finishing a session (or, god forbid, dropping out of a race), and others who aren't fussed at all about it. My advice on this would not be to go so far as to see aborted workouts as "positive" in any way; but, I would agree that it is best to let it "roll of your back" when it does happen. It never helps to beat oneself up over mistakes; you try to learn, and you move on.
|
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Apr 15, 2010 14:58:37 GMT -5
Thanks pq, "decent masters runner", well now performing as a below average masters runner. Oldster, you definitely put things in perspective. Your masters athlete that came back to the sport and now running 16:20s on long/hard training, do you believe he could produce the same results on less volume. I ask this because in the Daniels book he describes hypertraining and for what I took from it was if your training is not producing results that one might be doing too much in the way of volume and quality. He also states that after a certain period of time if your training is not yielding faster race times and workouts less difficult then you are than likely doing too much for your level. I am not sure if I am paraphrasing properly but interested in yours thoughts. As far as goals I believe my goals were always attainable and never set unrealistic ones. When I was 39 ran 16:45 (still my PB) and ran 1:21:30 for half, now 42 ran 1:18:10 last Sept and can break 17:20. My goals at 39 were to be a decent masters runner trying to run 16:30 and 35min but never got there. Obviously there is numerous factors why I didn't achieve these goals but it is very discouraging when I can honestly say have put in the work. I mean running 70-80 miles per week and can't break 17 for 5km or 36 for 10km is pathetic. My running career started late (early 30s) but have played other sports at a very high level all my life, although not aerobic sports. apologize for the rambling and negative vibe, just nice to get feedback from others that have much greater knowledge than I, although if you want help with your golf game well I might know a thing or two
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Apr 15, 2010 18:50:30 GMT -5
Fair question, Oasis. But, actually, the guy in question is someone I've coached since he was 25; in fact, he was the first athlete I ever coached. He took a couple of years off running, but cycled pretty seriously, in his late 30s, but just never got back to anywhere near his old level. He looks pretty similar, is the same weight as he was as an open guy, but just has not been able to regain much of his old speed. And, we've now tried every conceivable approach, all the way from high volume and no workouts to low volume and more workouts; from emphasizing tempo pace, to working 1500m pace; and just about everything in between. He has even tried self-coaching, but has steadfastly remained a 16:20-40 guy, with a slightly slower equivalent 10k; and, again this is a guy with road P.B.s in the low 14 and sub 30 range (in fact, he has multiple sub 30s and 1:05:32 for HM). At 47, he still thinks he might squeak out a low or sub 16, but it's becoming a bit of a long shot now. Does he still enjoy running every day, and doing workouts a couple of times a week? Generally speaking, yes-- enough to do it pretty consistently, anyway. Right now, he makes himself useful working with my younger high school boys (a great way for masters athletes to keep it fun, BTW), and he plans to keep running and training as long as he's physically able. I'm certainly not suggesting that this applies to you; there are, after all, many reasons why runners at all ages don't realize their potential. In the case of masters athletes, however, there is always the possibility that age-graded loss has set in more rapidly than expected. Then again, age-graded decline can be very uneven; runners who lose a lot between, say, 38 and 42 sometimes level off until their mid to late 40s, and vice-versa-- all the more reason to do it simply for the love of the process (a difficult love, I'll be the first to admit).
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 15, 2010 19:35:09 GMT -5
...I was answering the question to the OP, who, if I understand, is a decent masters runner, not a "top runner," and someone who's admitted he has no real idea of appropriate effort from feedback he's getting from his body. I probably shouldn't keep sidetracking the thread with silly hair-splitting, but what the heck... The reason I brought up this point initially is precisely because I thought it would be a useful approach for the OP to aspire to. After all, the path to being a "top runner" lies, in part, in understanding what "top runners" do differently from everyone else. Part of the reason he's finding workouts so frustrating (I gather) is that the feedback he's getting from the watch is often disappointing. If he can learn to value 10x400 at the appropriate effort (rather than pace), as oldster suggests, then he's more likely to feel positive after workouts, as well as to train more productively. I understand that he's not good at judging effort right now -- that's why I think he should focus on it. It's not something you necessarily get better at if you don't make a conscious decision to develop that skill. By no means am I saying he should beat himself up when it goes wrong (that's never useful) -- just recognize that it was a sub-optimal outcome and try to learn from the experience. (e.g. now I know that if start feeling dizzy after three reps, I'm unlikely to make it to 10 reps unless I back off.)
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 15, 2010 20:04:27 GMT -5
(1) I probably shouldn't keep sidetracking the thread with silly hair-splitting, but what the heck... (2) recognize that it was a sub-optimal outcome and try to learn from the experience. (1) Then cut it out! Haha, this has the makings of an interesting discussion if everyone stays civil. (2) You and Steve are both looking at a shortened workout from a completely different perspective than me. I won't go so far as to tell you both wrong (even if it's possible that I think this to be the case), but let me try to better explain where I'm coming from to see if there's any common ground on this topic. On any given day, you will be capable of doing workouts at a certain effort. On most days when you're fresh and rested, and te weather is good, assuming good health, adequate sleep, proper diet, no undue stress in your life, if you are race fit, or hav at least been training consistently, you should have a really good idea of what kind of times you can hit for any number of possible workouts, simply from past experience. So most days, provided you've got some experience, you should be able to get through your hard workouts exactly as planned, or maybe, assuming you are improving (which is of course the whole evil plan to begin with) you surprise yourself with a better than expected performance. However, some days, one or more of those factors will conspire against you, and the pre-planned pace becomes a different, harder, effort. When this happens, you've got maybe three choices you can make. If you notice soon enough, you can make the correction and adjust the effort to be able to finish as planned, but with slower times. If you don't notice soon enough, then you can quit early, before you dig too deep. Or, you can decide to do whatever it takes to finish the workout as planned. In the first case, assuming you're in tune with your body, you've likely achieved the exact purpose of the session. The only downside is the times were slower, so if that kind of thing bothers you, well, it bothers you. In the second case, you haven't achieved the exact purpose of the session, but you've accomplished something similar. So instead of running, say, 5-6 x 1k @ 5k pace, instead you've completed something more like 4-5 x 1k at 3k "effort." Again, you've got the same psychological issue of "failure" if you're a glass half full kinda guy. But you've still completed something very much like what was planned. Not exactly the same, but close. And in the long haul, the difference between what you've done and what was planned will (IMHO) make little or no difference to your development. In the final case, if you work past the point of smart training into a race-like effort, well, then this is probably OK to do on occasion, but if it's a habit it's bad for your development. And is likely coincident with poor aerobic development and underperformance at longer distances (because this kind of thing works against developing aerobic fitness). I mentioned I likely bail from 8-12 sessions in a year. That's roughly one in ten, so something unexpected affects a session maybe 10% of the time. I think that's pretty good, actually. I suppose I could get worked up about those sessions and spend a lot of time navel-gazing, soul-searching, and looking for reasons why I'd failed. But I prefer to simply accept that it's not always my day, and move on, understanding that I've done as much good work as I could. Since the question was raised by a masters guy, I could point out that arguably the most successful north American masters distance guy at a range of distances (Pete Magill - google his website) doesn't time any of his hard workouts. They are all structured like normal workouts, but he runs them by effort, and stops when he realizes he's finished. I think there's a lot to be said for that example, not the least of which is his obvious success following that approach.
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 15, 2010 20:36:05 GMT -5
I should add that maybe this is an important philosophical difference in training approach.
Most of my workouts are assigned with the implicit instruction (implicit because it's been said explicitly often enough over the years) that I am expected to finish the session with a certain amount of reserve left in the tank.
For example, I should finish a session of a dozen 400s on short rest knowing for certain that I could manage another couple if I was forced to. Not necessarily wanting to volunteer to do another couple, but knowing for sure I could.
Or in a set of 5 x 1000 on short rest, I should finish KNOWING I could do another at the same pace. Maybe not ENJOY doing another, but I could survive it, and wouldn't have to run it slower to finish.
A small numer of sessions are planned to dig deeper. For example, 5 x 1000 on longer rest at something like 3k pace, I would expect to finish pretty drained, unable to do another at the same pace.
But MOST hard workouts are intended to be finished feeling invigorated but fatigued, with a sense of accomplishment, but not exhausted. No knee grabbing, puking by the side of the track.
And this instruction overrides the primary session design. So if the plan was for 5-6 x 1k, but on the 4th I'm working exponentially harder to just barely finish at the same pace as the previous one, I know I can't do more than one more at the same pace, so I stop at 4. Unless I recognized it early enough to ease back on the pace to get through the session without slowing at the end.
So in fact it isn't really an aborted workout, since a part of the workout design carried the instruction to stop with one left in me.
So I guess what I'm driving at is that completing a workout having done enough hard work (and not more) is the main objective, and having that effort fit exactly within the predetermined workout framework is far less important.
IMHO
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 15, 2010 21:22:16 GMT -5
Yeah, Pete, I find it very interesting too, which is why I'm still splitting away at the hairs.
You wrote: "When this happens, you've got maybe three choices you can make. If you notice soon enough, you can make the correction and adjust the effort to be able to finish as planned, but with slower times. If you don't notice soon enough, then you can quit early, before you dig too deep. Or, you can decide to do whatever it takes to finish the workout as planned."
I agree that those are the three choices, and I agree with the order you've written them in. I guess all I'm saying is that I aim to take first choice as close to always as I can.
"So if the plan was for 5-6 x 1k, but on the 4th I'm working exponentially harder to just barely finish at the same pace as the previous one, I know I can't do more than one more at the same pace, so I stop at 4."
Again, I agree... It's just that I don't think that feeling of "working exponentially harder" on the fourth interval comes out of nowhere. If you're running the workout at a pace that's going to blow up for you in the fourth interval, and you haven't picked up warning signs in the second or third interval, I would argue that you're not listening carefully enough! In the same way, if you're 3K into a 10K race, you need to be able to answer the question: "Is this a pace I can sustain to the finish, taking into account how I feel today and all the other ancillary circumstances?"
"So instead of running, say, 5-6 x 1k @ 5k pace, instead you've completed something more like 4-5 x 1k at 3k 'effort.'"
Exactly. It's not the end of the world, and you've still got a good training stimulus out of it -- but it's not the workout you set out to do. And the reason it's not is that you've failed to notice the difference between 5K "effort" and 3K "effort" -- and that's going to be a potential problem when you go to actually race 5K. That's the crux of what I'm arguing here. I agree with everything you're saying about the hierarchy of desirable outcomes, the importance of not flogging yourself to death in a workout, the fact that an incomplete workout is a better stimulus than an overdone workout. All I'm saying is that learning to distinguish those paces and efforts, and to extrapolate your future capabilities from your current physiological feedback, is a pretty important part of racing, so it should also play a role in how you train.
|
|
|
Post by pq on Apr 15, 2010 21:30:39 GMT -5
OK then, I think we agree on everything, because I also believe learning proper pace judgement is a key part of the training process. But not the only one, and the best way to learn is by making mistakes every now and then. I fear I can offer you no more hairs to split.
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 15, 2010 21:34:56 GMT -5
Just to clarify one point about 5-6 x 1k @ 5k pace versus 4-5 x 1k at 3k "effort." I'm not at all concerned about the actual training value of the two workouts. Our knowledge of the physiology of training is imprecise enough that, in the long run, they're probably indistinguishable in their contribution to your fitness on race day. I'm just getting hung up (in a typical distance runner over-analytical way) about the process by which you get there. It doesn't matter which workout you do, but if you can't figure out after a couple of intervals which one you're on track for, then you might have room to improve on pace judgment.
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Apr 15, 2010 21:35:29 GMT -5
Ah, okay. I'll (regretfully) stop arguing!
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Apr 15, 2010 22:03:54 GMT -5
Oldster, although I agree with this assessment as a general term, I also think that it's a a relative thing. At one time an aborted sesssion from me meant failure. Not that things awry due to bad planning , but rather that we are sometimes at the whims of this thing called 'life. For egs a couple of weeks I showed for my tues night set of intervals (1000s which i had actually been looking forward to as i felt this would one of those sessions where i would take my training up a notch). But it had been after a very long day of work (stressful meeting with some parents, long day, o down time, straight from work to the track and even got there late), i was done.
I didn't realize it when i began, but after some very subpar effort 1000s i simply walked off the track part way thru #3. I ended up going for an easy run where i had those 'black spots' in my eyes as i ran. Like i said at one time I might have been mentally destroyed, but now it was just one of those days. I moved on and treated it as one of those days where someone somehwere is trying to tell you something. I ended up having a great rest of the week and simply ignored said bad session. I think it's just making the athlete see it that way, but then again I guess i already know the answer to these problems (simply get back on the horse) and have learned not to worry about.......it's part of the process....
"Re: the question of aborted session, if this happens, then clearly mistakes have been made. Either you shouldn't have started the session, or you should have matched pace and volume a little more accurately going in. I actually don't think part of a planned session is better than no session at all, unless the plan wasn't very good to begin with. I also think that, for most athletes, an aborted session feels like failure, and makes them feel less confident. I know that I make an effort to finish every session as planned (albeit often at a pace slower than intended), unless I think it is clearly doing more harm than good (this ends up being maybe once or twice a year). That said, the extent to which an aborted session undermines an athlete psychologically depends largely on the extent to which it bothers an athlete to do so. I know some athletes who are devastated about not finishing a session (or, god forbid, dropping out of a race), and others who aren't fussed at all about it. My advice on this would not be to go so far as to see aborted workouts as "positive" in any way; but, I would agree that it is best to let it "roll of your back" when it does happen. It never helps to beat oneself up over mistakes; you try to learn, and you move on. "
|
|
|
Post by pq on May 3, 2010 11:14:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by speedgoggles on May 3, 2010 11:34:28 GMT -5
Goodness me, what an embarrassment... he should probably just quit and stick to power walking... </sarcasm>
|
|
|
Post by lucky13 on May 3, 2010 19:35:59 GMT -5
;D I was waiting for someone to point that out.
|
|