Training plan

Training plan

Post by Michell » Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:04:12


As I've mentioned, I want to take a break from running in races in order
to build up my weekly mileage to 30 miles.  Once I get there and can do
it comfortably for a while, then I'll want to start building it up
further.

So does anyone here want to devise a training plan for me to get me to
that 30 miles a week point?  Some considerations are that I don't want
to run more than four days a week; I don't think that I can handle more
than that at present.  And I don't want to run three days in a row;
again, I doubt that I can handle that.

There is a secondary goal of improving my pace, but I think that mileage
is the higher priority.

Any takers?  Or maybe a collaboration.

--
13.1  Because I can

 
 
 

Training plan

Post by ander » Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:00:40


Quote:
> Any takers? ?Or maybe a collaboration.

Aren't you the least bit worried that such a training plan would run a
considerable risk of being like the horse designed by committee?:-)

I would put it as the first priority for you to stop measuring and
counting miles. Start looking at you training sessions in hours and
nice simple fractions thereof.

My second priority would be to give you the maximum of hours at a very
low intensity. IMHO you should first get in good enough basic aerobic
endurance condition so that you will recover easily enough from your
running sessions. As things are in my view, in your present shape you
simply cannot run often, long or fast enough to benefit anywhere near
optimally result-wise from the effort you put in your training - and
OTOH you probably aren't really improving your basic endurance either,
because your running sessions veer towards the too hard.

Therefore I'd have you go to a good large sports store and buy a pair
of "Nordic Walking" poles (and an iPod-type player, if you don't own
one already). Two or three months of unlimited (compared to your
present running) hours of Nordic walking and no more than 5% of
running, to start with, could do wonders for you. Go short (<1 hr) and
do daily doubles and go long (2-3 hrs) 1-2 times per week, just do
lots of it with one day off each week.

Run 2-3 times per week at whatever pace feels unforced, but never more
than 20 minutes. You can run as a second daily session or finish a
short walking session with 10 min of running. You could once a week
alternatively do relaxed strides or very short uphill surges.

You should of course start slowly - especially since you are
recovering from your marathon - but IMHO there's nothing to stop you
from reaching 12 hours in 12 weeks. Not that you have to, but the
general idea is to accumulate hours and I believe you'll be surprised
by how many you can do. Should you feel tired, go short but don't put
the poles in a closet; remember you're putting money in the bank in
order to withdraw some when you'll be running more.

Obligatory disclaimer: I don't know more about you than your AG and
your posts in the "Training Week" thread.

Anders

 
 
 

Training plan

Post by tfacto » Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:13:02

Quote:


>> Any takers?  Or maybe a collaboration.

> Aren't you the least bit worried that such a training plan would run a
> considerable risk of being like the horse designed by committee?:-)

> I would put it as the first priority for you to stop measuring and
> counting miles. Start looking at you training sessions in hours and
> nice simple fractions thereof.

What he said.

If I remember correctly your training pace isn't that different,
proportionally, from your race paces. I couldn't run 30 miles a week
that close, proportionally, to race pace. So to add aerobic work it
might not be best for you to add more running. Adding walking or cycling
or the like instead that you can do at a lower intensity seems like the
best way to go, at least initially.

Another thing to consider that I think I've mentioned before is to go to
a longer training cycle - 10 days or 2 weeks, for example. Maybe focus
on increasing your longest run during that cycle and fill in around it
with lower intensity exercise as anders suggests. Something like a four
day mini-cycle of run, walk, run, rest with one of those runs a long run
every third cycle (e.g. 12 days) and the other runs close to your
current regular distance might work.

 
 
 

Training plan

Post by Tony S » Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:18:44


Quote:


>>> Any takers?  Or maybe a collaboration.

>> Aren't you the least bit worried that such a training plan would run
>> a
>> considerable risk of being like the horse designed by committee?:-)

>> I would put it as the first priority for you to stop measuring and
>> counting miles. Start looking at you training sessions in hours and
>> nice simple fractions thereof.

> What he said.

> If I remember correctly your training pace isn't that different,
> proportionally, from your race paces. I couldn't run 30 miles a week
> that close, proportionally, to race pace. So to add aerobic work it
> might not be best for you to add more running. Adding walking or
> cycling or the like instead that you can do at a lower intensity seems
> like the best way to go, at least initially.

I agree on pace. Doing something every day is important, with the
occasional complete day off. But one question I'd ask is why do you only
want to run 4 days a week?  30mpw is not insignificant for some
people -- I've managed just 50mpw when peaking, and normally I was
closer to 35-40mpw. 30mpw over 40 days is over 7 per run average. This
is kind of what I was doing this year due to recovery from injury; I
wanted to allow days off from running to closely monitor my knee. But it
really doesn't work so well to train like that, I've found.

It's much better to spread the training load. For example, like 4, 5, 4,
5, 4, 8, or 8, 3, 5, 3, 6, 3, 3 (yea I know that's 31). I also agree
with Anders that running by time is a great thing to try. I've done it
that way for years and doubt I'll change it. Measuring the course length
is bound to get you to measure your pace one way or another. Luckily for
me even if I know the distance it often doesn't matter if it's on rough
trails. Time and effort are key. For learning to gague your effort, you
might want to go back to a HRM, but you don't have to use it all the
time, just enough to train yourself to accurately feel your effort
level.

-Tony

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> Another thing to consider that I think I've mentioned before is to go
> to a longer training cycle - 10 days or 2 weeks, for example. Maybe
> focus on increasing your longest run during that cycle and fill in
> around it with lower intensity exercise as anders suggests. Something
> like a four day mini-cycle of run, walk, run, rest with one of those
> runs a long run every third cycle (e.g. 12 days) and the other runs
> close to your current regular distance might work.

 
 
 

Training plan

Post by Charlie Pendej » Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:31:36

anders:

Quote:
> Aren't you the least bit worried that such a training plan
> would run a considerable risk of being like the horse designed
> by committee?:-)

For that reason, I endorse the anders plan - which is in spirit
exactly what I can get behind.

A few notes just for emphasis / annoying pontification ala pendejo:

[a] Don't lose sight that these next few (?) weeks are about recovery
from your race and the weeks of training that led up to it.  Plenty of
walking, stretch if you do that already, don't be in a hurry to run
again.

[b] While I know that, like so many of us 21st century somewhat OCD
runners, your instincts are to put together The Plan, with nice shiny
firm-edged numbers representing schedules and miles and paces, it's
never ever optimal to follow a rigid plan.  Looser is better - have
general principles, directions you're heading more than actual
numbers, with regard to volume, frequency, types of workouts.

I've said this before and don't intend to beat the dead horse *too*
often, but I think (and so do lots of elites) it's really fundamental,
it's not just poking fun at our obsession with numbers and technology.

Let me put it this way, this time.  Suppose a runner has a written
plan.  Let's just look at weekly mileage though same principle applies
to other things like paces, amount of recovery between workouts, etc.
Say the plan calls for 20 miles this week, then 23, 25, 27, 23, 27,
30... or whatever, fill in your own numbers.

Three basic possibilities:

(1) Too aggressive, more than the runner's body can handle.  He gets
injured or overtrained.

(2) Too timid, runner is less than optimally trained.  Much much
better than the above, but still, if this runner were not concerned
with fairly optimal training, why'd he invest so much time & energy in
planning his training?

(3) Just right - miraculously the runner anticipated exactly the
progression his body could handle, accounting for not only his own
nonlinear rate of adaptation but also all the odd slings & arrows life
was gonna throw in his path the next several months: illness, weather,
stress, potholes, whatever just plain random and unexplained stuff.

I'm suggesting (3) never happens.  You want to get the most out of
your body, you've got to listen to _it_, not numbers.  The numbers
(performance in races) will follow.  Have faith.

[c] I 400% agree with anders and Tony - X miles on 3-4 runs is a *lot*
harder than X miles on 6-7 runs (or walks or run-walks).  I don't
think this is very controversial at all in most running circles.
wreck.running may give a slightly different picture with its emphasis
on ultrarunning - where long & very long runs are the overriding
necessity, which means rest days are the next component to fall in
line (for most), and that goes on to dictate training priorities and
rhythms.

Remove that constraint from your base building and the equation
changes radically.  Don't go so far or so hard today that you're worn
out and need total rest tomorrow: you'll do less today, but more this
week.

P.S. Great quote from "summer of malmo" (http://pih.bc.ca/
summerofmalmo.html):

Q: What should my heart rate be?

A: I don't have a clue. I'm trying to get you to "feel" Kung Fu, not
"think" it.

 
 
 

Training plan

Post by Michell » Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:05:06

In article


Quote:
> [a] Don't lose sight that these next few (?) weeks are about recovery
> from your race and the weeks of training that led up to it.  Plenty
> of walking, stretch if you do that already, don't be in a hurry to
> run again.

I haven't lost sight of that at all; I'm not planning to get up and
running right away.  And my having surgery next Tuesday would prevent me
from doing that anyway.  (I'm having a lipoma removed from my back; it's
minor surgery, but there's still a recovery period that I'll have to go
through.)

Quote:
> [b] While I know that, like so many of us 21st century somewhat OCD
> runners, your instincts are to put together The Plan, with nice shiny
> firm-edged numbers representing schedules and miles and paces, it's
> never ever optimal to follow a rigid plan.  Looser is better - have
> general principles, directions you're heading more than actual
> numbers, with regard to volume, frequency, types of workouts.

Despite the impression that my seeming obsession with numbers may
indicate, I don't rigidly follow a plan; I try to stay as close to it as
possible, but I think that I know when I need to veer from it when
necessary.

<snip>

Quote:
> I'm suggesting (3) never happens.  You want to get the most out of
> your body, you've got to listen to _it_, not numbers.  The numbers
> (performance in races) will follow.  Have faith.

Understood.  I actually do use the numbers as a guide, but when they
don't work for me, I do what my body tells me to do.  Remember when I
was doing the couch to 5K, and had to break up some weeks into smaller
increments?  Or last year, when I was training for my first HM, and I
had to resort to taking scheduled walk breaks during training runs for
two weeks?  Or even during training for this marathon when I took time
off for almost a week because I needed the rest?

Quote:
> [c] I 400% agree with anders and Tony - X miles on 3-4 runs is a
> *lot* harder than X miles on 6-7 runs (or walks or run-walks).  I
> don't think this is very controversial at all in most running
> circles. wreck.running may give a slightly different picture with its
> emphasis on ultrarunning - where long & very long runs are the
> overriding necessity, which means rest days are the next component to
> fall in line (for most), and that goes on to dictate training
> priorities and rhythms.

> Remove that constraint from your base building and the equation
> changes radically.

I put in that constraint because I don't think I can handle more than
four days a week or more than two consecutive days.  But I think I see
the point:  I may be able to do more days a week or more than two
consecutive days if each day is at a lower level of effort.

Thanks.

-- Michelle

--
13.1  Because I can

 
 
 

Training plan

Post by Michell » Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:09:00



Quote:
> I agree on pace. Doing something every day is important, with the
> occasional complete day off. But one question I'd ask is why do you
> only want to run 4 days a week?

Because, as I've mentioned, I don't think I could handle more than that.

Quote:
> 30mpw is not insignificant for some people

Believe it or not, I've actually been paying attention to Hurley as well
as to others.  I doubt that I'd ever get to the 60 or 70 miles per week
that he recommends, but his advocacy of increased base mileage does seem
to make sense.

Thanks for the rest of the info, too.

-- Michelle

--
13.1  Because I can

 
 
 

Training plan

Post by Tony S » Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:38:31


Quote:
> In article


>snip<

>> [c] I 400% agree with anders and Tony - X miles on 3-4 runs is a
>> *lot* harder than X miles on 6-7 runs (or walks or run-walks).  I
>> don't think this is very controversial at all in most running
>> circles. wreck.running may give a slightly different picture with its
>> emphasis on ultrarunning - where long & very long runs are the
>> overriding necessity, which means rest days are the next component to
>> fall in line (for most), and that goes on to dictate training
>> priorities and rhythms.

>> Remove that constraint from your base building and the equation
>> changes radically.

> I put in that constraint because I don't think I can handle more than
> four days a week or more than two consecutive days.  But I think I see
> the point:  I may be able to do more days a week or more than two
> consecutive days if each day is at a lower level of effort.

> Thanks.

> -- Michelle

I think you're missing the point here, which is: runs of shorter
duration are significantly easier to recover from than runs of longer
duration because there's less muscle damage and less general stress.
Also, your body adapts better when you get the daily stimulus from
shorter efforts. This is hard to quantify, but when I tried it last
year, more frequent runs left my legs feeling more flexible and supple
than when I did less frequent but longer efforts with a rest day in
between. The same thing holds even when you're active as in
cross-training on non-run days.

I reverted back to my old training style - longer efforts less
frequently - this year only because I felt it was easier to monitor my
recovering injury that way, but I was *not* happy with the results or
with how my runs felt. This was mostly due to low volume, but also,
having trained the same way in the past, it's also distinctly because of
the less frequent efforts.

-Tony

 
 
 

Training plan

Post by Michell » Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:34:41



Quote:
> > I put in that constraint because I don't think I can handle more
> > than four days a week or more than two consecutive days.  But I
> > think I see the point:  I may be able to do more days a week or
> > more than two consecutive days if each day is at a lower level of
> > effort.

> > Thanks.

> > -- Michelle

> I think you're missing the point here, which is: runs of shorter
> duration are significantly easier to recover from than runs of longer
> duration because there's less muscle damage and less general stress.

Well, doesn't lower level of effort include shorter duration as one of
its possible variables?

Six days of three miles each might be doable where six days of five
miles each probably won't, to use a hypothetical example.  And six days
of three miles each would allow me to recover more easily than three
days of six miles each, right?

Or am I really missing the point?

-- Michelle

--
13.1  Because I can

 
 
 

Training plan

Post by Tony S » Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:50:03


Quote:


>> > I put in that constraint because I don't think I can handle more
>> > than four days a week or more than two consecutive days.  But I
>> > think I see the point:  I may be able to do more days a week or
>> > more than two consecutive days if each day is at a lower level of
>> > effort.

>> > Thanks.

>> > -- Michelle

>> I think you're missing the point here, which is: runs of shorter
>> duration are significantly easier to recover from than runs of longer
>> duration because there's less muscle damage and less general stress.

> Well, doesn't lower level of effort include shorter duration as one of
> its possible variables?

> Six days of three miles each might be doable where six days of five
> miles each probably won't, to use a hypothetical example.  And six
> days
> of three miles each would allow me to recover more easily than three
> days of six miles each, right?

> Or am I really missing the point?

> -- Michelle

Well you said lower level of effort. And you said you couldn't handle
more than 2 consecutive days or 4 days per week max. The point I'm
making is you can run at the same intensity, just a shorter duration,
and recover faster to more easily run the next day. But you do want to
mix up the duration a bit day to day. When discussing doubles here in
the past, I remember there was some consensus that anything less than 30
minutes probably was cutting the duration down too short to have much
training effect. OTOH, if building up to a plan that has 3 days of 30-40
mins as shorter runs, I see nothing wrong with starting at 15 mins for
those, with some additional walking or something, and then building
those up over time to 30-40 mins.

-Tony

 
 
 

Training plan

Post by Michell » Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:12:40



Quote:
> Well you said lower level of effort.

Lower level of effort could mean a slower pace or a shorter run.  I
didn't run four days a week until I started training for my first HM.  
That training plan called for that number of runs, plus a day of cross
training.  I found that those five days were too much for me; I needed
three days of rest each week, so I cut out the cross training.  Also,
the plan had me running three consecutive days a week, and that was also
too much, so I moved the third day so that my running was on Tues, Wed,
Fri, and Sunday (long run).  For Nike, things got shifted a bit, so it
was Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Saturday (long run).

Quote:
> OTOH, if building up to a plan that has 3 days of 30-40 mins as
> shorter runs, I see nothing wrong with starting at 15 mins for those,
> with some additional walking or something, and then building those up
> over time to 30-40 mins.

*nod*

-- Michelle

--
13.1  Because I can

 
 
 

Training plan

Post by dizz » Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:57:20

Quote:

>As I've mentioned, I want to take a break from running in races in order
>to build up my weekly mileage to 30 miles.  Once I get there and can do
>it comfortably for a while, then I'll want to start building it up
>further.

>So does anyone here want to devise a training plan for me to get me to
>that 30 miles a week point?  Some considerations are that I don't want
>to run more than four days a week; I don't think that I can handle more
>than that at present.  And I don't want to run three days in a row;
>again, I doubt that I can handle that.

You really want to do 4 two-hour runs per week?  That's a lot for a
women your age.  What's the point?
 
 
 

Training plan

Post by Michell » Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:25:50


Quote:

> You really want to do 4 two-hour runs per week?

Not necessarily; one run can be longer than the other three.  I
definitely want to work up to it, though, and not start all at once.

Quote:
> That's a lot for a women your age.  What's the point?

I want to build up my mileage base, and experience has shown that I
can't do more than four days a week, at least not yet.  Nor can I do
more than two days in a row.

--
13.1  Because I can

 
 
 

Training plan

Post by ander » Fri, 24 Oct 2008 21:31:20


Quote:
> I want to build up my mileage base, and experience has shown that I
> can't do more than four days a week, at least not yet. ?Nor can I do
> more than two days in a row.

It's generally a good thing to know what one cannot do as well as what
one can do, but in this particular instance you must either really
hate my training ideas at gut level or you've stared yourself blind
looking at what you cannot do.

Do you really object to or fail to comprehend the notion that it can
sometimes be better or even necessary to do *more* (but easier) in
order to be able to do *less* (but harder) in due course?  Or do you
firmly believe that running (at, in your present case, a relatively
high and narrow HR range) is the only possible way for everyone to
train for any running goal?

Pardon the lame quip, but IMHO you gotta learn to walk before you can
run.

Frequency and volume can sometimes trump quality and intensity.

If you want to build a tower of power,  you first have to lay a
foundation.

You've come a long way, baby, with the kind of training you've done so
far - but as slick investment advisors use to point out in at least
small print, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Give it a try and let your running buddies think you've lost it:-)

Anders

 
 
 

Training plan

Post by Michell » Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:08:23

In article

Quote:

> > I want to build up my mileage base, and experience has shown that I
> > can't do more than four days a week, at least not yet. ?Nor can I
> > do more than two days in a row.

> It's generally a good thing to know what one cannot do as well as
> what one can do, but in this particular instance you must either
> really hate my training ideas at gut level or you've stared yourself
> blind looking at what you cannot do.

Note that I wrote "at least not yet".  I am open to the idea that I may
eventually be able to handle it later.

Quote:
> Do you really object to or fail to comprehend the notion that it can
> sometimes be better or even necessary to do *more* (but easier) in
> order to be able to do *less* (but harder) in due course?

Again, I call your attention to "not yet".

Quote:
> Or do you firmly believe that running (at, in your present case, a
> relatively high and narrow HR range) is the only possible way for
> everyone to train for any running goal?

I'm not writing about everyone; only about myself.

Quote:
> Give it a try and let your running buddies think you've lost it:-)

Well, on that score, I don't have any running buddies.  Except for the
Team in Training group runs, I've run alone for almost the entire time
I've been running.  And now that we've done the marathon, that TnT
training group has disbanded.

--
13.1  Because I can