> 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
[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
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
P.S. Great quote from "summer of malmo" (http://pih.bc.ca/
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