Recommended reading for racers
aeiouy
the other day and damn I wish I had read this book several years ago. I'm
only about a third of the way into it and can already highly recommend it to
anybody interested in improving their race times. I feel badly for all
those days/miles in my past that could have been done much more efficiently.
With Christmas right around the corner if you know somebody who runs or
somebody asks you what you would like, I'd place this high on the list.
Published in 2003 so should still be pretty current. And no I am not in any
way, shape or form profiting from this post (I wish)
D Stumpus
:-)
I'll try to chase the book down, he certainly has some serious 'cred.
John Hurley
snip
What are you going to do specifically to make yourself a better runner
after reading the book?
Charlie Pendejo
> What's he say about jogging the course after the race?
Pretty sure he often declined to, especially the time after Falmouth
where he was read his last rites, or the "Duel in the Sun" with
Beardsley in Boston, where he had to be given 6 liters (!!) of IV
fluids after his finish-line collapse.
D Stumpus
"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie...@gmail.com> wrote
...
I think I will pick and choose what advice to follow as I read ...
aeiouy
"D Stumpus" <dstumpu...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:hec7t9$vi0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> What's he say about jogging the course after the race?
>
> :-)
>
> I'll try to chase the book down, he certainly has some serious 'cred.
addendum. A number of runners here might find this book a little basic.
Now that I've gotten into the nutrition, cross-training and injury chapters
they were that way for me but it's still a good read so far.
aeiouy
"John Hurley" <johnb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:17875653-077c-43ac...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
snip
Speed work for one! I've avoided it due to bad experiences in the past and
figured I could/would get better by logging more miles. Which is true to a
certain extent but now I know just grinding out more miles and increasing
your base for a race in a month or two is inefficient After a post a while
back saying speedwork scared me I got some good advice and have tried to
incorporate it into my workouts. I've read enough about running to know
what 4x400 meter repeats are but he goes into a bit more detail about what
the differences are between short (up to 400 meters) medium (600-800) long
(1,000+) and tempo runs and what each type of workout accomplishes.
From the book: "Different running paces accomplish different forms of
training. Paces that are faster than necessary for one goal but not fast
enough for another are dead zones. That doesn't mean you're accomplishing
nothing by running at these paces., merely that you're working harder than
you need to, without added benefit. Spend you energy more wisely." I
suspect a fair percentage of my training was in the those dead zones.
One other little tidbit I came across about heel striking. Everybody knows
to avoid it due to the braking effect but another reason is so that your
foot is in position to push off sooner. Sounds obvious but until I read it
I never thought about that aspect.
Edward Edmonds
> One other little tidbit I came across about heel striking. Everybody knows
> to avoid it due to the braking effect but another reason is so that your
> foot is in position to push off sooner. Sounds obvious but until I read it
> I never thought about that aspect.
+1
The springiness of forefoot running generates a lot of "free" (or maybe
I should say contains a lot of "potential energy") power once you've
developed the support muscles, it's a lot more efficient to move faster.
Despite that, there can still be a breaking action with forefoot
running if your toes are pointed down. Your toes will have more
tendency to point down on touch down especially if your over-striding.
John Hurley
snip
> > What are you going to do specifically to make yourself a better runner
> > after reading the book?
>
> Speed work for one! I've avoided it due to bad experiences in the past and
> figured I could/would get better by logging more miles. Which is true to a
> certain extent but now I know just grinding out more miles and increasing
> your base for a race in a month or two is inefficient After a post a while
> back saying speedwork scared me I got some good advice and have tried to
> incorporate it into my workouts. I've read enough about running to know
> what 4x400 meter repeats are but he goes into a bit more detail about what
> the differences are between short (up to 400 meters) medium (600-800) long
> (1,000+) and tempo runs and what each type of workout accomplishes.
Lots of people with lots of different feelings about speedwork.
I for one am not much of a believer in short intervals for people
racing events like 5k's and up. I do believe that long distance
runners can get a lot from longer intervals ( specifically mile/1600
repeats ) and I guess for slower runners 800 repeats.
The ladder concept is ok to include a 400 I guess ... something like
1x400 1x800 2x1600 1x800 1x400 ... but everyone feels differently.
Doug Freese
On Nov 24, 4:08 am, "aeiouy" <aei...@vowels.com> wrote:
>The ladder concept is ok to include a 400 I guess ... something like
>1x400 1x800 2x1600 1x800 1x400 ... but everyone feels differently.
Back in the day, I was a big ladder fan. They worked for me for 5k to
the marathon. I would do something similar as but I would work up to all
of them 2x. Ladders are something that takes some time to get used to
running. It's not a workout that you start off with. Lean to pace each
each of distances before you construct the ladder.
The first set of 400's and the last set of 400's should be run at the
same pace. Same for the 800's. If coming back down is slower you have
defeated the workout.
-D
anders
> Back in the day, I was a big ladder fan. They worked for me for 5k to
> the marathon. I would do something similar as but I would work up to all
> of them 2x. Ladders are something that takes some time to get used to
> running. It's not a workout that you start off with. Lean to pace each
> each of distances before you construct the ladder.
I don't mean to be rude - and I'm cutting deep into my own flesh, too
- but how can you say that something worked for you in the marathon?
You never broke the blasted three-hour mark! If doing this rather than
that made you slightly less unsuccessful, it is still a pretty long
way from being something that brought out your potential for the day.
i.e. worked for you.
IMHO *all* interval sessions are something that you need to learn and
get used to run. Ladders might in fact be easier for novices who, as a
rule, tend to start out too fast when they do a "normal" interval
session. When they know that the 400 (for instance) is to be run no
faster than the 1600, they should have less fear and more control.
BTW what is the difference between ladders and a pyramid session - or
is there any?
> The first set of 400's and the last set of 400's should be run at the
> same pace. Same for the 800's. If coming back down is slower you have
> defeated the workout.
Now you got me thinking. The ladders I am familiar with are
constructed so that the distances vary (and the recovery jog may vary,
too), but the pace remains the same. Were yours different - or did I
just infer too much?
Anders
Dot
>> What are you going to do specifically to make yourself a better runner
>> after reading the book?
>
> Speed work for one! I've avoided it due to bad experiences in the past and
> figured I could/would get better by logging more miles. Which is true to a
> certain extent but now I know just grinding out more miles and increasing
> your base for a race in a month or two is inefficient After a post a while
> back saying speedwork scared me I got some good advice and have tried to
> incorporate it into my workouts. I've read enough about running to know
> what 4x400 meter repeats are but he goes into a bit more detail about what
> the differences are between short (up to 400 meters) medium (600-800) long
> (1,000+) and tempo runs and what each type of workout accomplishes.
>
> From the book: "Different running paces accomplish different forms of
> training. Paces that are faster than necessary for one goal but not fast
> enough for another are dead zones. That doesn't mean you're accomplishing
> nothing by running at these paces., merely that you're working harder than
> you need to, without added benefit. Spend you energy more wisely." I
> suspect a fair percentage of my training was in the those dead zones.
>
Does he go into the really short stuff - like 10-20sec? Just curious,
not for any particular reason.
When you read other books, you'll find other approaches also. Eventually
a few common denominators about adaptations show through, and the rest
may be just various authors methods of training. One author's dead zone
may be another author's sweet spot or it might be dependent on race
duration. A lot of my training tends to be in JD's no-man's land, but is
right where Friel suggests it should be.
Many traditional authors focus on cardio, while an occasional one hits
more on neuromuscular effects. At least of the ones I've read, more seem
to hit on cardio than neuromuscular.
I really like Healthy Intelligent Training (Lydiard interpreted so to
speak).
Dot
Edward Edmonds
I do these things I like to call "progression style repetitions",
basically what I'll do is warm-up into a comfortable pace, then over
about a quarter mile I will accelerate to almost full speed but the
acceleration is very controlled. Once I feel like if I went any faster
or further I'd go over the top then I float till I'm back at a jogging
pace and jog usually incredibly slow till my heart rate feels normal
then I pick up the pace to a normal pace and then repeat this usually
for about an hour, if after the hour of doing this I feel dead then that
means I either a) did too many reps or b) didn't allow enough recovery
or c) drank too much the night before (just kidding).
Just to give an idea of exactly what I'm doing I'll specify some paces
and specifics of the routine.
So usually I do this in the morning (in the middle of an aerobic only
week [I've done this in the middle of a high quality week, but I think
it was pointless]) when the roads and sidewalks are clear, I always do
these on the roads so I don't trip over any trees or deer antlers.
So I'll warm up usually, I just work into about an 8:30 pace over a mile
with exaggerated form, you know just basically travel more up and down
then forward, I do this to loosen my feet up because being a forefoot
runner I find that if I don't do that my forefoot hits the ground a bit
stiff instead of being springy and absorbing. I've also before I've
left the house just jumped up and down almost like your jumping rope,
but without the rope, either way the point is you want to loosen
everything up so that everything is flowing smoothly.
Once I feel good and warm I'll hop into about a 7'ish pace and make sure
my form is good, think of this as a "pre-flight" check, once I feel good
and confident that it's completely within my ability to complete the
workout, I drop to about 6:30'ish and then hammer it with very
controlled acceleration down to about 3:40'ish or faster, at about the
point where I feel like I'm about to be out of breath I float and then
jog till my heart rate feels normal and even then I jog a bit more to
get that "psychological recovery". The hammering portion at this point
just so happens to be about 400m or a quarter mile, but that's something
that I've worked up to over the past 2 years and as I've refined this
workout.
The important thing to remember about this workout is that when you
begin to hammer it, you don't floor it, you accelerate; if you get to
the end of a quarter mile and you feel like if you tried to go faster
you can't, then that means you floored it to top speed and cruised at
top speed, the idea of this workout is to teach you what different
efforts feel like, how your foot fall changes with increased speed and
what you have left in the tank, so that during race day when the going
gets tough, you'll know by how you feel if and when you can hammer it
with certainty instead of guessing and at the same time know if you have
the gas to surge.
The other thing is this, you want to stagger the times you run the reps,
so if you do one of 6:30 to 3:40, then the next one you're going to be a
lot more loosened up, so the something like 6:30 to 3:30 will be
possible or faster, just when you feel like you can knock a faster one
off, don't, do a slower one and bring the starting and ending times
closer together so like, 6:40 to 4:40, then a fast one, then a slow one,
the key is to vary the starting times and ending times so that you can
get used to feeling what different rates of acceleration feel like over
a distance so you can judge your pace and learn to run smarter and
within your abilities, you don't want to bring the starting times and
ending times to close together once you do that then you mind as well
run intervals or something like that.
The other thing is that the starting pace should be something you work
into after you've completed the first recovery, don't try to get to a
specific pace before you start get into a pace that's comfortable and
then go, the idea for this is to be very polarized. Also ideally you
never want to hit your top speed, you want to come close but you don't
want to go that far into oxygen debt, top speeds will vary from person
to person but as soon as you feel like it's going to require you to push
it to continue then float and recover whether it's before or after 400m,
I've worked up to being able to do these for an hour doing quarter miles
over two years, I think I started out at like less than half that.
And now for the disclaimer, personally this type of workout for me has
done a lot to lower my cruising aerobic speeds, the thing is though when
you first start doing these the muscles to go fast are going to develop
a lot faster then your ability to feel comfortable going that fast for
any significant period of time, that's something you have to learn to
adjust to and get comfortable with, the thing is though even though the
next day you might feel some added strength to go faster, don't do it,
your legs will want to baby, but you'll end up ruining your workout
because you'll notice that's it's hard to slow down, so I suggest doing
these in the middle of an easy aerobic week, were this is the only
quality session. The next day either you'll be sore, or you'll find it
hard to slow down, so the day after the easy aerobic workout might be
miserable because you'll want to go fast but you'll have to discipline
yourself not to, I know for me that was hard.
Anyway, that's what I do for speed work at this point besides hills and
10 second alactic sprints, of course at the same time I've only been
running close to 2 years so really any high quality work I do is going
to show progress, however, this is something I designed for myself and
works for me. I haven't done any track work, that's not scheduled till
around February so I can't compare it to that, but I will say this
though, I think this type of workout will teach you how to run fast and
drop your aerobic paces, whereas track work is going to train your
anaerobic systems to deal with oxygen debt. At this point I for one
would rather run fast with plenty of oxygen to go around then run in
debt. The anaerobic track work is something very specialized just for
developing your anaerobic systems and specific to the racing
environment, you might notice some increased speeds, but in all reality
your really training yourself to handle oxygen debt verses going faster.
The faster you can run aerobically the easier it will be for you to
perform on race day and then if need be you can tap into the anaerobic
crack juice.
Later gators,
E**2
Doug Freese
"anders" <hop....@suomi24.fi> wrote in message
news:74f7eba0-bf79-4988...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 11:56 pm, "Doug Freese" <dfre...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>I don't mean to be rude - and I'm cutting deep into my own flesh, too
- but how can you say that something worked for you in the marathon?
You never broke the blasted three-hour mark! If doing this rather than
that made you slightly less unsuccessful, it is still a pretty long
way from being something that brought out your potential for the day.
i.e. worked for you.>
No disrespect taken but to throw the arrow back who says that three
hours is the magic line between success and whatever. Sounds a little
snooty.;) When I was doing marathons I was raising two kids and working
55-60 hours a week. For years the best I could averge was 47-50 miles a
week or I would be requesting you to help with child supoport.
In effect my time was very limited so I had to resort to quality and
very limited quantity. For me running 3:0n and completing 10
Bostons(plus a dozen or so more) fulfilled my marathon needs and kept
my family in harmony. I knew, or highly suspected, that if I could get
miles miles up to 60-70 I would have a better chance to break three.
Good, bad whatever, I did not give a rats ass about breaking three
hours. We all have different motivatons.
Potential is defined by each of us. Maybe if I ran 150 miles a week I
could have run 2:40. Potential has all the demension of a fart in a
whirlwind.
> IMHO *all* interval sessions are something that you need to learn and
get used to run. Ladders might in fact be easier for novices who, as a
rule, tend to start out too fast when they do a "normal" interval
session. When they know that the 400 (for instance) is to be run no
faster than the 1600, they should have less fear and more control.>
I all depends on how you do them, They can be easy or SOBs. If you are
suggesting they have some built in speed and rest cycles, far from true.
These have tremendous variablilty
> BTW what is the difference between ladders and a pyramid session - or
> is there any?
Only in the name as far as I can tell.
> Now you got me thinking. The ladders I am familiar with are
constructed so that the distances vary (and the recovery jog may vary,
too), but the pace remains the same. Were yours different - or did I
just infer too much?>
Yes different and no the distances are not all run the same. I did 400's
as if the the entire workout was 400's roughly 1:25's. I did the 800's
the same way about 3:00 and the miles about 2:55-3:00.I don't have time
to go into the rest but it was minimal. My versions were not easy.
I guess one could do all the distances at the same pace but i would NOT
have found that a reasonable interval workout.
I"m off for a week, so If you want to continue this it will have to
wait.
-D
John Hurley
snip
> > Back in the day, I was a big ladder fan. They worked for me for 5k to
> > the marathon. I would do something similar as but I would work up to all
> > of them 2x. Ladders are something that takes some time to get used to
> > running. It's not a workout that you start off with. Lean to pace each
> > each of distances before you construct the ladder.
>
> I don't mean to be rude - and I'm cutting deep into my own flesh, too
> - but how can you say that something worked for you in the marathon?
> You never broke the blasted three-hour mark! If doing this rather than
> that made you slightly less unsuccessful, it is still a pretty long
> way from being something that brought out your potential for the day.
> i.e. worked for you.
I think Doug started later than many of us do.
Not that it is ever easy to go sub 3 but when you are working to get
there in your 20's and 30's it is ( for some ) a more achievable
target than the people that start running later.
I believe Doug went into low 20's and maybe below 20 for 5k so that's
pretty dang decent for someone starting running later.
jobs
IIRC, he has run a sub-6:00 5K, so that would be 18:3x.
anders
> I think Doug started later than many of us do.
Many of us started on or around their 40th birthday. What we started
with was largely a result of the genes we were born with, the athletic
training we had or didn't have in our developing childhood and youth,
and the life we led until our rebirth as runners. We are all
different, but we are more alike than different.
> Not that it is ever easy to go sub 3 but when you are working to get
> there in your 20's and 30's it is ( for some ) a more achievable
> target than the people that start running later.
IMHO contrary to popular belief, it is eminently possible to achieve
that target also when you are not gifted above average, you are not
doing more than 50 mpw, have a life and a family and did not start
until were 42. A sub-three will no doubt come more easily for some
than for others, but if you keep at it and you don't succeed, you are
either extremely unlucky (and have a sizeable collection of close
cigars to show for your efforts), genuinely physiologically
handicapped (due to the above factors) or you've been doing something
wrong all the time.
> I believe Doug went into low 20's and maybe below 20 for 5k so that's
> pretty dang decent for someone starting running later.
I'm pretty sure Doug was faster than that - and he must've done a
string of sub-39 for 10K.
I have nothing against late starters who don't break 20 minutes.
Running is not about one thing only, but if you are really going for
it and you don't succeed, chances are that you weren't training as
well (within the constraints of your life) as you could have. And if
you are sure that you were doing what really worked for you, chances
are that you were too fond of doing that thing (because it somehow
suited you), that you were blissfully ignorant of other ways to train
- or that you are not a stranger to grabbing a handy excuse:-)
Anders
PS my point was not to rip into or have a go at Doug's credentials -
his laurels as a runner are unpeccable, for one thing - but to prod
him gently (into giving a longer and more rounded reply than he
usually does). (And perhaps to down a stiff one in one gulp together
and stare at the bottom of our glasses for a moment...)
PPS while Doug is having (presumably) quality time, I would appreciate
any replies on the subject of various kinds of ladders. Links to
examples will also be greatly appreciated.
John Hurley
snip
> > I think Doug started later than many of us do.
>
> Many of us started on or around their 40th birthday. What we started
> with was largely a result of the genes we were born with, the athletic
> training we had or didn't have in our developing childhood and youth,
> and the life we led until our rebirth as runners. We are all
> different, but we are more alike than different.
>
> > Not that it is ever easy to go sub 3 but when you are working to get
> > there in your 20's and 30's it is ( for some ) a more achievable
> > target than the people that start running later.
>
> IMHO contrary to popular belief, it is eminently possible to achieve
> that target also when you are not gifted above average, you are not
> doing more than 50 mpw, have a life and a family and did not start
> until were 42. A sub-three will no doubt come more easily for some
> than for others, but if you keep at it and you don't succeed, you are
> either extremely unlucky (and have a sizeable collection of close
> cigars to show for your efforts), genuinely physiologically
> handicapped (due to the above factors) or you've been doing something
> wrong all the time.
I think you are dead wrong here in your assertions. It is a rare
runner who starts after 40 and goes sub 3 or at least far from
typical.
To imply that those people who do not achieve that are doing something
wrong seems just bizarre to me.
Just having a few specific cases of people that did achieve it is not
a strong argument that everyone "should be able to ...".
Dot
>
> PPS while Doug is having (presumably) quality time, I would appreciate
> any replies on the subject of various kinds of ladders. Links to
> examples will also be greatly appreciated.
McMillan in Beck's Run Strong (p. 34) uses 400, 300, 200, 300, 400. He
doesn't give specific recoveries for the ladder, but for repeats uses
recoveries 2-3 times the work portion time. For 30-45 sec repeats, use
60-90 sec recoveries. For 45-90 sec repeats, use 3 times as long.
Hudson uses ladders quite a bit as a way of keeping a little bit of each
type of training in a runner's schedule each week. (p. 86-88 in his book)
"Ladder workouts are workouts featuring a series of intervals arranged
in order of ascending distance and decreasing pace, or descending
distance and increasing pace, or both. Ladder workouts represent an
effective way to integrate speed training with specific-endurance
training. One of my preferred ladder workouts consists of time-based
intervals arranged as follows: 6min, 5min, 4min, 3min, 2min, and 1 min
with 1 min of 'active recovery' jogging at a very slow pace between
intervals. The first interval is run at roughly 10k pace. Each
subsequent interval is run at a pace slightly faster than that of the
last, with the final 1-minute interval run at roughly 1,500m pace. This
is a good workout for the early part of the fundamental period, when
your specific-endurance training need not yet be terribly specific.
"Shorter, faster ladder workouts may be used to provide a periodic dose
of speed training throughout the fundamental period. for example, run
intervals of 1 min, 2 min, 3 min, 2 min, 1min, 2 min, and 3 min at 1500m
to 5k pace with active recoveries of equal duration following each
interval. Run the shortest intervals fastest and the longest intervals
slowest."
Most people here would probably do it as specified. Us slower ones might
need to use something like 1k to 3k pace to get the desired stress. And
Ryan Hall might use 3k to 10k paces. Hudson is sometimes a little
confusing because much of his stuff is pace-based. JD ties his paces to
cardio benefits while Hudson is looking more at neuromuscular benefits -
at least that's my interpretation.
What Hudson likes about ladders, Salazar apparently dislikes
http://tinyurl.com/y99xwds
(What's that I said about read enough authors, and you find some
commonalities in the science, but different approaches to using them)
Here's other variations (courtesy of google):
http://www.runningplanet.com/training/interval-training-101.html
http://www.ktccca.org/coachingtips/Training_Programs_800_Meters-Johnny_Gray.doc
http://www.uscaa.org/bahClubs/track/bahtfWorkouts.html
Only because you asked - I apparently do them backwards compared to many
- do the fast ones first, then slower, then fast and I may do 2 reps on
each step, but only use a couple steps (it takes awhile for slowpokes).
Now maybe that's why I haven't gone sub-3 in a marathon - aside from the
fact I've never run one - and lots of other reasons.;) Seriously, in
much of my training, I find going for the neuromuscular / strength
aspects before endurance / stamina works better for *me*. I seem to need
to get my legs moving on short, quick stuff before I do the longer
stuff. But I also find that most ladders are shorter time intervals than
what I use. (I'll use 10-60sec stuff, but not in ladders.) Can I give
you any numbers to support or refute - no, because I tend to vary the
"speed" or "flat, fast" (loose use of terms) workout day enough,
depending on weather, what my goals that day are, and my recovery, that
there's no definitive results. "Speed" day is lowest priority of any of
my key workouts with hills of several flavors and agility having greater
priority. I do what I can.
Dot
anders
> I think you are dead wrong here in your assertions. It is a rare
> runner who starts after 40 and goes sub 3 or at least far from
> typical.
Numbers prove nothing. Fifty million Elvis fans can be wrong.
> To imply that those people who do not achieve that are doing something
> wrong seems just bizarre to me.
Why? Is it your impression that people generally tend do the right
things and manage to avoid the wrong things in their pursuits?
> Just having a few specific cases of people that did achieve it is not
> a strong argument that everyone "should be able to ...".
I don't think that's quite the way I put it, but never mind: among the
many healthy runners who didn't start until their late 30s or early
40s and "seriously train for a serious marathon" there are far more
people who go about it in a too haphazard way to succeed, people who
unwittingly prioritize other things in their running and people who
cannot honestly say that something worked for them than there are
people who are doomed to remain too slow to run a sub-three marathon.
Anders
steve common
>PPS while Doug is having (presumably) quality time, I would appreciate
>any replies on the subject of various kinds of ladders. Links to
>examples will also be greatly appreciated.
IIRC I did 1000m, 2000m, 3000m, 2000m, 1000m or similar when training for
my last sub-three in Paris 2007.
I know, I was 48yo and 4kg above "normal" race weight due to alcohol
abuse, started running at 40yo, didn't follow "US running Gods" style
training plans (prefering a French-naturlised Ruskie woman's schedule,
including adaptions for PMS and boob ache :-P ) and did 2:55 in my 4th
marathon, so I probably don't count ;-)
I'll look up training week posts and see if it was that - I think I was
"inspired" into it (out of any schedule I think) by the "Hadd test"
sessions I had fully adopted by that time.
Doug Freese
On Nov 25, 1:53 am, anders <hop.al...@suomi24.fi> wrote:
> I think Doug started later than many of us do.
Started at age 39 years, 9 months and 38+ inch waist and 205 lbs. I
had always hated to run and the little running that went with high
school baselball was close to zero. First thon age 41 3:33, second
and BQ 3:09:56.
> Not that it is ever easy to go sub 3 but when you are working to get
there in your 20's and 30's it is ( for some ) a more achievable
target than the people that start running later.>
How true.
> I believe Doug went into low 20's and maybe below 20 for 5k so that's
pretty dang decent for someone starting running later.?
18:32 - first and only sub 6 pace 5k. Yes the course was legit. Did not
do another 5k for many years too much work. 38:3n for 10k and 60:03 for
15k(stockade run). 4:21 road 50k 4:54 trail. 8:18 50 mile and 20:53 for
100. I won't count the 100k cuz I've only done one. That's my laundry
list. Now I count getting to the finish line before the hook.
-D
Doug Freese
On Nov 25, 2:56 pm, John Hurley <johnbhur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> IMHO contrary to popular belief, it is eminently possible to achieve
that target also when you are not gifted above average, you are not
doing more than 50 mpw, have a life and a family and did not start
until were 42. >
"eminently possible?" : to a high degree : very <eminently worthy> <an
eminently sensible plan>
IMO, way to much credit for mind over body.
> PS my point was not to rip into or have a go at Doug's credentials -
his laurels as a runner are unpeccable, for one thing - but to prod
him gently (into giving a longer and more rounded reply than he
usually does).
I agree, I was originally too brief until you or someone pointed out
that a ladder could be done lackadaisically when for me they were
reserved for a hard workout. A tough ladder or 5-6 miles at 6:0n with
a 200 break between were on my pre-marathon short list. We did some
other odd stuff which I can't remember. One of my mentors was coached by
Mike Barnow so we had some interesting workouts each week.
>(And perhaps to down a stiff one in one gulp together
and stare at the bottom of our glasses for a moment...)>
Prost , Ooogy Wawa, Kanpai! and cheers!
>PPS while Doug is having (presumably) quality time,
There ocean is pure therapy if not some new running routes.
-D
aeiouy
"Dot" <aktra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:henuhr$t0f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
would have to type that up :)
aeiouy
will touch up is a 5k. I think below that gets a little more specialized
>
> When you read other books, you'll find other approaches also. Eventually a
> few common denominators about adaptations show through, and the rest may
> be just various authors methods of training. One author's dead zone may be
> another author's sweet spot or it might be dependent on race duration. A
> lot of my training tends to be in JD's no-man's land, but is right where
> Friel suggests it should be.
>
> Many traditional authors focus on cardio, while an occasional one hits
> more on neuromuscular effects. At least of the ones I've read, more seem
> to hit on cardio than neuromuscular.
>
> I really like Healthy Intelligent Training (Lydiard interpreted so to
> speak).
Just added to my Amazon Wish List
>
> Dot
Dot
> "Dot" <aktra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>> ...
>>
>> Does he go into the really short stuff - like 10-20sec? Just curious, not
>> for any particular reason.
> Not that I've come across. He also says that the shortest race the book
> will touch up is a 5k. I think below that gets a little more specialized
>
I was referring to the workouts themselves, not race duration - things
like 8-12sec hill sprints, Tabata workouts, etc.
Dot