The role of racing in a developing athlete
Edward Edmonds
finished my first year of base building, but at the end of the year I
was still improving and decided against racing except for periodic
time trials. I'm now closing in on my second year of endurance
training which officially if I continued would end February 24th,
2010. Earlier this year I semi-decided that either starting Dec 1 or
Jan 1, that I would like to transition into Lydiard's hill resistance
phase depending on what was available by Spring as far as races go.
My plans were to peak by the end of March beginning of April for a
400m as my first race, followed by an 800m, 1500m, 1 mile, 5k, and 10k
in succession every other week. Then start a "hybrid" schedule, which
would consist mostly of aerobic running, 1-2 sessions of hills, and
1-2 sessions of moderate track work to maintain the other energy
systems till the fall in which I would run a half marathon.
I've been told that 2 years in base building is way too long to spend
there. And of course you always hear people saying that eventually
you need to do speed work in order to develop "fine speed". And I
agree with the latter insomuch that once you plateau in your aerobic
cruising speeds and you're not improving anymore then it's time to
icing the cake. But does years of aerobic base building kill overall
speed in the long run? I'm not so sure.
I'm a long term person, I have no problem with spending years in
primarily aerobic training as long as I'm still improving noticeably.
I'm almost through the second year and I'm still improving
significantly from month to month especially as I've matured and have
learned how to take my easy days easy. A lot of people like to race I
think because of the competition but I've always been my own best
competitor, competition doesn't bring the best out of me, I've always
managed to bring the best out of myself, I suspect that is mostly
because of my upbringing and my ridiculously high standards. I've
heard people say that you need to race because it instills that desire
in you to train properly to do better the next time. I'm very mixed
about those statements.
Regardless of whether I decide to race next year one thing is for
certain, I do plan on doing the hill resistance phase because I think
it'll knock another minute off of my cruising aerobic speeds in a very
short period of time, and for longer distances especially the marathon
were it's primarily an aerobic affair that's all that really matters
for the most part.
So I'm at a crossroads because after I finish the hills do I want to
finish the last 2 anaerobic development stages or do I want to go back
into primarily aerobic work and monitor my improvements closely from
month to month or do I want to go ahead and race. If I went back into
aerobic development after the hills what I'd probably do more then
likely is alternate aerobic months with hill months for the remainder
of the year with time trials sprinkled in at even intervals.
I still have till about the middle of my hill phase training to
contemplate the issue, but I'd be interested in your guys/gals
thoughts as to what role races play in a developing athlete as far as
physical development?
Jonathan Campbell
> I have to admit that I'm looking forward to racing, ever since I
> I still have till about the middle of my hill phase training to
> contemplate the issue, but I'd be interested in your guys/gals
> thoughts as to what role races play in a developing athlete as far as
> physical development?
IMHO, races are very important.
This from my own experience and learned from coaching / advice from two
marathon Olympians and from other athletes who have made competed at an
international level.
No doubt the opinions below could be expressed more correctly and more
articulately.
1. As training / sharpening; for example frequent 5-K to 10-K races as
part of a marathon training schedule. Every week or two weeks. If you
cannot get a race, then do a time trial; find a two to three mile
flatish circuit that you can run unimpeded on; run flat out and time it
--- you'll not match the time you'd do in a race but the effect will be
nearly as good.
2. Feedback (+ encouragement). Tells you how the training is going.
3. As speedwork (see 1.). I've never seen anyone blunt themselves by too
much racing; I've seen plenty leave their form on the training track.
For someone whose main goal is the marathon, I'd advise two parallel
training strategies: (i) plenty of distance (160-Km a week) aimed at
marathon-level endurance; (ii) a small amount of speedwork aimed at
performance in shorter races. (ii) will then handle speed over the
marathon distance.
4. For gratification. It's risking a lot to train six months or more for
a single marathon race. I trained for 20 marathons over 20 years, but
managed to get to the start line of only seven.
5. Association with other athletes.
I'll probably think of more later.
Incidentally, I have a lot of respect for the notion of spending one or
more years 'making yourself into a running machine' --- as someone put
it to me.
Best regards,
Jon C.
--
Jonathan Campbell www.jgcampbell.com BT48, UK.
I2Run
| My plans were to peak by the end of March beginning of April for a
| 400m as my first race, followed by an 800m, 1500m, 1 mile, 5k, and 10k
| in succession every other week.
more anaerobic and less aerobic. Same can be said of 1500m/1mile
to some extent, while 5K, 10K,... are aerobic endurance activities.
Are you trying to be good at all the distances, a combination of
Usain and KennyB?
| I'm a long term person, I have no problem with spending years in
| primarily aerobic training as long as I'm still improving noticeably.
IMHO it is easy to measure improvements in races and for specific
distances.
| I'm almost through the second year and I'm still improving
| significantly from month to month especially as I've matured and have
| learned how to take my easy days easy. A lot of people like to race I
| think because of the competition but I've always been my own best
| competitor, competition doesn't bring the best out of me, I've always
| managed to bring the best out of myself, I suspect that is mostly
| because of my upbringing and my ridiculously high standards. I've
| heard people say that you need to race because it instills that desire
| in you to train properly to do better the next time. I'm very mixed
| about those statements.
I hadn't quite followed your background but, sound like in Olympic league.
The racing and going to events not only helps measuring your improvements
against your own past times, it also helps develop the *kinship* with
your fellow runners. I would definitely get into occational racing just for that.
Don't wait for all things to come together, take joy in smaller steps.
| Regardless of whether I decide to race next year one thing is for
| certain, I do plan on doing the hill resistance phase because I think
| it'll knock another minute off of my cruising aerobic speeds in a very
| short period of time, and for longer distances especially the marathon
| were it's primarily an aerobic affair that's all that really matters
| for the most part.
If marathon is what matters to you, 5K, 10K and HM are building blocks
for that, I am not sure if racing 400m/800m help you very much.
John Hurley
snip
> I still have till about the middle of my hill phase training to
> contemplate the issue, but I'd be interested in your guys/gals
> thoughts as to what role races play in a developing athlete as far as
> physical development?
Like i2 I do not understand what kind of racing you are ultimately
interested in.
Track events like the 1500/mile/1600 and up to the 5k perhaps are a
whole different category than 10k's up to the marathon distance. So
give us an idea of where you are targeting eventually if you have any
clear idea.
It will take years of serious work to get anywhere close to your
potential and if you are working really hard now already I for one do
not see any real "need" to start racing until it makes sense to you.
Regardless of when you start racing you will continue improving for at
least several years assuming that you can stay healthy.
So physical development wise there is probably not a huge advantage in
racing until you feel completely ready.
When I first started thinking about getting back into some racing
myself ( after 10 years off pretty much ) ... ( as I started to
approach 50 ) it was about 2 years for me of hard work ... mostly
ditching weight and working on some faster paces before I felt ready.
For me anyhow though the racing started letting me see how much
additional improvement could still be made. But all that's from
someone much older than you are.
pithydoug
I agree with I2 and John - what are your plans and what distance?
> I've been told that 2 years in base building is way too long to spend
> there. And of course you always hear people saying that eventually
> you need to do speed work in order to develop "fine speed".
It's not clear how you are defining base building and what metric you
are using to measure base progress. Does you base exclude any hills
and speed? While two years does sound long especially for runners who
are mostly type A, it could be reasonable if you end game is a
marathon or longer.
-D
Edward Edmonds
I posted my schedule this week, that should give you an idea of a
fairly high quality week, in a normal week the runs would be extended
a bit, and all the efforts easy to moderate. Anyway I'll usually do a
string of varying easy to moderate weeks, alternating the terrain from
week to week, one week on hilly trails, week after on flat streets,
then when I get that feeling where I feel like I want to leap out of
my body I'll do a high quality week.
My plans, well all my conditioning is pretty much endurance training
so far, sure I'll throw in some sprints and hill repeats now and
again, but 85-90% is aerobic.
I haven't tied myself to a particular distance yet, I don't feel the
need to do so at this stage. However, ultimately I'd like to run a
sub 2:20 marathon obviously to do that I'm going to need to be able to
run a sub 31 min 10k and around a sub 15:00 5k. At this point though
I'm not even thinking about the marathon while that's my ultimate goal
that's a bit ways off. So right now obviously I could be fine tunning
my 5k and 10k, one of the reasons I've been doing a lot of aerobic
work is because those minimal requirements, I shouldn't have to kill
myself to get, in other words I should be fit enough to were I can say
okay I can guarantee a sub 31 min 10k, I shouldn't have to have an out
of body experience and race outside my outer limits to hit that, if it
required that much effort to do that then I wouldn't last too long in
a marathon. So the idea is to train hard till it's easy (relative
term). I want to be prepared "ready", not hoping for a miracle.
Why the shorter distances (400m to 1600m), well not knowing what my
muscle fiber ratios are, it would be foolish I think, not to try. I
mean if I find that I have a particular talent for one of the shorter
distances then obviously it would be something to consider.
All in all one reason I question racing when you're still developing
is because, most who advocate that racing helps your development run
races themselves, or were brought up in a system where they ran track
or XC and had to race, so this idea of racing and training at the same
time becomes merged where people are training and racing at the same
time throughout a season, I think over a series of races your times
will improve to a certain degree, but not so much so where I don't
have a hard time believing it worth interrupting my entire training
cycle, especially when I'm still developing.
That said between now and the end of March beginning of April is a
while off I still have a lot of weeks ahead of me and I expect a great
deal of improvement after the hill resistence phase. At the end of
that phase I think I’ll be more prepared to loosely estimate my
performance and whether I should continue the last two phases and race
or hold of a bit longer in order to hit my goal times. I should
mention my goal times are not a sub 15 minute 5k and sub 31 min 10k
for my first performance, I don’t expect to hit that until 2011.
I’m still working out how I want to work my races into my training
without affecting my overall training cycle, reguardless of when I
race, it will be sometime next year.
Anyway, you all make valid points and overall I feel like as long as I
don’t kill myself in the races it shouldn’t affect my overall macro
training schedule.
Again thanks for all the advice.
Edward
Edward Edmonds
*Correction: that should be 2012.
Anthony
a schedule that many people would envy.
Here's another "+1" for some occasional racing even in your
"build up and development" phase. There's no training run that can
equal the effect of a race. The feedback is invaluable.
And I've followed a few online runners who have similarly refrained
from racing. They sometimes miss out, because for 1 reason or another they
never quite make it to where they expect...
Good luck,
Anthony.
D Stumpus
"Edward Edmonds" <edward....@gmail.com> wrote
> I haven't tied myself to a particular distance yet, I don't feel the
need to do so at this stage. However, ultimately I'd like to run a
sub 2:20 marathon obviously to do that I'm going to need to be able to
run a sub 31 min 10k and around a sub 15:00 5k.
I'm not trying to be mean, but how do you know you have the talent? Can you
knock off 3 repeat miles at sub 5:00 or so on your current training without
straining? If you have that level of talent, you should be able to hit 16
flat off basework.
2:20 talent is quite rare. Only a few in a thousand can even consider such
a thing, regardless of how hard they train. How do you know you've got the
plumbing?
Just broaching this without knowing your background -- if you were a HS
standout, my apologies. But running is heartless in the sense that there
are real limitations that no amount of smart and hard work can conquer, but
generous in that you can usually improve (at least a bit) by being diligent.
I had some talent, for example I ran a 5:37 in gym class at age 17 without
training. That's pretty good, very few people can do that, but I'm by no
means even elite, just a decent local runner.
Re racing during training, shorter races are great tests and workouts. I
used to use 5k and 10k's as hard workouts during my training week. I'd go
hard, but not all out, and usually do the 10k about a minute slower than my
best effort. That let me know how my training was coming along.
Sometimes I'd make a game of it, like jogging the course first, then
deliberately starting at the back of the pack and gradually accelerating and
seeing how far up I could get, things like that.
Everyone races as they're developing, don't they? That's not proof that
it's the best strategy, but it is strong evidence. Races are report cards,
and good experience -- you have to learn how to drive the car in extreme
conditions, to learn what your strengths and weaknesses are, and about
strategerie.
Re the muscle fiber ratio thing, you can get an idea in distance races by
seeing how your kick stacks up against the competition -- in the crucible of
competition. For instance I'm pretty sure I have a higher % of fast twitch
because I've only been outkicked once in a distance race, and that was due
to a mental lapse on a hard right turn just before the finish. (It was ages
ago, and I remember it like it was yesterday :)
> I should
mention my goal times are not a sub 15 minute 5k and sub 31 min 10k
for my first performance, I don�t expect to hit that until 2011.
What kind of work / racing have you done to give you the hope that you can
get there in less than two years? You have a solid base, but I don't recall
seeing any pace information.
Regards,
Dan
pithydoug
> "Edward Edmonds" <edward.edmo...@gmail.com> wrote
> What kind of work / racing have you done to give you the hope that you can
> get there in less than two years? You have a solid base, but I don't recall
> seeing any pace information.
All of what Dan said.
Judging from the fact that you are still looking at training
modalities, I question how you will know what distance, etc is ideal
for you. Said a little harder, you are betting an awful lot that you
have the talent. The fact that you are risking so much yet training
yourself is not a good idea. I commend you on your effort but I would
seriously recommend that you find a real coach. You are looking for
some fast times and to run those times takes professional leadership.
It will take another set of knowledgeable eyes to make this happen.
-D
Edward Edmonds
Dan & Doug,
You both make very real and valid points, but I'm far from delusional on
these issues; needless to say I understand the concern, and no I didn't
take it the wrong way.
Again most these issues will be put to rest once I race, which I've
thought about a great deal and will continue as planned starting at the
end of March beginning of April.
As of now I'm under guidance, and while he is not here to hold my hand,
he is here to advise me on things I need to tweak, as he put it, "I
really think you got most parts much better than most people."
Let's keep in mind right now though that even though I stated that I'd
like to go 2:20 for the marathon, you guys are absolutely right, it
might never happen. But that doesn't mean 2:30-35 won't happen, and if
I end up being that slow :-), I'll be happy with it, and I'll be happy
to use my training experiences to mentor others when the time comes or
to serve the running community somehow in some shape or form whether it
be on these message boards :-) or in a professional capacity.
Regardless of the risks though, to me and also to my wife, it's worth
both the risk and if nothing else worth the journey.
Humbly,
Edward
pithydoug
> On 11/17/2009 1:18 AM, pithydoug wrote:
> As of now I'm under guidance, and while he is not here to hold my hand,
> he is here to advise me on things I need to tweak, as he put it, "I
> really think you got most parts much better than most people."
Good news on both sides, your grasp of basics and getting a coach. Did
you ask the coach to help you make the determination on your strongest
venue? If so, what factors did he use to ascertain you are a sprinter/
middle_distance/endurance?
Just a small heads up on coaches in general. Many people who have run
well in their lives hang out a coaching shingle. This does not mean
they understand how to coach anyone other than people like themselves
using their personal strengths. Where does he have you currently
headed. Short, middle, long term goals?
> Let's keep in mind right now though that even though I stated that I'd
> like to go 2:20 for the marathon, you guys are absolutely right, it
> might never happen. But that doesn't mean 2:30-35 won't happen, and if
> I end up being that slow :-), I'll be happy with it, and I'll be happy
> to use my training experiences to mentor others when the time comes or
> to serve the running community somehow in some shape or form whether it
> be on these message boards :-) or in a professional capacity.
>
> Regardless of the risks though, to me and also to my wife, it's worth
> both the risk and if nothing else worth the journey.
You have a great attitude with concurrence from the home front, which
helps keep peace. When you on the front cover of Sports Illustrated
we will be able to say, "we knew him when.." :)
-Doug
John Hurley
snip
> You both make very real and valid points, but I'm far from delusional on
> these issues; needless to say I understand the concern, and no I didn't
> take it the wrong way.
>
> Again most these issues will be put to rest once I race, which I've
> thought about a great deal and will continue as planned starting at the
> end of March beginning of April.
>
> As of now I'm under guidance, and while he is not here to hold my hand,
> he is here to advise me on things I need to tweak, as he put it, "I
> really think you got most parts much better than most people."
>
> Let's keep in mind right now though that even though I stated that I'd
> like to go 2:20 for the marathon, you guys are absolutely right, it
> might never happen. But that doesn't mean 2:30-35 won't happen, and if
> I end up being that slow :-), I'll be happy with it, and I'll be happy
> to use my training experiences to mentor others when the time comes or
> to serve the running community somehow in some shape or form whether it
> be on these message boards :-) or in a professional capacity.
>
> Regardless of the risks though, to me and also to my wife, it's worth
> both the risk and if nothing else worth the journey.
It is nice to see someone with a lot of confidence. For what you are
planning on doing you are going to need that confidence.
You may not be making a lot of friends here though by noting that you
think 2:30 is slow. It may be honest but still I have known a lot of
real dang good runners with a fair amount of natural talent who never
went under 2:40.
Many of us worked our buts off to produce an effort or two that went
under 3 flat.
Until we hear about a time under 2:45 that you run in a race it is
going to be hard for many of us to take seriously your idea that you
will be able to run 2:20 or in the 2:30's somewhere.
Edward Edmonds
Mr. John, notice the ":-)":
"...I end up being that slow :-), I'll be happy with it, and I'll be..."
While ":-)" can have many contextual uses, in this particular instance
the ":-)" in the above quote would be known as "sarcasm" and is not
meant to be a belittling statement.
But for the record I think anything sub 3 is a mighty fine achievement.
Now let us shake hands and be friends.
Edward
Dot
In your original post, you asked about "what role races play in a
developing athlete as far as physical development?" but some of your
later posts have specific race time goals, which obviously involves
something besides physical development.
With a well-balanced program like you seem to have and discipline to
push, you'll get substantial physical development.
But - and I think you recognize this - race times are a function of
races. That involves all the pre-race logistics of being ready at the
start line at the time the gun goes off at the appointed date and time -
eating, arrival, warmup, etc. It also involves dealing with other
competitors in a race and strategies - go for a time or placement -
sometimes they're the same goal. But sometimes locally fast people don't
race well at a higher level because they lack race experience where
anyone else is near them. For them, their local (or even national) races
had no one near their speeds. (heck, even us slowpokes try to avoid
getting boxed in so we can run our own race)
I doubt that you'd be able to race your best without racing experience.
That said, it's been pleasant to see a well-thought out program - both
on a weekly basis as well as periodization. You seem to have enough
variety and quality that you wouldn't fall into a rut that people
sometimes associate with 2 yrs of base. As they say, you don't get
better if you train the same way all the time.
While you have high goals, you also seem to be putting an impressive
amount of work into achieving them - and have a good attitude about it.
Your lifestyle definitely is a plus in putting in that kind of training.
Good luck.
Dot
pithydoug
We love John dearly but he has a proverbial self-manifested chip. ;)
-D
Michelle
Dot <aktra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But sometimes locally fast people don't race well at a higher level
> because they lack race experience where anyone else is near them. For
> them, their local (or even national) races had no one near their speeds.
That's what happened to Mary Decker. She never learned how to run with a
pack because she had always been in front of the pack until she got into
the Olympics.
> (heck, even us slowpokes try to avoid getting boxed in so we can run our
> own race)
Yup.
--
26.2 Because I can
Edward Edmonds
Ah yes, the infamous incident with Zola Budd.
John Hurley
snip
> We love John dearly but he has a proverbial self-manifested chip. ;)
Just being real here.
E2 has a lot of plans and a lot of confidence. Nothing wrong with
that. So far e2 has posted nothing as far I can recall about any
actual results from any race.
While we all may wish him well it is gonna take a lot more than wishes
to get to 2:20 or to the "slow" 2:35 mark that he thinks he could
possibly settle for. When you start talking about that kind of time
for a marathon that's up into the elite racing level. Just not that
many people around who can actually do stuff like that.
I have seen some postings from some strange posters here on this
newsgroup at times "claiming" that they can and did some things that
well just did not meet the sniff test eventually.
Charlie Pendejo
> [,,,] 2:35 mark that he thinks he could
> possibly settle for. When you start talking about that kind of time
> for a marathon that's up into the elite racing level.
Whoa there, it's within a minute per mile of elite, but let's not
hurry to water down what's "elite". Twenty minutes off the women's
world record is definitely not. His 2:20 goal, one would get plenty
of argument for either side; strikes me as fairly borderline.
One national metric in that neighborhood has, for some years, been
2:22 - the qualifying standard for American men to run in the Olympic
Trial marathon. For plenty of good (but not good enough to turn pro)
post-college men, qualifying for the OT has been their long term
quest. With over 100 lining up in Midtown Manhattan for the last
edition in '07, they've tightened up the standards to 2:19 moving
forward.
Nothing's guaranteed in life or running - one major reason Double Ed
should consider racing earlier and oftener, lest accident or disease
or whatever misfortune cruelly punish him for putting all his eggs in
a years-away basket. But 2:35 or 2:30 aren't so exotic, for a man in
his prime who's willing and able to handle some years of solid, high
volume training. Look how many guys used to finish Boston under those
times in the late '70s, early '80s, when a higher proportion of
hobbyist runners were motivated to put in hundred-mile weeks.
Edward Edmonds
+1
Anthony
"Edward Edmonds" <edward....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c45122ec-e838-4884...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
+2
Our relatively small club (~50 runners) over the years has had several
non-elite runners in the 2:30 - 2:35 range. At the 2:20 level we have
(so far) 2 runners. Both of them were at the 30-31 min 10K level, and
around 1:06 for the 1/2 Marathon...
Anthony.
pithydoug
I think we are all waiting for some specific times to see if this is
real or Memorex. You are correct we have been asked to the prom a few
times and stood up. In the mean time his posts are polite,
interesting and very running related.
-D
Edward Edmonds
Well thanks Doug. When March/April rolls around I'll be sure to write
up some race reports, good or bad I'm not going to stand anybody up,
I'm not gutless. I've gotten lots of good advice here and I feel
obliged. I was talking about this with my wife this morning, she said
we are a bunch of dorks, and I was like seriously that Newsgoup is a
swell place to ask questions because most of the regulars have been
running for years and I value experience over a book any day.
EE
Charlie Pendejo
> I was talking about this with my wife this morning, she said
> we are a bunch of dorks
Well, duh! :-)
Charlie Pendejo
> Our relatively small club (~50 runners) over the years has had several
> non-elite runners in the 2:30 - 2:35 range. At the 2:20 level we have
> (so far) 2 runners. Both of them were at the 30-31 min 10K level, and
> around 1:06 for the 1/2 Marathon...
Nice.
Perspective is harder to come by in road racing these days because
there's such a vacuum of elites and sub-elites at our races. e.g. the
various NYC half marathons (excluding the new big-money "NYC Half")
with ~6000 finishers will typically be won in roughly 1:10.
It'd be easy for a novice runner to assume that if 70 minutes beats
all comers in the massive NY metro area, it's somewhere near human
limits. Or upon learning that even the national record is under an
hour, posit that a tiny handful of super-gifted runners represent a
fairly wide span of ability, from 59 to say 72 minute half (a minute a
mile range here!)
But then look at the numbers in this Japanese half marathon,
particularly in '07 and '08 when weather was normal:
http://japanrunningnews.blogspot.com/2009/11/hot-times-at-ageo-city-half-marathon.html
Holy smokes! Why don't we have more than a handful of Americans
running those times? Answer: because our university runners stick to
the track and XC, and very few keep running competitively on the roads
after school. And very few who didn't run at the high school &
university levels, put in the sustained quantity and quality of
training to approach their true potential.
John Hurley
snip
Hey she is out working and you are out running so it looks like you
are a smarter dork than most of us!
Life changes though when one is supporting teenagers and staring at
college tuition right around the corner.
Robert Grumbine
don't seem already to have been expressed. (Original below
for more context; given the lapse, though, I'll write more
standalone.)
Early stages of training are a good time to just do good
general training. If you think you're going to want to be
a distance runner, this means a lot of base mileage. Have
some fun with speed/strength type workouts, on the basis
of 'break the monotony', but that's about it.
On the other hand, if you are not sure what sort of distance
you want, eventually, to focus on, and are considering everything
from sprints through marathon, you'll want to refine your focus
at an early stage. Putting in that good distance base mileage won't
help you a lot if your goal turns out to be 400 m. It might even be
counterproductive to the eventual goal.
On yet another hand, if you want a 2:20 marathon, you have made
your commitment -- you _must_ focus on long distance training.
Conversely, ignore racing short distances. And 'short' is anything
under, say, 5k.
For myself, when I was getting back in to training (after
15 years off since my one year of HS running in middle distance,
and good reason to believe that 100m-400m were _not_ my distances)
I did try racing at different distances, from 100m through 5k even
at early stages. It confirmed that I was still not a sprinter
(for 100m-400m, it later developed that I _might_ have some talent
at 50-60m). Also showed that 800m-3200m (which is what I ran in
HS) were probably my best competitive distances.
In selecting best 'competitive' distance, I used the Purdy
or Purdy-Gardner points, which were aimed at assessing how
competitive times were. They're geared to open class men,
which is now a problem for me since I've left open class. Still,
they give a much better sense across the full span of distances
than does 'age grading' -- which is merely a ratio of your speed
to age group record speed. I've found that the ratio is extremely
poor for comparing sprints to distance performance. ex: I can
fairly easily run around a 70% for 100-400m, but with anything
resembling a good turnout at a race for such distances will be
finishing last or near last. On the other hand, 60-65% for 5k-10 mile
puts me in the top 1/3rd or so. Purdy points, on the other hand,
show a low score for my 100-400m times (say 200 for the 200m,
my worst, by Purdy points, distance), vs. much higher scores
(say 400 for the 1500m I ran that year) for middle distance.
I'm making up the exact numbers, but it's something like that --
Age group 'performance level' being better for sprints, where
I know that I'm extremely uncompetitive, and lower at distance,
where I do much better.
One online calculator for this is:
http://www.cs.uml.edu/~phoffman/ex1old.html
So, if you're looking for your most competitive distance,
this is how I'd go start the search. Sprint times, at least
mine, get close to their ultimate values pretty soon. Distance
times take longer. Nevertheless, even with very little training,
my mile times will show higher Purdy points than my sprints --
even though it's several years to get the mile times near their
best, and only months to get the sprints up there.
You may find that your most competitive distance is, say, the
mile, and decide that it really doesn't matter -- it's the
marathon you actually care about. Before embarking on a search
for 'most competitive distance', decide whether it really matters
to you. A friend who does Ironman distance triathlons observed
that he had the body of a sprinter, but mind of an endurance
athlete. So to heck with sprints.
In terms of implementation, the sprints should only be a
once a week or two sort of check. Middle distance 2-4 weeks
(800m-3200m). Longer distance 4-8 weeks. You could push
these closer together. But, since you are mentioning
marathon, almost certainly your focus should be longer
than 3200m at all times. Occasional visits for the fun
of speculating as to whether you have an inner sprinter
is all.
> that phase I think I?ll be more prepared to loosely estimate my
> performance and whether I should continue the last two phases and race
> or hold of a bit longer in order to hit my goal times. I should
> mention my goal times are not a sub 15 minute 5k and sub 31 min 10k
> for my first performance, I don?t expect to hit that until 2011.
>
> I?m still working out how I want to work my races into my training
> without affecting my overall training cycle, reguardless of when I
> race, it will be sometime next year.
>
> Anyway, you all make valid points and overall I feel like as long as I
> don?t kill myself in the races it shouldn?t affect my overall macro
> training schedule.
>
> Again thanks for all the advice.
> Edward
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Edward Edmonds
information you wrote, thanks. E**2
On Dec 10 2009, 4:57 pm, Robert Grumbine <b...@saltmine.radix.net>
wrote:
> Robert Grumbinehttp://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/Science blog