Training myths

[TimW]

Myth 1: "The only way you'll improve is by training with people better than yourself".

How many times do we hear this? ! I suspect this may be true if you're a sprinter but as a distance runner you're more likely to run yourself ragged if you regularly train with people who are better than you. Why? Because what is a good training speed for them will probably be racing for you, and you'll leave all your best form in training. You're better off training with slower runners, that way YOU can be in control.

For example I race roughly every fortnight on average (26 races a year) although if I was to train with say Simon Bailey on average once a week (which I don't) and pushed myself to try and keep up with him each time, then I'd effectively be 'racing' (26+52) 78 times a year. Too much in anyone's book.

It may do your confidence the world of good to keep up with superior runners but you have to remind yourself that they are probably just cruising (or look where they finish in races compared to you!). To conclude, mix with better runners yes, listen to them and gain inspiration. And yes train hard. But remember training is a personal thing.

[TimW]

Myth 2: "Junk mileage is a waste of time"

Says who? Read Lydiard's books and he thinks otherwise! I'm not saying it's a substitute for proper training, it most certainly isn't, but it's a useful add on IF you can handle the volume.

For example what's best, 70 miles of quality or 100 slow miles? The 70 miles of quality no question. What's best, 70 good miles plus 30 slow miles or just 70 good miles? You'll be stronger for those extra miles even though they are slow. If, again, you can recover from them.

[TimW]

Myth 3: "You shouldn't keep running the same courses because you'll get far too competitive with your times"

I'm not talking about steady running, because I hardly EVER repeat the same route. That's too boring! But when I do quality, inparticluar my sustained runs, I stick to the same loop because I can guage my progression. Progression is one of the 4 main principles of training, encouraging us to build up to something rather than push the body as hard as you can then hang on.

Now if I was to vary where I did my quality every week, I could hammer the first session after my end of season lay off, in the subconscious knowledge that I wouldn't be returning to it for a while (so there'd be no danger of being slower next time!) On the other hand, by having regular sessions / circuits, it is human nature, I find, to want to run faster next time round. So I think you subconsciously hold yourself back early on in the build up, otherwise you "think well how do I progress from this?". I'm not saying be too obsessive with beating your time each time out, factors like weather and proximity of races have a bearing. But as a rough guide, I find it a cracking way to progress steadily.

[(notsomuchofa)Fellrunner]

Myth 1:- I agree. Since training on my own I know that I've improved.

Myth 2:- I agree. As long as the extra miles don't cause you to be tired for key sessions they can only do you good.

Myth 3:- I agree. I have familiar routes which, like sessions, help you progress & also act as a guage for your fitness.

[dominion]

My best racing came after a period of being 'run ragged' by athletes far better than myself. I'm not saying it's the only way, but I reckon it was key to me.

I'd say it's less true as a sprinter than a distance runner because as a sprinter it's about short explosive bursts, whereas with sustained reps it's sometimes good have others to pace you and drag you round.

[Slippery Stones]

Myth 1:- I agree. Since training on my own I know that I've improved.

also agree, the pressure is off, better (for me) to save it for a race

Myth 2:- I agree. As long as the extra miles don't cause you to be tired for key sessions they can only do you good.

also agree. look at some of the top runners 60, 80 100 (?) miles p.w. not all is quality

Myth 3:- I agree. I have familiar routes which, like sessions, help you progress & also act as a guage for your fitness.

agree in part, can also knock confidence if you run a regular route slower

[CL]

Myth 2: "Junk mileage is a waste of time"

Says who? Read Lydiard's books and he thinks otherwise! I'm not saying it's a substitute for proper training, it most certainly isn't, but it's a useful add on IF you can handle the volume.

For example what's best, 70 miles of quality or 100 slow miles? The 70 miles of quality no question. What's best, 70 good miles plus 30 slow miles or just 70 good miles? You'll be stronger for those extra miles even though they are slow. If, again, you can recover from them.

Tim I've just read your comments on the hill reps thread, and now this one.

Arthur Lydiard experimented for years, to find the precise amount of aerobic running required for conditioning his body.He made a grave mistake though, in his conclusions: He assumed everyone else was the same as him, in terms of tolerating such training.

While essentially we're the same i.e head, body, legs etc, we differ in terms of measurement.For instance, the chemical processes within the body take longer for some people than others.The difference here is not just in the quantities of chemicals in the body, but the time it takes those chemicals to react.

So although one individual can run 70 miles a week to reach his potential.Another can only run 25miles.If he(25miles a week runner) tries to run 70 miles, his system won't accept it, and he'll actually get slower.

Junk implies the worthless or useless.If it is there is no point in doing it!

[XRunner]

Training myth no. xxxx

Don't believe everything you read on this forum..

[IainR]

I think 2 depends on the person. I'm a lazy runner so train poorly on my own, whereas others appear to be able to train well on their own. I definately respond well to fast training runs, as I need to be with other people to be out of my comfort zone, others don't.

[IainR]

I think what 3 means, is it's better to do 40 quality miles than 60 poldding miles. The old quality Vs Quantity argument.