Training myths

[TimW]

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!

Yes. And if you remember I highlighted the word if (IF you can handle the volume).

You've cheered me up today Chris by this post I often agonise over whether I do enough training, then when my conscience tells me to push it's limits I end up running worse, just as you're saying. I believe in Lydiard's principles but as you say he assumed everyone had the same kind of physical constitution (the body's ability to cope with training) as his best charges did. Don't we all meet people like that who criticise others for not training as hard as they do/did, and they are usually well meaning, they just don't understand.

I've arrived at what seems an optimum amount of training that I can do consistently without breaking down, which is about 9-10 hours running per week (incl cycling equiv of 2:1) which equates to maybe 80-90 miles. I need recovery weeks even from this, which is good training, but a far cry from what some runners can handle. Or can they? I don't know, lots say they can. And then again a lot of good runners claim to do half that!

[IainR]

8-10 hrs a week running is about what I seem to manage. I do less milage but its almost all off road, so tends to be 40-50 miles / week, averaging 3000m/10,000ft of ascent a week.

I'm now working on adding more quality into that training load, rather than adding more quantity.

[CL]

Yes. And if you remember I highlighted the word if (IF you can handle the volume).

You've cheered me up today Chris by this post I often agonise over whether I do enough training, then when my conscience tells me to push it's limits I end up running worse, just as you're saying. I believe in Lydiard's principles but as you say he assumed everyone had the same kind of physical constitution (the body's ability to cope with training) as his best charges did. Don't we all meet people like that who criticise others for not training as hard as they do/did, and they are usually well meaning, they just don't understand.

I've arrived at what seems an optimum amount of training that I can do consistently without breaking down, which is about 9-10 hours running per week (incl cycling equiv of 2:1) which equates to maybe 80-90 miles. I need recovery weeks even from this, which is good training, but a far cry from what some runners can handle. Or can they? I don't know, lots say they can. And then again a lot of good runners claim to do half that!

Tim the other mistake runners make(I was guilty of this as well)is to increase the intensity whilst maintaining the volume.Running 70 aerobic miles, is quite different to running 70 anaerobic miles.

During anaerobic training, the efficiency is about 1/19th that of aerobic training, for each unit of energy used.In other words as you run faster, you must run less.If an athlete running 100 miles per week aerobically, decides to add two sessions of anaerobic training per week.He/she must reduce the volume by at least a half(50 miles per week), and in some individuals a lot more.

The truth is that many athletes don't understand this difference, and so don't get the best out of themselves.It's hard to know sometimes, where the line is between aerobic and anaerobic work.The difference in sensations can be quite subtle.

[Chris]

To my knowledge many top Kenyan middle and long distance runners run quite a lot of miles, a proportion of which are at very slow pace. You can call the easy runs what you want, whether it is recovery running, junk running or whatever but Lydiard's point was that it all contributed to basic cardio- vascular efficiency, and it was able to do so because it was efficient and the body could tolerate huge amounts of exercise at moderate stress.

I find it hard to imagine that any top runner doesn't incorporate something of Lydiard's principles in their training.

[TimW]

8-10 hrs a week running is about what I seem to manage. I do less milage but its almost all off road, so tends to be 40-50 miles / week, averaging 3000m/10,000ft of ascent a week.

I'm now working on adding more quality into that training load, rather than adding more quantity.

80-90 is just what I was saying it's 'worth' because most people seem able to relate to mileage. I may only actually cover 40-50 miles on foot, I never worry about it.

Yes that's interesting, when good runners say "Oh I only do 40 miles a week" and everyone else thinks "yeah, bullshit", they MAY only do 40 miles, but the fact that most of them are on hills makes them worth 60-70 flat miles, PLUS they do cycling, PLUS (as Chris says) they may include hard sessions, then they're actually training quite hard. WITHOUT being liars for saying they only do 40mpw!

At the other end of the scale I think there are folk who like to exaggerate their training. For example I've known runners count all their mileage as if it were 6:00 miling even when they're out for a really easy run. An hour's running is 10 miles, even if they stop to talk to someone halfway round and left the watch running! Get my drift?

Like I said at the start it's a personal thing, as long as you compare like with like within your own training diaries I don't think it pays to be too influenced by others. But I still find it interesting...

[TimW]

8-10 hrs a week running is about what I seem to manage. I do less milage but its almost all off road, so tends to be 40-50 miles / week, averaging 3000m/10,000ft of ascent a week.

I'm now working on adding more quality into that training load, rather than adding more quantity.

I keep a mental record of the climbing I do and for the last 5 weeks it's been between 6000 and 8000 feet each week, which is quite a lot for me. But then I cycle as well, so...

Quick question - It seems accepted that an hour of cycling roughly equates to 30 min running. But can you equate cycling to feet climbed on a run? ie. Cycle hard for an hour, can you say that's equiv. to running up Snowdon? (3,000') in terms of feet climbed I mean, the training effect on the quads, not running time equivilant.

[TimW]

I keep a mental record of the climbing I do and for the last 5 weeks it's been between 6000 and 8000 feet each week, which is quite a lot for me. But then I cycle as well, so...

Quick question - It seems accepted that an hour of cycling roughly equates to 30 min running. But can you equate cycling to feet climbed on a run? ie. Cycle hard for an hour, can you say that's equiv. to running up Snowdon? (3,000') in terms of feet climbed I mean, the training effect on the quads, not running time equivilant.

Thinking about that, OK maybe not quite because no way does 5 hr on the bike equate to 15,000' of climbing! But is there any commonly accepted ratio?

[detritus21]

Junk mileage or what ever people wish to call it counts for the majority of the chinese athletes running. Lots and lots of slow miles and when it comes down to it they race well. Ok there may be a bit of the old dwain chambers treatment going on but it works for them. I know that some of the ethiopians do lots of mileage but the quality is second to none. It is known that Haile does 50x400 off 30s in 64's which is phenomonal 20ks worth of 4 minute 1500m pace or 4:18ish per mile. I used to claim I did everything at 6 minute miles. I now usually record my road runs if done to time and not measured as 7 minute mile as I realised I was only cheating myself.

A myth that has emerged in my club is that you have to do mega mileage and never concentrate on speed to run fast. I've rebelled against that one.

[IainR]

It is known that Haile does 50x400 off 30s in 64's

On the first lap I may, just may, beat him!

I do 10x400m with 1 min rest in 70-75 seconds and feel knackered. 5 times that with half the rest is incredible!

[Slippery Stones]

Junk mileage or what ever people wish to call it counts for the majority of the chinese athletes running. Lots and lots of slow miles and when it comes down to it they race well. Ok there may be a bit of the old dwain chambers treatment going on but it works for them.

then it doesnt work then...unless you eat the dodgy caterpillars

much has been written about the kenyans high training volume, i.e. three times a day, on the flat and long hills so as to try and compete with them. their quality level is high though, but obviously not all the time, so maybe junk/recovery/steady/easy miles (call them what you will) do play an important role

mileage is all relevant to personal tolerance though...so we need to be careful here