Long runs - fast?

[ZootHornRollo]

You don't get that pain when you are fit

I'd like to have seen you tell Laurent Fignon that on the finishing line in 1989.

[john doe]

The whole concept of periodisation is nonsense, because all training involves periodisation.

All runners plateau eventually; the point at which they do depends fundamentally on the intensity/volume ratio.You cannot build the 'reserves of endurance and aerobic fitness,' from anything other than high intensity training. Most runners plateau far earlier than they should because they shuffle about far too slowly for too long a period. To get faster you've got to press on and to press on you've got to have guts.

Too many wimps want to improve without exerting themselves and many of the phoney ideas on this thread and forum pander to such people.

Do agree with this........I'm of the opinion too many runners these days hide behind training concepts that in most cases won't work for them anyway,rather than the simple truth you've got to hurt in training.Now in the good old days..................

[Jimmy]

To John Doe: after 25 years of hill-running I've finally seen the light and started racing, and after dismissing it for all these years as "competitive ego bu****it" now realise how much fantastic fun I've been missing. My ego makes me interested now in getting as good as possible.
Embracing pain in training is great, and I've had a close relationship for many a year with puke-inducing hills, dry heaves, seeing stars etc; but a cursory glance at the literature out there makes me see that blind mindless charging is definitely NOT the best recipe for optimum performance. Yourself & Mr Leigh seem to be trolling.

[john doe]

"getting as good as possible"is hopefully what most fellrunners aim for and good luck to you Jimmy,can't see where I advocate "blind mindless charging" though....sounds a bit dangerous to me. You only have to compare results sheets from 10-20years previous to the same results from the events today see my point. No pain no gain........replace "pain' with effort......don't want to kill anyone now do we.

[Jimmy]

To John Doe: Thanks John, but you did say you were agreeing with Mr Leigh's "Wimps & phonies" nonsense, and talked about people "hiding behind" training regimes unsuited to them.
All I'm saying is that I'm discovering that the "science" behind optimising performance isn't nonsense as far as I can make out from my reading. My grasp of all these new concepts is (obviously) painfully inadequate, but even I can see that Mandovarks elegant
description, as endorsed by Zoot (sorry to sound so grovelling fellas), makes a lot of sense.
Anyway, soz for calling you a Troll!

[Rob Furness]

CL - you don't have to add something rude in each post you know. The point of the forum is to share ideas with people (hence why people ask training advice) but there are better ways of getting your opinion across. As for the comment directed at Alexandra, I have a clubmate who is 67 and ran a 10k PB a couple of years ago aged 65 of 38.56min as well as completing Rombalds stride earlier this month in 4hrs so I'd be careful about labelling people just because of their age.

[Alexandra]

Look, Alexandra, I have to say it, you are 68 years old, what do you expect? You can't expect to be more than a 'one pace runner' at your age.

If I was convinced of that, I'd be happy to devote my training time to long slow distance and give up on tempo runs and fartlek (I'm not organised enough for intervals anyway). It would be great to hear from other fell runners who are over 65 (I know they exist) about their experience one way or the other.

On second thoughts, even if my attempts at "speed-work" (I'm embarrassed to use the term about what I do) don't make me faster, maybe they stop my long runs from becoming even slower. Just as doing weight training is unlikely to make my bones much/any stronger, but should stop them becoming weaker, a very important benefit.

I refuse to believe that people aged 68 and older can't improve their speed if they train hard and intelligently, though the benefit-cost ratio may well become less and less favourable as time goes by (assuming that they didn't achieve their full potential earlier in life, in which case of course they can only decline). As I was always a very slow runner, I'm not hoping to transform myself into a fast one at this stage, but I'm not ready to give up either.

I have found this discussion very inspiring - thanks to all who have written posts - sometimes extremely long and thoughtful ones. I have already started to try out some suggestions. I'll report back in a year's time, if not before, as to how I get on.

[Rob Furness]

When did he start running, when he was 64? For every runner that gets a P.B at 65 there are 1000s that become 10 or more minutes slower. If you'd bothered to read Alexandra's profile before giving advice, you'd have been more careful.

My comments to her are based on that profile and her posts on this thread.

He started running 10 years ago after cycling for years first, he's still a quick guy and often wins first vet prizes. I'm sure he would've set better times had he been running when he was younger but he didn't so it's pointless wondering.

I've looked at Alexandra's profile but all that it says it that she is 68, I don't see how this is relevant to this discussion though. Just because someone is getting older doesn't mean they don't want to train anymore.

[Alexandra]

For every runner that gets a P.B at 65 there are 1000s that become 10 or more minutes slower.

I'm not sure this is right. I think there may well be many runners who retire at 60 or even 65 and for the first time in their lives have the leisure to train as they wish and do get faster. That they will be slower than they would have been at 40 had they been liberated then is irrelevant. I am not disputing the fact that older people, all things being equal, will be slower than younger ones. I do question the idea that older people cannot be other than one-speed runners.

[TheReverand]

I think this thread is done. Alexandra says she has got some useful information out of it and im sure many others have too, but in the words of reeves and mortimer, let it lie