My running experiment on myself
After my final race of the year I started a running experiment on myself that I had been wanting to try. Running is by far my weakest of the 3 sports and something I constantly take as higher importance to be a better and faster triathlete. And quite frankly, to have more fun.
Reason for trying this now
I'm planning a January OS but that might not happen as the Mrs is expecting our first little curtain climber early December. I'm making no firm plans on training until I have some sort of schedule but one thing I know I'll be able to do is run at least at lunch during work.
Disclaimer
I never claim to be a coach or endurance athlete for that matter nor am I telling/suggesting anyone to try this etc, I just thought it might make for interesting conversation.
Background
I believe most runners do their easy runs too fast (in general) which while building mileage gets them injured. I know I always ran too fast in general which made actual "workout" days feel rougher. Something I read on ST that struck a chord with me was and I'm paraphrasing. "Tempo and speed work are the icing on the cake, and you haven't baked the cake yet". So I'm going to bake the cake so to speak
My plan was to almost double my weekly mileage right off the bat, 20 to 40 miles a week, by running 6 days a week and EVERYTHING was an easy run. And I mean EASY. My Z1 pace in EN training plan was 9:07, I'm running 9:30's now based on Daniels and my 1/2 Marathon PR.
The other thing I did was to up my cadence considerably. From 165 rpms or so to 190 using my cadence sensor on the garmin. I didn't slowly build it, I just ran at 90+ on the garmin. Felt like shuffling to run slow enough and keep the cadence high for the first few runs
The "Plan"
6 days a week of running. 45 minutes minimum, 9 miles maximum and just run how i feel. If for some reason I feel lousy keep it short, feel good, go longer but don't change the pace. I don't run more than 7.5 on back to back days. I notice I'm not nearly as fresh when I do
Observations into week 3:
1. I don't know if its the cadence change or pace but the muscles in my legs feel like they've been worked out more often, historically I never had sore legs but always ran out of lungs. Only took about 5 runs to get mostly used to the cadence and not have to concentrate on it too much. I land very lightly and the turnover feels good. Feels like shufflng when you start but you can quickly get into a good rhythm with good form
2. I'm no worse for the wear, I feel no different than when in a normal training plan that included more Z2-Z4 work. And I'm still riding the bike twice a week
3. I finish all runs pretty much like nothing happened and could go out and do the run again, legs feel tired sometimes but it's actually something I'm enjoying as it's a new feeling. Running off the bike has been fine also
4. I feel like my form, posture etc are better. Running uphill is MUCH easier and instantly after cresting the hill my breathing and RPE goes back into easy mode if it was elevated b/c of the hill
5. Strides!! Man my turnover is fast and it's natural. Feels good so far.
6. Biggest obstacle has been running slow enough
Continuing On:
My plan is to stay at 40 for the next two weeks (4 weeks total), take a "rest week" of 25-30 miles and then go up to 50 miles per week, continuing to run easy. After a good base then get back on the EN run plan for next year provided I have time to race
So, that's the jist of it. Heck, I might have stated the obvious here I dunno. Historically I'd been searching for the quick solution to running faster and better, well that's not going to happen. One thing I always noticed about good endurance athletes when they finish races is that normally they say something to the tune of "Man, I just ran out of legs". That has never been my problem. I run out of lungs every time. So I guess this is me "baking my running cake"
Thoughts? Call me crazy, I'm a big boy I can take it
Comments
Jamie-
I for one really like your plan and you are taking it up nice and slow. If you the legs start feeling wore out and taking more time to recover then slow your bumps down a little more. Would hate to have you get ITB or some other nagging running injury to set you back 6 weeks or so. Remember running is the hardest of our three disciplines.
I really think you should throw in one tempo run a week just to surprise the muscle memory unless you are just looking at one huge base. Come OS though your body and legs might really be surprised and could be harder then you think.
Again enjoy and just really listen to your body language!! Keep us updated on the progress.
My body seems to accept the EN way versus the time and mileage way.
Too much running time and mileage beats me up with difficult recoveries.
I personally have had success with running shorter and faster.
So please be careful with the higher mileages.
I wish I had some constructive feedback for you, but the only thing that comes to mind is to keep in consideration the 10% rule when you ramp up your run volume (ie, the often-cited rule of increasing volume by just 10% per week to allow adaptation and decrease risk for injury).
And great job getting that cadence up! THAT is huge for injury prevention!
Not sure if any of this is helpful ... heck, I'm still trying to figure it all out too!
I have no quibble with trying out more frequency and mileage. Peole do it all thet ime geting ready for marathons. Not my cup of tea, but I know what works for me and what I like, and know that others may need a different approach.
I would like to comment on the "lungs" vs "legs" issue you bring up. Ever since my youth as a (very poor) competitive swimmer, I have always felt the oppostie. My muscles seem to be the rate-limiter, not my HR or my breathing.
What I think (no scientific evidence for this, just my own feeling) is that "lungs" is a question of cardiac output. Basically, the lower the resting heart rate, the larger the volume of blood able to be pumped with each beat. As I re-train in the fall/winter each year, I find my HR/pace or power comes down very quickly. E.g., start OS 1 mile running intervals @ say 152 bpm, within 4 weeks, that's down to say 142, and sometimes goes lower, even if my testing raises by Training Pace (TP). And my resting HR starts to drift below 40.
The thing that has always seemed to get my HR/"lungs" into shape the best and quickest is short, hard intervals, whether swimming, running, or on the bike. Like in the range of 45-90 seconds, with 10-45 seconds rest in between.
If I were to apply this thinking to Jaime's experiment ... you say EVERYTHING is easy, but then you mention STRIDES in your observations. Maybe those strides (reaslly fast, short efforts) are doing you a lot of good.
So what would "legs" be about? ability to recruit sufficient and appropriately trained muscle fiber bundles. Again, short hard intervals help with that, by getting more fasttwitch muscle bundles into the action.
Strides to me are easy. They're only 40-50 yard and just a form thing. Good high turnover and "easy" fast effort.
I'll follow up in a couple of weeks. I think once I get a really good base incorporating some tempo work will help me quite a bit. We will see. Thanks for the input folks
Bill - The one thing I do agree on with that method is their theory of functional strength first. While I understand that doing endless leg presses won't make anyone a faster runner/biker inherently, there is something to be said for muscle imbalances, form weaknesses, etc that WILL lead to injuries very quickly if they aren't addressed prior to ramping up either speed or distance.
Seems like running is one of the only "sports" where form/strength isn't encouraged first. I get that running is a "natural" motion, but that little weird foot thing or that tiny sideways motion in the hip can become a full-blown, season-ending injury if it isn't fixed first. You'd never see a kid tossed in as QB on a football field if he hadn't been taught how to throw first or if he didn't have the strength in his arm to send that perfect spiral into a teammate's numbers.....
I may have to go back and reread from the start...I may have missed the point...but I don't see what you have achieved? or what your experiment is?
As far as I can tell nobobdy within the haus, R&P, disagree that aerobic volume for strenght, base building etc. is wrong.......it why running is such an imporant component of the training...(ie. the most important work out during the weak is the long run)...and R&P recommend getting in at the least an easy run...often (frequency)...to build durability, strenght, base.
Your "epiphany" if any seems to be is that you understood that if you were going to increase volume you had to sacrifice pace/effort....smart.....and I agree 100% that most people do their easy running too hard.........
...increased volume, without injury and ample recovery has lots fo benefits....not least of which is reduced weight and enhanced power:weight ratio....ALL GOOD............
...but if you want to cover a specific distance at a specific pace....(and that pace is faster than your Z1...)...you have to add quality at some point....or you will have to add more volume and over a longer period of time to move your Z1 pace to a faster level (though again reduced weight, efficiency, will all help in making Z`1 pace easier)....
EN methodology is just a ROI tradeoff for targeting and completing an Ironman event...it is not really a replacement for solid all-round running fitness...or a running methodology...so what you are doing makes absolute sense to make yourself a better all-around runner....
Many of us coming from a running background can leverage that type of volume/base we already had and go right into a quality focused period....and oftern take that base work for granted.
...in fact after a full year of EN focus...I find myself wanting to add some volume back into my running regimen....and will be doing that by adding in some additional minutes/miles etc. to some of the weekly easy runs...and maybe adding in some additional easy short runs early in the season....emphasis on EASY as you have so appropriately put/noted/learned)
So Good work in knowing yourself, figuring what works for you, being an experiment of one...and sharing...continued success...and keep us appraised.
I guess my point/guess was. I can run as far as I want to provided I run at a truly easy pace. Most of what I read advises to build mileage in small increments but I think one can run "long" weeks by running easy. So instead of starting at 20 where I was I went straight to 40 and am going to build from there
I don't disagree AT ALL with RnP's running program, in fact I truly enjoy it but one thing I noticed (and it's a me thing) is that I run out of gas post intervals. I can knock some intervals out like a mad man. Strength, power and top speed is what I have. What I don't have is endurance. I don't have that ability to run when tired like others seems to have.
What i noticed and again a me thing, is that even at the RnP Z1 pace for me (9:07/mi) which is seemingly "all day pace" from what I understand I can start on a flat road with good weather and run 9:07's mile after mile but my HR after mile 6 is going to start to climb and when I get to the hour and a half to hour and 45 minute mark I'm in z3 or z4 HR and the effort still feels very easy. I know there's HR creep but I feel like I'm off the charts. And the other thing is once the HR gets into Z4 it doesn't come back down for me
This is an effort to see if I can solve some of those issues
I'm pressed for time at the moment but I hope that makes sense
Jamie...yes it all makes sense...and I did not want to be argumentative...sorry if it came across that way...upon rereading I thought maybe thats the way it sounded.........
anyway..I think we tend to look at the volume v intensity discussion as either/or ..all or nothing...and that just isn't the case.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and ideas....continued success.
Endurance capacity was defined as training to improve time trial performance (ie, intervals), and fatigue resistance was ability to maintain pace throughout an effort (threshold, LSD, etc). In my mind, the two should be reversed based on the names, but that is beside the point.
The presenters point for bringing this up is that you need to work both - you can work one or the other and improve, but you'll hit a limit at some point.
It's interesting you mention fast twitch - I've kinda wondered for a while how much an effect a persons fast/slow twitch balance has on which to go with. If you have some people who are die-hard fans of going long and slow (ie, fatigue resistance), and some people who are die-hard fans of running fast (endurance capacity) - obviously there is no one right answer. So I wondered whether genetics in terms of muscle fiber distribution plays a part in which type of training is more beneficial for any one type of person.
So, anyway - my point is that if someone is primarily fast twitch - they may actually be able to improve their running times of longer distance races by running lots of slow miles. The fibers all start to act more slow twitch-like - so they don't burn out so quickly during longer (ie, 10k+) running events. To them, the fact that they train slow, and are now able to maintain a pace throughout a half marathon, and finish faster due to not having fatigued their muscles so quickly, is evidence to them that running long slow miles makes them faster. Your mention of not having endurance would seem to correspond with this idea.
Back to the presentation - the folks talked abotu designing a 52 week plan. In short, they mentioned basically when RnP advise - a period of short, fast intervals, then gradually extending the distance through various training phases. Having just looked back at my notes after having not seen them in a while, I thought that was really interesting.
Also, I recently posted a thread where I came across an article by Mark Allen about his training. Long story short, he was always running fast to try and get fast, but hit a wall. Got a HR monitor, was told to keep his HR below a certain number, did that for a time and got stupid-fast. Once he plateau'd with that, he went back to intervals until he reached a limit there, and then went back to slow purely aerobic miles. I am starting to wonder whether his muscles are predominantly fast twitch.
Just a couple things that reading this thread made me think of that are somewhat relevant.
I'm mostly a runner, have done one ultra, and am planning to do a 50- and 100-miler in the spring. Personally I have found a lot of value in taking up the volume, but I don't like taking up the frequency. I like to run only 3 times per week and swim/bike another 2-3 days to recover. When taking up the volume for my ultra training I like to do a couple high volume days and then one day of speed work at a high school track. I love to run, but the idea of a recovery run is not only boring to me, but I do not like to go out for a run when my legs feel heavy and the rest of my body/mind doesn't feel like running. And no matter what distance I am training for, I think interval work is extremely important. Not only is it a way to mix things up, I do not want my body to forget what "fast" feels like.
Good luck and I'm curious to see how the experiment plays out in the end.
Ran the Atlanta Half Marathon on Thanksgiving and set almost a 2 minute PR. If it weren't for a freak side stitch I know I would have been closer to a 3 minute PR. The effort was easy and conversational for 7 miles. Side stitch lasted about 30 minutes which slowed me down about 15s a mile then I sped back up after I got it relaxed.
The only negative I've found so far is it's easy to forget what it feels like to suffer. I'm planning a 5k on New Years so I'm going to squeeze in some 5k pace stuff just to remember the feeling this month but hopefully be gaining a few seconds a mile at 5k pace also
2 minute PR in a half - what time is that? I'm curious, because obviously 2 minutes is more dramatic at the 1:30 range vs the 2:00 range. Did you intentionally keep it easy for that 7 miles or do you feel you could have gone faster? .
My average cadence for the run was 95