|
Preamble-------------------
Thanks to some
of you, this suddenly got easier for me to post...
Recently I was
asked a number of questions by Wise Man on an earlier thread (see Joe Blow
thread). Questions that basically asked for more general guidelines
on how best to proceed rather than very specific one-off replies to
individual queries. The questions were basically along the lines of
“how do we put into practice training as you (Hadd)
suggest?”
Try as I might, I could not think of a way to put
the answer to this into concise form (never did master the art of the
one-liner). The more I thought, the more I could think of to say. I
came to see that any attempt at brevity would simply result in further
questions down the line. Yet I do not like NOT answering...
Another
thing that held me back was my doubting there was wide enough genuine
interest to justify a whole thread. I was held back to even as late as
last night, basically doing the Gollum-thing...
"you're gonna sound
like an arrogant know-it-all (gollum, gollum)"
"but we only wants to
help, precious..."
"You're STILL gonna come across as an
arrogant..."
So, as I said above, this morning this suddenly got
easier to post, and I would like to thank those of you who expressed their
appreciation of my earlier posts in the "most informative" thread. I'm
glad that some of you are finding them of value. You helped convince me to
go ahead with this.
Enough preamble, therefore. Let's go to
work....
So I am going to write this as I would approach it.
And hopefully along the way a number of people will be able to see how
they, personally, fit into the picture. Note, this is only ONE approach to
training. There can be many. Other coaches on here may have other (equally
good, or better) ways of working. But this way is worth looking at,
because it works.
Put up the Under Construction signs
therefore, and just view this as a work in progress. There will be
more posts added by me. I have not laid this out in chapters like
some planned book. So, if some bits are incomplete, or I can later
think of instances that might not be covered by parts I have already
written, I will come back and fit them in.
I think the best
thing would be for me to number each part therefore, in the knowledge that
there might well be later addenda to part I (or part II), for example, and
so everyone will know where those addenda belong. Although there is no
plan (for the good reason that it gets longer the more I think about it),
I have a good general outline of what I want to say and where this will
go. I would expect 4-5 long-ish posts by me (not counting replying to
questions), culminating in an actual real life example of all that goes
before being put into practice.
Obviously, if there are
questions, chuck them in (although I may defer them to later, if I know I
will answer them in a future post). They may help me to nudge this
in the direction it needs to take, and keep it applicable. I will try to
make it as general as possible.
Before I forget, I would suggest
that if you have not already done so, you read my earlier long thread
before getting into this. May help to make it easier to understand. (And
you don't have to tell me it's long, I wrote most of it!)
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=42240&page=0
Part I
-----------------------------------
Let’s start
from the very beginning. A male (or female) approaches me for
training. It could be you. (If I use he/she in the following posts in this
thread, please note that either of them apply equally well to both
sexes. What I am saying works for male and
females.)
Now I am not a college coach, only used to young
studs aged 18 years and up. Which is good, because I get to see a
wide spectrum of runners, many of them past-30 and wanting to get back
into it again. This has allowed me to gain experience of coaching
all ages and all fitness levels and gives me wider knowledge of heart
rates (HR) (and not find, as with teenagers, that everyone’s HRmax is
simply, "over-200"). Note that many on Letsrun fall into this
category, wanting to get back in the saddle and work to improve their
times in their 30s and 40s…
Yet I do coach young kids;
youngest boy and girl 15 years old, then 17-18 and on up to early 20s… So
some of this might in places apply to teenagers. (Having said that, if you
are already getting coached, I would recommend that you do what your coach
tells you, and don't chop and change ideas with every book/schedule you
read. You cannot beat consistency over time.)
So, a male or
female approaches me… I generally want to know some background before
agreeing to take them on. Usually I ask for recent race
performances. But I am not just looking at the times here, more
importantly I want to see the relationship between the race times and
distances.
I may get numbers for events like this:
From a
young runner; 400m, 800m, 1500m, 5k (maybe)
From an older (road)
runner; 5k (maybe), 10k, HM and marathon (maybe)
Right away
I’m really looking to see what’s wrong. (If there is nothing “wrong”,
there will be a limited amount I can do for the guy). Not what is
wrong with the times (eg: they're slow), but what is wrong with the
relationships between the times a) there may not be a relationship,
or b) the relationship might be too loose.
Let’s look at what
I mean:
Here are some times I might receive (all number are
actual real-life examples)
Young runner: 56.x (400), 2.09 (800), 4.37
(1500), 38.30 (10k)
Older runner: 17.02 (5k), 36.45 (10k), 1.24 (HM),
3.10+ (marathon)
Many of you will have seen equivalence
tables somewhere. Tables that give points per performance per
distance and allow comparisons between (e.g.) 800m and marathon. The
Hungarian Tables are one such example. Mercier tables are
another.
But no-one suggests that a single person can be
equally good at all distances across the board (apart from rarities like
Rod Dixon). Your genetic strengths tend to weigh you more in one
direction (speed) or the other (endurance). So, some people’s
performances get better as the race gets longer (or shorter). And
this is beyond/in excess of a training effect, they are just more gifted
aerobically (or anaerobically).
BUT there should still be
some form of relationship across distances, and this is what I look for
when I hear someone’s PR’s.
Frank Horwill once defined
this sort of relationship by saying that if a runner slowed up by 16
secs/mile at any distance (actually, I believe he said 4 secs per 400m
lap), that runner could then keep going for twice the distance. (Note that
better trained runners slow up LESS than 4 secs per lap to go twice the
distance…)
So, according to Horwill, if you can run 5.00 for
one mile, you can run at 5.16m/m for 3k/2 miles and 5.32m/m for 5k, and
5.48 for 10k, and 6.04 for 10 miles and 6.20 for marathon (plus or minus a
second here or there). This is what I mean when there should be a
“relationship” between race performances (assuming good/similar level of
training for each event).
For better-trained runners, the
relationship is even tighter. I have coached one runner like the
example just given; has a 4.59 one mile PR. Who can run 5k at
5.20m/m (instead of Horwill’s 5.31). And 10k at 5.31, HM at 5.40 and
marathon at 5.59m/m (instead of Horwill’s rule of thumb 6.20m/m).
But this runner’s one mile to 5k distances are seldom trained for, or
raced, so there might be some secs still to come off of both of
them.
Think of it roughly like a clock face: Your one mile PR
should be at 12, your 5k PR pace should be at quarter-past (+15 secs),
your 10k PR should be at half-past (again, +15 secs), your HM PR should be
at quarter-to (again + 15 secs), and your marathon PR should be once again
at the top of the hour. (This also fits in with the old rule of
thumb that your marathon PR pace should be mile PR pace + 60
secs/mile)
So what is wrong with our runners above?
(remember, Horwill said slow up by 4 secs/lap to go twice the distance.
We'll use his rule of thumb here.)
Young runner: 56.x (400), 2.09
(800), 4.37 (1500), 38.30 (10k)
400m = 56 secs
800m = 2.09 (should
be 2.00 from 400 time)
1500m = 4.37 (should be 4.00 from 400m time or
4.16 from 800m time)
10k = 38.30 Fuggedabouddit…
So,
our young guy gets rapidly worse as the race distance increases showing he
is poor aerobically. Note that he gets worse even on the next
distance up, showing how poor his aerobic conditioning/capacity is.
He has NO relationship between his race performances.
Older
runner: 17.02 (5k), 36.45 (10k), 1.24 (HM), 3.10+ (marathon)
5k = 17.02
(5.28m/m)
10k = 36.45 (5.55m/m – should be 5.44m/m from 5k time)
HM
= 1.24 (6.24m/m – should be 6.00m/m from 5k time and 6.11 from 10k
time)
Mar = 3.10 (7.15m/m – should be 6.40 from HM time and 6.27 from
10k time)
Like our young guy, this runner is also poor
aerobically. He too has NO relationship between his performances.
What we COULD have found is a relationship between 5k-10k-HM but NO
relationship between HM-marathon (just meaning that he was not as well
prepared for the longer distance as he was for the HM).
Now
these times are all plus/minus a few seconds, not hard and fast. So
we do not need to quibble on whether it should be +15 or +17
secs/mile. The point I want to stress is the existence of a
relationship. I don’t hold hard and fast to Horwill’s 16 secs/mile
(as I have shown, for better runners it might be 12-15 secs/mile or
tighter still). But I do agree with his concept of a relationship
between performances at all distances. I am always working towards
it with runners I coach (at least within the range of events in which they
wish to be competitive). This relationship can tell a lot about how well
prepared a particular runner is for a given event.
Note that
there can be two things “wrong” with your PR’s. One, as shown, there
can be no evidence of a relationship (usually meaning your aerobic ability
is wayyyyy poor). Or there can be a relationship, but it is too
loose (instead of slowing up/adding 16 secs/mile to run double the
distance, you slow up/add 20-24 secs/mile). In this second instance,
your aerobic ability is less poor, but still needs work.
To
sum up; if you are well trained aerobically, you do not fall apart (as in
the earlier examples) when the race gets longer. And here some of
you may like to do a quick check and see how your own performances
compare…
So, on seeing these, or similar, numbers, I expect
to hear at least one (and maybe both) of two things from the athlete
concerned:
1. Low mileage background in training
2. Whatever mileage
being done is being run “too fast” (for performance level)
To
be continued… |
