Training Trends

Distance running training philosophy has changed throughout the years. Well, really, it goes back and forth between two "schools"- more distance vs. more intensity.

• Late 1800's [time on your feet]: long walks with the occasional bout of sprinting for a short distance
• Early 1900's [distance]: long runs + walks and a little bit of short, high intensity intervals
• 40's and 50's [intensity]: lots and lots of shorter intervals (i.e., 80x200m) or lots of longer intervals at a higher intensity (i.e., 10x400m run in a descending fashion)... the latest and greatest school of thought was to get your heart rate up to 180bpm during the intervals (basically max out) and recover around 120bpm
• 60's and 70's [hard/easy cycles]: the "base mileage phase" was emphasized again, but interval workouts still had their place in most training schedules. While weekly mileage remained pretty high (owing to a lot of long, easy runs), interval workouts were incorporated to help athletes get used to running at their goal race pace.
• 80's and 90's [science]: the hard/easy philosophy was maintained, except instead of an entire cycle being long, easy miles followed by another cycle of hard, tempo miles, both workouts were incorporated into the weekly training schedule. "Science" made its debut in training, and finding your VO2max became all the rage, which popularized Zone Training (hence hard/easy workouts happily co-existing in the same week!).    
• 2000's [very yes]: a little mix of everything depending upon the athlete, what they're training for, how much time they have, injuries... training has got "all crazy" and even begun incorporating hard/easy paces into the same workout [known as The Progression Run - i.e., the runs from hell that coach has us do sometimes where we start off at marathon pace and descend to 10k pace].

Fast Finishes

I hate getting passed at the end of a race... well, I hate getting passed at any point during the race... but the end just seems worse because I've managed to stay ahead of that person for 99+ percent of time. But, alas, it only matters who crosses the finish line first. So, is there anything you can do to make sure your the passer and not the passee?

• Run a longer warmup before an interval session so that you're more tired than usual
• Drop the pace by 20-30sec / mile for the last 1/3 of your long run (I'm thinking this should be expressed more as a percent and not as a fixed time, but that's just me)
• Ladder Workout: 1-mile @ 5k pace, 1200m 1sec/lap faster, 1000m 2sec/lap faster, 800m 3sec/lap faster, 600m 4sec/lap faster, 400m 5sec/lap faster with 1:1 time recovery (I think the pace decrements are from the first mile, but it might be from the previous interval- i.e., the 400m would be 15sec/lap faster than the mile?... that seems way too fast)
• 10-mile acceleration run (dropping pace by 20sec every two-miles)

And, although easy/recovery runs are supposed to be easy, there's no use fighting yourself to stay at the same pace... most people speed up a little bit at the end!

Running for Time vs. Distance

Each has its place in training (interesting thread on the topic). I was thinking about this concept the other week when we were doing sets of 2-, 1-, 0.5-min "hard" with 1/2 time recovery in place of our normal track workout. In my head, I converted this to approximate distances, and tried to think about which seemed less intimidating. At the end of 5 sets, I still hadn't reached a conclusion. The 0.5-min interval seemed a lot longer than the 150m that I mapped it to, while the 2-min seemed a lot less awful than the 500-600m that I would normally cover in that time. In all honesty, I have no idea why, but I'll hazard a guess for the sake of this post.

For most distance runners (I'm considering myself one since most of my training is focused on distances 10k or greater), 60-sec worth of running seems like nothing. So, we run hard, much harder than we probably should (especially since we don't often run that pace). After about 20sec, our legs begin to burn because we are (1) tapping into a vastly different energy system and (2) using a greater range of motion then we are used to. However, most of us can see 150m, so we internally calibrate our speed to much more closely approximate what it should be.

Now on to the 2-min interval. I don't know about y'all, but I consider any interval greater than 400m to be something that is going to be *slightly* unpleasant (because I feel that the speed does not decrease proportionately with the added distance). However, I think that the majority of my problem with the 401-1600m interval distance is the fact that it means that I have to start a new lap (wonder what a 500m track would be like?). When running for time, there's nothing to serve as a reminder of how long you've been running. Plus, I have a pretty good idea of the pace I can maintain (reasonably) for two minutes, and tend to moderate my effort level accordingly (versus starting/ending fast and dropping off in the middle, like I do at the track). Also, 2-min isn't so excessively long that I begin checking my watch non-stop (5-min is the cutoff for me).

Other thoughts I have... I find running for time to be more mentally challenging than running for distance because there is no visual reminder of the finish. Also, there is no easy way to make sure you're on pace (i.e., you can't look at your watch every 100m), so it's a good lesson on the topic. Running a "straight" distance (like the Lake Johnson chip trail or the ATT) also has a similar effect. Anyways, that's a lot of words without a lot of links (aka these are my thoughts on the subject and not someone (with more experience) else's), so take this post for what it is. Anyone else want to share their opinion?

Down, down, down

We all know that running uphill is hard, but running downhill can be just as hard. Even though it seems easy, running downhill requires the muscle to lengthen, resulting in more force generation and micro-tears in the fibers (putting you at risk for IT Band syndrome). Additionally, you move faster downhill, which increases the force at which you hit the ground. However, running downhill has been shown to increase speed and turnover, as well as build strength. So, how can you incorporate this into your training?

Start off on a more gradual downhill on a softer surface (like grass) to lessen some of the impact before progressing to more "realistic" scenarios. In order to avoid over-striding, increase your cadence and make sure that you're landing with your center of mass over your foot. The second page of the article contains a variety of workouts. Just remember, downhill sessions should be treated like an interval workout, taking 2-3 days of recovery. In order to avoid injuries (especially IT Band syndrome), back off downhill training at least 2 weeks before your race.

... have fun coming back down Heartbreak Hill!!!

Short Runs Part 2

Yes... I love track workouts... so I am more likely to read articles about them. The schedule that Coach has laid out for us incorporates a variety of track workouts. Longer repeats to work on pacing... shorter to work on turnover... sometimes the intervals are all the same length... other times, the distance varies... you get the point. The workouts that I have the most difficulty with are the ones that require us to change pace. Whether it's dropping to 10k pace after 5+ miles at marathon pace or 3-5k pace for shorter repeats at the end of a track workout, I usually start off too fast and then bonk halfway through the repeat. But, as luck would have it, these workouts are "good for you"... guess what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger.

According to the article from running times, "combo workouts" are those that mix together speed, VO2-max intervals / tempo (not sure the exact distinction... but I'm guessing the former is 1000m-3000m intervals at 10k pace and the later is 30+ min at closer to half marathon pace), and progression workouts. Combo workouts are good for you because the combine multiple, different stresses into one training session (aka I would describe the pain associated with running a half marathon as more fatigue related whereas 400m is more lung-burning / quad-shaking). By sticking them all in the same workout, you simulate "race" conditions (surging to pass someone with 200m to go after running however many miles before that) without having to actually run the race itself. Also, the variety keeps the workout interesting, and sometimes more manageable because it give logical "break" points. The second page of the article gives some example workouts and explanations of what they target / when to do them.

Medium Runs

Okay, back to our "what makes elites elites" discussion from last week, and on to "section 2" of the article. Moving on from base training, the largest gains in terms of fat-burning efficiency can be realized when running close to the highest speed you can run without going anaerobic. For "experienced" runners, this equates to an effort level of 70-75%. While many of us would initially find this pace hard to maintain for 90+ minutes, practice makes perfect, and the author of the article assures us that it will get easier. Personally speaking, while I don't find our "long tempo runs" to be easy, they are getting less horrible (aka I'm not dying quite as quickly and I am recovering a little bit faster). Tempo runs are also the quickest way to raise your lactate / anaerobic threshold, which translates into faster times.   

However, not every run should be done at this pace. There is still the need for "easy runs". If you run every run at a tempo pace, you'll begin slipping anaerobic and undoing all of your hard work. Furthermore, lactic acid and other waste products begin to accumulate in your muscles, prolonging recovery. So, bottom line, "it's better to run a little too slow than a little too fast."