Getting fit 'quick' - Training

stugoo7

28/07/2012 at 18:58

I know there is no easy way to do it and these things take time but I'll explain.. I was a few years ago in good shape. I ran for a running club and at what was my level back then, I was running low 31 mins for 10k, 70 mins for the half. Around 80 mpw, 2x runs a day, long training runs up to 20 miles, occasionally at sub 7 pace. I am a long distance runner. However that was around 2007/2008 and other commitments and lets say a serious job with shift work has kind of changed probably me, but the commitment I once had to running. I've moved also which had restricted access to my running club. I'm looking to get back to a pretty high/higher standard again. The reason is, as it always was for competition means, also this time just to be fit again. Wouldn't say I'm past it.. at 24! However I'm not fit just now and rarely run, with me going downhill to near nothing over the last 4-5 years. Having previously had an established running base I know what I can take but I know that in general anaerobic/aerobic terms im not there yet. I'm just not willing to give it up on running completely. What advice can anyone prescribe for getting back up to a good standard from my position quickly? Runs etc, sessions, terrain. Usually I'd know this but I've been absent from the sport a while!! Thanks in advance.

Tom.

28/07/2012 at 21:44

You've been there before, so you know what's required. However it will take as long as it takes....probably much longer if you push too hard and get injured.

From my own experience I'd spend about nine months building up to 70mpw. Once you're coping with that I'd add a second daily run (5 days a week) of about five miles. If you've got the inherent ability and commitment to hard work and can cope with am runs at 6:15 pace and pm runs at 5:45 pace that should deliver 10k at 31.xx and HM at 68.xx.

RicF

29/07/2012 at 11:47

One endurance run, 2 speed sessions a week and plenty of rest. You'll need the rest for your body to get over the shock of running.

Tom.

29/07/2012 at 17:07

So there you have it:

12 sessions a week totalling 95mpw or one endurance run, 2 speed sessions a week and plenty of rest. Perhaps Moraghan would like to adjudicate!

Stevie G .

29/07/2012 at 17:33

I wonder if i took the "Ric" way if i could get down to 31mins for 10k

RicF

29/07/2012 at 17:57

I guess it depends on what you want or call a good standard. The reality is that there are 'no' shortcuts and if attempted will probably result in some mishap. I've done both mileage training and the three a week job. But if I was being really exact, I did the three a week method for months on end getting sub 35 min 10k's in the process, but only because I had a mileage base from the previous year to work with; which you don't yet have, so miles first. Its also under estimated how much stress from work and life in general can take from your ability to train and race. After all, running is just another stress raiser to add to the pile. One reason why so many people pack in running at a serious level, its easier not running 100 miles per week.

stugoo7

02/08/2012 at 02:13

Thanks for the advice. Im taking it steady and just being patient as i dont want to rush and set myself back by injury however i want to progress reasonably. The original post was to gather ideas of ideal training sessions and example weekly mileages etc to get the most gain from the level im currently at, though obviously still being sensible. I was before I gave it up, up to a fairly good club standard. My aims are to get fitter than before, they are ambitious but when I was fitter wouldnt have been. It's to take my 10k time back to around 31, then get it lower (I always had a lofty sub 30 in mind) and the 10 mile to around 51, and lower, from a previous of 52. I'd like to be somewhat close to this shape by next year, but I'll judge how it goes, as time goes on.

RicF

02/08/2012 at 06:36

Talent will out. You'll hit 98% of your full potential in about 18 months of starting from zero without anything too extreme training wise. It gets a bit more risky and plateau like after that. You could still be getting faster for another 10 years. Good luck.

Tom.

02/08/2012 at 21:23

RicF: you write "you'll hit 98% of your full potential in about 18 months of starting from zero without anything too extreme training wise"

That seems to me to be an ill considered statement...perhaps you could illustrate this with some examples.

alehouse

02/08/2012 at 21:40

Tom: I agree! That statement rather worried me, also! I am struggling to think of any athlete that I know/have known who falls into that category, not even some quick sprinters with lots of natural talent.

To answer the original question the key things are consistent training and training that gradually becomes more progressive over time. I would add to that a rigorous and regular flexibility/injury protection regime.

Nick Windsor 4

03/08/2012 at 06:27

Stugoo7 - Clearly running at the pace you mention, you have natural ability in abundance, I think at your age you will be back to some real good times in a very short period. I agree with Ric you could be improving your original times inside 18 months and when you whip some off the top who knows where you could be in 4 years time, especially with Rio just around the corner.

stugoo7

03/08/2012 at 12:36

Thanks for the encouraging comments but to be running decent personal bests, which outclass more than just 'good' is what I'm after. The days of looking to very serious competition might not be as feasible. My job also demands a bit more of me that I couldn't see that being compatible. Many more athletes in the uk, Scotland aswell, where I stay, that are showing greater potential just now of progressing to something more.

Nick Windsor 4

03/08/2012 at 15:16

That's the problem with British athletics! I don't wish to denigrate your current job in any way, but I find it heartbreaking that we can allow natural talent to go to waste on shift working, can you apply for funding?

Tricky Dicky¹

03/08/2012 at 16:28

Stugoo - I have to admire your determination to crack on. Combining work and honing talent is not an easy thing to do. Maybe Nick is on to something about the funding thing.

All i would say is that at age 24, it would be a shame not to unleash your natural fountain of youth - if I can put it like that. And also, without being too controversial, (I'd hate to be misunderstood or accused of ignorance or lack of sincerity), but when was the last time a good athlete came out of Scotland?! I don't mean legends like Sir Chris Hoy, but products of Scottish Athletics. Have you looked at the way Freya Murray actually runs?!? It's like someone chucked on a prosthetic limb they found in a spare parts bin, without actually measuring her legs.

No, if you are as good as we think you could be according to what we've heard so far, someone should pay for you to move south, at least past say Sheffield, to be on the safe side, in order for you to realise your latent talent.

Nick Windsor 4

03/08/2012 at 17:26

Tricky I see your point but I fail to see what Freda Murray's running style has to do with it, and if you recall the film train spotting was about Scottish people running where Ewan McGregor certainly put on a mean gallop in the opening sequence. Having removed the racial aspect of the case I believe the funding of English athletes would mean the same outcome, as there is more money available down south, so for different reasons I would agree with your migration theory. There is finally one other issue and I think Sir Chris Hoy himself said he would never have won any gold medals without moving nearer to the Manchester Velodrome, but he agreed that the lack of deep fried mars bars had been an issue to start with but had actually helped long term

Stevie G .

03/08/2012 at 17:36

RicF wrote (see)

Talent will out. You'll hit 98% of your full potential in about 18 months of starting from zero without anything too extreme training wise. It gets a bit more risky and plateau like after that. You could still be getting faster for another 10 years. Good luck.

Ric...probably right percentage, but completely wrong time zone.

Surely noone hits 98% within 18months, as it would take a good 6months minimum to build to 50miles a week training.

A lot of people go by the you can improve for 7-10years theory. And even then that's a 7-10 years of good full training...

so perhaps 98% after 7-10years hard training is a bit more reasonable...

We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member