How hard should you run ? - Page 11 - Training

riplex

11/03/2005 at 17:04

I bet there's a distinct correlation between the wearing of a running vest (instead of a sleaved shirt) and faster runners too. Does that mean if I wear a vest I'll get faster? Correlation doesn't imply causation.

themoabird

11/03/2005 at 17:05

"Correlation doesn't imply causation."

Foo Bar, you're a star.

Pantman

11/03/2005 at 17:07

Agreed, themoabird, but lets clarify things:

Can't speak for others but I would not agree with the simplicity of the second statement by itself.

"All" would have to be replaced by "vast majority"

"80mpw" is no magic figure. Some folks may need more (I genuinely do not consider 80mpw to be high mileage), some folks may need strength work, speed work (yes, you heard me right) or whatever the weak link is in their chain. But most CAN get there. And lifetime mileage (or perhaps even "fitness") is the biggest factor.

And I'd happily change "3hr" to "2:30" at worst. But I am talking long term and making presumptions about well structured, intelligent training, intent and lifestyle/commitments.

Of course, I can't prove this, but neither can it be disproved - that what makes these discussions so much fun! :-D

jason X

11/03/2005 at 17:07

...and not everyone can train to 80mpw even if they wanted to and had the time.

Some would never be able to get to that level through re occuring injury.

Its not like you can just go out and do an eighty mile week from a base level of fitness. It took me a long time before I could hit that kind of mileage (which I only very occasionally do)without being two steps away from injury.

Just to get to 80mpw training injury free is an achievement in itself

Barnsley Runner

11/03/2005 at 17:08

Thanks themobird, that's clarified things. Just like to know a bit of background:)

Still think you like being provocative though, which again is no bad thing.

Plodding Hippo

11/03/2005 at 17:10

lurk

themoabird

11/03/2005 at 17:10

Pantman

Why do you think this would be true?

I can tell you why I think it isn't; but it's a long complicated story - and boring - about normal distributions, multifactorial causality (in terms of what consitutes a good runner), etc., so I won't torture you with it.

But given that we don't normally believe things to be true without good reasons, I'm wondering what your positive reasons are for believing it?

themoabird

11/03/2005 at 17:12

"Just like to know a bit of background:)"

:)

Don't go thinking that I'm an old, frustrated runner who tried and failed to get faster. I never tried! :))

But I'm the kind of person Jason is talking about. I can't train more than about 50 a week; I'd break down with injury. My running gait is terrible. I look like a demented penguin.

Barnsley Runner

11/03/2005 at 17:19

So if you'd worked on altering your running style you might have been able to sustain more than 50mpw?

Not saying you should have or anything, but will you admit that it is possible to make the changes necessary to make a 3hr marathon runner for (let's pluck a number at random...) 80% of runners?

Pantman used to get injured on anything more than 40mpw until he switched to racing flats and fore / midfoot striking instead of clumpy trainers.

I used to get injured on 3 speed sessions per week so I cut back and have got faster due to the consistent high mileage training.

jason X

11/03/2005 at 17:25

plodding hippo wrote:
"lurk"

unlurk yourself and add something I dont wanna be the only Ultra runner left in this thread...Its getting over run by the sub 2:45 mararthoners. :-)

Barnsley Runner

11/03/2005 at 17:29

On 80mpw?

themoabird

11/03/2005 at 17:31

BR

Well, the answer in my case is no; my gait problems are too profound for style solutions (I'm a natural fore foot striker, by the way). My pelvis is strangely alilgned, it means my left foot doesn't strike the ground any where near straight ahead.

I think 80% is too high (because, for example, I think 3hrs will likely always be beyond the reach of people with endomorph body types). But if you drop it to 65%, then I wouldn't be surprised.

But I'd still want evidence, rather than anecdote before commiting myself to the view.

jason X

11/03/2005 at 17:33

BR what on 80mpw? - i missed your point?

Plodding Hippo

11/03/2005 at 17:34

jason
Im a SLOW er ultra er walker

Im off to join the LDWA

seriously i sometimes wonder what would happen if i did 80mpw

Barnsley Runner

11/03/2005 at 17:37

You mentioned about the thread getting taken over by sub 2:45 marathoners, so I lightheartedly asked if they were on 80mpw:)

jason X

11/03/2005 at 17:41

:-)

Plodding Hippo

11/03/2005 at 17:42

:)))

Plodding Hippo

11/03/2005 at 17:44

I can do a half in sub 2.45

themoabird

11/03/2005 at 17:52

"I can do a half in sub 2.45"

I first did a half in 1987, before I'd started running (I just thought I'd do one - go figure - no training at all).

I shot off at 7 minute miling, big mistake. I got to nine miles in about 65 minutes. The next four miles took literally an hour. By the time I got to the end, I was seeing black dots before my eyes. I managed to run the whole way - after a fashion, it was almost running on the spot - until the lap of the track which finished the race, which I had to walk. Needless to say, all the spectators were encouraging me to make a final effort. Also, needless to say, I didn't.

:))

Plodding Hippo

11/03/2005 at 17:54

I cant even do ONE 7 minute mile

this thread is making me feel really guilty

have we spoken yet of the guilt motivation?