Volunteers needed to test my Low Mileage, High Quality training plan!

Just wanted to give an update on my own training. I'm in Week 1 of a new cycle and have already done the two quality days (actually back to back). I felt very good on the 60 minute run and did a cruise interval over the last 9 minutes that felt fine.

This morning I did the 3 X 1 mile and was able to do them much faster than I have previously done in the entire last cycle. I actually did them faster than my last 5k race, although my heart rate was higher than it was in the race. The cool thing is that I mainly felt comfortable running them that fast. I was able to keep my shoulders and neck loose and any heavy breathing did not seem too uncomfortable. These are great signs and I'm excited about what time I might run in my peak race next year.

It is strange how Danno67 said I know nothing about distance running. That can't be true. I know at least a very teeny, tiny something. As we get older, I would hope that our experience would make us wiser. I suppose someone who runs often would have to know at least a little something about distance running from their experience and that little something is more than nothing.

As for me, I have always known how to make myself faster. What is new is that now I know how to make myself faster without getting injured.

FYI - I looked to see who "T&F Coach" was who voucehed for me because, frankly, I don't know who he is, and I saw that he and I have exchanged ideas in the past on message boards. It is interesting that he actually seems to subscribe to the 130-140 mpw way of doing things, yet he still does not see me as a troll. I think this is maybe because he has seen that I am courteous and not trying to cause trouble.

Trixter,

How old are you? What is your PR in 5k and when did you set it?

I "came back" in my early 30s and ran something like 17:40. I was overtraining and eventually hurt my hamstring and was off running for 3 years. I'm on my second comeback now. I think I'll beat my high school PR of 16:48 in about two and a half years. I just turned 39. I'm also losing my fat which seems to be helping. I'm open to being wrong about beating the PR but it is fun to try. It's fun to run fast and feel light and strong again. At the beginning of this comeback I was so out of shape I was plodding along at 10:30 miles on my training runs.

shin splints should be easy to get over through simple exercises. I had terrible shin splints from imbalanced muscles caused by too many eccentric calf raises for my achilles. I stood on a step or sat in a chair with my heel on the floor and lifted the front foot up and down (on a step you can do these better by lowering your front foot below the tread and then raising it up) hundreds of times per day. That healed me in a week or less. And since then I have done maintenance exercises infrequently and never gotten shin splints, despite running over four thousand miles each year from 2008 when I had the injury. You can do an even better version of the exercise when you are lying down in bed, on your stomach, and have your foot reaching just over the foot of the mattress. You push into the mattress edge with your foot, getting resistance that way, and rotate your foot back, a few dozen times, and you strengthen the anterior tibia very significantly this way.

jjjjjjjj,

Do you wear "hard" shoes or do you believe in cushion shoes like the Nike Zoom Vomero?

Anyway, that'd be cool if his shin splints went away and he could still crank out 70 mpw to prepare for the 12k. We could beef up the plan for that too.

From200mTo8k

I am now 47.

My best 5k time was when I was 28 I run 16:52 in a cross

country race.

I really did not run many 5k's. I did more 10k's, and my best time there (in a road race) was pretty much 34' flat.

In my late 30's I had lumbar fusion surgery and could not

run at all for 1 1/2 years. It took me a long time to get back

to running shape with all the back problems. (the Dr said I could never run again. I decided to go against his advice and

continue anyway. Now I am running pretty good for my age)

That's pretty good that you're running in the 18s now with a PR of 16:52 BEFORE the surgery. How has your back been feeling generally?

dfrank,

What's the latest?

I'm in the third week of a new cycle and I ran the 60 minute run 30 seconds per mile faster than in the first week and the tempo portion of it 33 seconds per mile faster at about the same heart rate. I encourage others to try this plan.

I'm more concerned with long term improvement so no.

In Question wrote:

I like the theory. I would volunteer but I'm already well into a traditional base like many of the other people here.

Maybe after spring? Keep us posted.

Can you post your email address so we can exchange emails when the time comes? I'm going to ween myself off of letsrun.com so I can focus on training and family.

Thanks for the discussion.

You got it wrote:

I'm more concerned with long term improvement so no.

My improvements will not be lost in the long term. With this plan, I keep getting faster over time. I do not understand your logic.

From200mTo8k wrote:

I'm more concerned with long term improvement so no.

My improvements will not be lost in the long term. With this plan, I keep getting faster over time. I do not understand your logic.[/quote]

low mileage isn't the key to long term development....

First I think you are misusing the term chronic fatigue. Chronic fatigue is the result of training for weeks or months at a time and not allowing the body to return to equalibrium. Two semi hard sessions a week will not result in chronic fatigue. I feel you have good ideas but your program is severely under developed. Look for some scientific literature to help develop what you should do for your workouts. And as far as very low mileage My experience is that it is unsustainable because eventually you will want to progress and you will add more mileage immediately. This usually throws the structure of the training program out the window.

I've read plenty of scientific literature. I've also read the training logs of various elites. I believe that the structure of the training program can remain intact once mileage is added. A person can run 140 mpw and still keep these two quality workouts per week. That person might need to do a double on the quality days to keep the mileage up.

If you have read Steve Scott's training logs on LRC, he basically ran 85 mpw with very little speedwork. That would look a lot like this plan with distance runs on non-quality days and/or doubles added. Steve Scott broke the 4:00 mile more times than anyone in history. Talk about sustainable.

I agree that once someone has maxed out this program, that more intervals can be added. So instead of 5 X 1K, it might be something like 8 X 1K for a high mileage guy.

If someone wanted to train like Spivey, they'd keep the non-quality days low mileage and increase what I have here by a significant amount.

The Type I workouts actually increase LT threshold when a tempo is inserted. The Type II workouts will develop VO2 Max when the interval time is 5:00 or under. The Type III workouts develop economy and VO2 max simultaneously. The Type IV workouts develop strength and finishing kick.

This plan is a baby-sized version of what Peter Coe might suggest. In addition, it follows Daniel's principle of developing economy first and adding miles later in an athlete's career because adding miles increases risk of injury. This plan is not anti-high-mileage. It is merely less injury provoking at low mileage. It can be scaled easily.

I predict that I will win the USATF Masters West Regional Championships in the 1500m in 2012 using this plan to prepare. Nothing major, but better than the other competitors on that day.

so basically you admit that your 'low mileage' plan isn't actually that good long-term because everyone will be upping the miles if they want to improve.

again with that logic thing. for long term development this low mileage junk isn't going to cut it.

Everything is black and white for a lot of people on this site. It has to be us against them or LSD vs. intensity training. This black and white thinking leads to judgment before understanding.

A lot of people must admit that they try to train like elites when they are still only racing at the novice level. I think this plan as it is can take someone with talent and train them to run a 4:30 mile. If someone can't already run a mile in 4:30 today, then this is the plan. Once they hit that mark, then modifications can be made.

I see a lot of good collegiate runners, 10-15 years later, running high mileage and running super slow times, like high 19s in the 5k, yet competing in IronMan Triathlons and such. They have let themselves get slow and then just started running lots of miles at this slow pace. If they would get started on a plan like this, they can get back to training at a fast pace before adding the mileage.

Running for three hours at 10 minutes per mile is not going to help these guys. They need to take baby steps and get comfortable running low mileage fast again and then gradually increase the mileage. So, you see, I am not against high mileage. I am against running slow.

If I can run the 60 minute run in this plan at 6:00 pace, then I think I am ready to add miles. Otherwise, I am just practicing running slow, like the aforementioned, and my times will be slow.

logicalman wrote:

so basically you admit that your 'low mileage' plan isn't actually that good long-term because everyone will be upping the miles if they want to improve.

This is black and white thinking. There is only "improve" and "not improve." This kind of thinking blocks you from seeing the big picture.

This plan is used to help an athlete improve to a certain point. The athlete will truly improve in this time, without risking injury from running high miles before one is ready. Yes, at some point, the athlete will plateau, but it can take 3-4 years on this plan for that to happen.

At the point of the plateau, the principles used to build this plan can be used to simply increase the number of reps appropriately. You can call that new, slightly higher volume plan, a "new plan," but in reality it is simply the same principles used to create this plan manifesting appropriately.

This is not an "I'm right" and "You're wrong" kind of thing. You like high mileage. Fine. This plan can work with high mileage. If you read the OP, it says, "what you do the other days of the week is your business." Ahem, that is THIS plan. It works for the high mileage guy as well as for the low mileage guy. It works for the Spiveys and the Scotts.

caiado wrote:

First I think you are misusing the term chronic fatigue. Chronic fatigue is the result of training for weeks or months at a time and not allowing the body to return to equalibrium. Two semi hard sessions a week will not result in chronic fatigue.

You are right, two semi hard sessions a week will not result in chronic fatigue. That was my point. Run them semi hard. If running them "all out" is beyond "semi hard" and would cause chronic fatigue, then don't run them "all out."