49 Miler's Question

Ah, a common psychological syndrome common in aging males who are also ex-athletes!  It is an attempt to relive past glory while defying the realities of advanced middle age.  It is most prevelant in Olympic years after watching the trials on TV.  While mostly a harmless diversion from reality, there are a significant number of documented cases of self inflicted injuries including sore muscles, torn muscles, strained ligiments and severly bruised egos!  Recommended cure:  continue to watch the Games and have a beer!

 

All contributed in jest by Former Runner!

220 Time Trial by Old Buck

At the request of Eric, and without questioning him as to why I needed to do this, I ran a 220 yard time trial tonight on the track. After a mile or so warmup, I ran a quarter in 85, then a practice 200 meter in 35 seconds. After a couple minutes rest, I launched into a genuine 220 time trial, even backing up approximately 1 meter from the 200 meter start line to make it relatively accurate.

The time? 32.7. My last recorded 200 meters was 29.4 in May 2003, so this is slower, but I am 5 years older now. My last recorded 400 meters, for comparison, was 65.1 in July 2003.

As for whether the new 220 time is representative of what I can do, I was a bit full from a dinner out at Olive Garden, and my quarter in 85 before, then 84 and 83 after the 220 were tough, when just last week I ran a 5:40 mile (averaging 85 seconds).

Now, the question is, what was the rationale for me running this......I risked life and limb to do it!

Mildly Encouraging Mile Time

Firstly, a good series of blogs by Eric below! Very interesting international running blogs!

As for myself, I am still running in boring, flat Buffalo, NY. After being sick, and doing minimal running for a week, I ran a 20 mile week or so, then last Friday, I surprised myself with a 5:40 mile, 8 seconds better than my previous best for this year, 3 seconds faster than last year's best time, and even more surprising, my best mile since a 5:36 in July 2005. Now I have some real incentive to continue improving, as I feel like I can "turn back the clock" a little on this aging process. If I break 5:36, it will be my best mile in 3 years, and if I break 5:34, it will be my best mile in 4 years. I could almost say it would be my best mile in about 7 years, because I only ran 5:35 in 2003, and 5:38 in 2002. To improve beyond that is where the problems start, because in 2001 I made an assault on sub-5, running a 5:04 in February, and a 5:03 in December (both indoors).

Anyway, my first goal will be sub 5:34, then the next goals will be sub-5:29.

Any thoughts or advice? I've been running about 20 mile weeks, with a little tennis, and my "speed" workouts have been 4 mile runs with the middle 2 miles run at about a 6:35 per mile pace. Is it time to break down and do some intervals on the track???

Less is More!

Please see my responses to Mark's post "Response to New Training Paradigm".

 

*****

 

[Mark]

Firstly, running less for improved performance is an interesting concept, and one that is not totally new. 

[Eric]

I believe that Sebastian Coe was known for his low mileage training relative to the other great milers of his era.

[Mark] 

Firstly, in principle, running less and faster may be a good idea at our age (50) and it may work. 

[Eric]

We aren't talking theory here.  It IS working.

 

[Mark]

In your previous post, you alluded to your reduction in performance as related to inclines or hills. So, the obvious solution is to eliminate hills or inclines from the workout, and see what the results are. Unfortunately, with your current changes in training, I think you will be unable to determine whether running hills or inclines was adversely affecting you. As a mathematician, you understand the concept of multiple variables, of course. If you review your new paradigm, you will note that you have changed not one, but as many as four variables in your new workout program: removal of inclines, reduction in per run mileage by approximately 50% (or more), running at a different speed (faster), and doing all your running on a track instead of partial road runs.   If your interest is in determining whether hills was the ultimate culprit, you may need to go back to 4 miles per day, similar speed runs, and part road part track workouts. If, however, your interest is simply in trying some changes and seeing if you perform better, then your current program may work.
[Eric]

It is generous to call me a mathematician.  However, I certainly do understand that when problem solving, SOMETIMES only one variable should be changed at a time.  This is when one is trying to find the root cause of a problem.  In my case, my objectives are simply fitness, running faster, and enjoying my running more.  Therefore I had no reason to have this be a controlled experiment.  I don't care why I'm getting the result that I'm getting, only that I am.  There is nothing to prevent me from further experimentation.  That could include running more but could also include running less.

 

Sometimes the best thing to do when something is broken is to through it away and start new.  This is essentially what I've done with my running.

 

[Mark]
My second concern is that you have subltly and perhaps subconsciously begun to adjust your previous goal of a sub-6 mile by stating that you would try for sub 6, or perhaps just a 2:45 half instead. 

[Eric]

There is nothing subtle or subconscious about it.  I'd be perfectly content, and perhaps even happier, focusing on running a quality half-mile rather than a quality mile.

 

In high school I was running the half more often than the mile and was probably better at the half.  My switch to longer distances in college had more to do with attempting to find something that I could excel at at the college level.  I knew that in college I could never run a half that would be worthy of much.  I felt that by moving up in distance, where there was less competition I had a better chance to excel.  In fact, I wonder now why I didn't back away from distance and go back to middle distance when I was having physical problems with distance.  My only answer is tunnel vision.

 

[Mark]

I would like to see you stick to your sub 6 goal. By eliminating that goal, you are admitting that you may not be running enough mileage, and although I am all for relatively low mileage with good quality, 1.5 to 2 miles per day is probably not enough to garner a sub-6 mile. 

[Eric]

This shows quite a bias towards the mile on the part of Mark.  As mentioned already in this post my running goals are fitness, quality, and enjoyment.  I don't a view a quality mile as being any more worthy than a quality quarter.  Realistically, I'm probably not capable of a quality quarter since, even in my youth, I was too slow to accomplish that.  For me, ten minute intense workouts that lead towards a quality half might be perfect.

 

I should also add that my interest in these shorter workouts was probably first piqued a few years ago when I first saw an ad for a rather odd looking exercise machine that claimed that one could accomplish wonderful fitness working out only four minutes/day.

http://www.fastexercise.com/

 

A few months back I saw one of these machines in person, right here in Charlottesville, and that led me to do some reading on the topic.  From what I read, there is some evidence to suggest that using these machines might actually deliver what is promised.

 

There are two big advantages to the short workout times:  (1) Saves time and (2) is easier on the body.  Running wears people out.  To be able to train effectively with only ten minutes/day of running could lead to a much longer and less painful running career.  I have nasty bouts of sciatica before and I think fewer miles will minimize those.

Off Track

For the past two weeks I didn't have access to a track.  During week one I was in Bangkok, Thailand.  From a previous trip there I knew that attempting any kind of serious running outside would be fruitless.  Each day I was in Bangkok I did the best I could to simulate my daily track workouts by running on a treadmill.  I warmed up at a leisurely pace for 0.8K.  Then I ran 2.42K at a pace that was meant to approximate what I would probably would have been running on the track at home.  Day one my pace was 13.7K/hour and each day I increased the pace by 0.1K/hour.  So, by day 6, my pace was 14.2K/hour.

 

There are numerous problems, I think, with running on a treadmill.  The biggest one though is that it really isn't running.  It is more like a simulation of running that gives some of the exercise benefits of running, but doesn't actually prepare one for actual running.  Let's see what others think about this:

http://running.about.com/od/treadmillrunning/Treadmill_Running.htm#

 

Week 2 was in primarily in Tokyo with one overnight in Kyoto.  In Tokyo, I decided to use some of the same route that I normally run.  I thought I was choosing a flat stretch.  It turns out that most of the 0.75 miles in the out direction was uphill.  I just had never noticed before because I had never focused on running at a respectable pace on that route.  Between running uphill, and not having the benefit of being on a track where it is really easy to know what is going on in terms of pace, my Tokyo runs were much slower than I had been running in Charlottesville.  In Tokyo I was averaged about 8:00 minutes/mile.  I also think that a week of treadmill running had slowed me down.

 

In Kyoto, right behind my hotel I found a nice flat stretch that was about 0.17 miles long (thank you GPS wristwatch).  I was disappointed with my one mile run there, not running much faster than 8:00.  Factors that made for slowing running in Kyoto were:  (1) Being somewhat disoriented by running back and forth on the street as opposed to the familiarity of running laps around a track; (2) turns--it really costs a lot of time to have to turn around; and (3) forgetting how to run fast as being off track for two weeks.

 

My conclusion from this experience is that each time I go someplace where I don't have a track to run on it will be difficult to improve, and more likely, I will regress.  On the other hand, maybe the breaks will somehow help by providing a certain level of forced rest.  On the third hand, how much rest is needed when the entire workout is only 1.5 miles.

Tokyo-Charlottesville Training Double

Friday, I accomplished the highly-prized Tokyo-Charlottesville training double.  At about 7:30 A.M. (Tokyo time) I ran in Tokyo.  At about 8:00 P.M. (Charlottesville time) I ran in Charlottesville.  In Tokyo my workout was my 1.5 mile Ebisu-Meguro road run.  In Charlottesville I ran 1.5 miles at the Charlottesville High School track.

Response to New Training Paradigm

I needed to make this response/comment a new post, as it was too long (and important) to be potentially lost in a mere comment:

Firstly, running less for improved performance is an interesting concept, and one that is not totally new. In college, under the great Coach Truce, Chris Cody and I had read an article about running called "less is more." I think it was actually referring to an older runner, perhaps over 70. We presented this concept to Truce as an argument that we were being asked to overtrain. It did not go over well, as I remember.

Anyway, here are my main points regarding the new paradigm:

Firstly, in principle, running less and faster may be a good idea at our age (50) and it may work. However, I have a few concerns and comments. In your previous post, you alluded to your reduction in performance as related to inclines or hills. So, the obvious solution is to eliminate hills or inclines from the workout, and see what the results are. Unfortunately, with your current changes in training, I think you will be unable to determine whether running hills or inclines was adversely affecting you. As a mathematician, you understand the concept of multiple variables, of course. If you review your new paradigm, you will note that you have changed not one, but as many as four variables in your new workout program: removal of inclines, reduction in per run mileage by approximately 50% (or more), running at a different speed (faster), and doing all your running on a track instead of partial road runs. If your interest is in determining whether hills was the ultimate culprit, you may need to go back to 4 miles per day, similar speed runs, and part road part track workouts. If, however, your interest is simply in trying some changes and seeing if you perform better, then your current program may work.

My second concern is that you have subltly and perhaps subconsciously begun to adjust your previous goal of a sub-6 mile by stating that you would try for sub 6, or perhaps just a 2:45 half instead. I would like to see you stick to your sub 6 goal. By eliminating that goal, you are admitting that you may not be running enough mileage, and although I am all for relatively low mileage with good quality, 1.5 to 2 miles per day is probably not enough to garner a sub-6 mile.

Well, those are my primary concerns.

Mark

My New Training Paradigm

My running had been going horribly.  Doing my little 4.something mile jaunt was very frustrating.  Each day I felt worse than the day before.  On the days that I ran at the track I didn't feel very good either.  What was going on?

 

I can't be certain, but here is my theory.

 

My 4.something mile runs started and ended with fairly steep and long hills.  So by the time I got to to flat part of the run I was already quite worn out.  I wasn't really recovering anyway, but just in case I was, ending the run with a hill was just what I needed to wear me out and set me up for feeling lousy the next day.

 

On track days, I was running hard.  I was not feeling great when I got there (see above).  After running on the track it would take days to recover because the runs I was doing on the track where so much faster than when I wasn't on the track.

 

In short, I was in this horrible cycle which showed no signs of ending.

 

So, I ended it.

 

I decided that I would no longer subject myself to the hills and the slow, annoying running.  Instead, everyday would be a track day.  After the first day or so on this new program I even decided that it was too much work to run to the track (there is a hill between my house and the track) and I started driving back and forth.

 

After some experimentation, I settled into a routine of warming up very slowly for two laps.  Then running at whatever the pace de jour was for anywhere between 4 and 8 laps, but generally speaking running 6 laps.  The exception is if it is time trial day and I run a half or a speed day and I run 220s or quarters.  On any given day I never know how far I'll run, and at what pace.  In fact, sometimes I'll change my mind mid workout.  For example, if I run a good first lap, I might decide to try and run a quick mile.  Some days I think I'll run two miles, but instead, only run 5 or 6 laps because that is what feels right.

 

My only real rule is that I am never, ever allowed to run a horribly slow pace.  In the beginning there were some days where I had to work to make sure that my pace was better than 8 minutes/mile.  Fairly quickly though, I noticed that I was getting better.

 

Before I left on the trip I'm on now, a typical run was 6 laps somewhere at a pace somewhere between 7:05 and 7:15.  My best time trial was 3:00 for a half (I felt tired at the end of that).  That, by the way was the fastest half I'd run since Mark paced me on mile trial on the indoor track at SUNY Binghamton.  The week before I left I had two days where I ran 6:51 for a mile and felt quite comfortable.

 

I'm very happy with this new training paradigm and have no plans to change it, except that the 6 laps might creep up to 8 as I get stronger.  I love the fact that the days of 8 minutes and 9 minute miles are over and I can really focus on getting under 6 minutes (or at least maybe running 2:45 for a half if I don't build enough strength to hold on for a 6-minute mile.

 

The other thing that is fantastic is that the guts of the workout is 11 minutes or less and heading towards 10 minutes.  Think about--staying in shape and running respectable times (for being 50) and only working out 10 minutes/day.  Sounds too good to be true--but it isn't.  It's real.

Running On Inclines

Anybody have any insights on how much impact inclines should have?

 

As you will see in my other post, I think they were really bothering me in my day-to-day training--so much so that I cut them out.

 

The other day I mentioned to a guy in his early thirties that I didn't understand why it was that I could run on a track at a decent pace but that going up a flight of stairs got me winded.  He said that he too noticed this type of thing and suggested that inclines were the culprit.

Minor Training Setback, but Running Again

Hi, folks. I had a minor setback this past week. After running 21 miles the previous week (relatively high for me), I was sick last Sunday, and then too weak too run again on Monday. With a combination of babysitting the grandson and one night of tennis (a good workout), I only ran twice last week!

However, today, I ran 5.5 miles at about an 8:20 per mile pace, and felt very good. With rain forecast much of the week, the clay tennis courts will likely be closed, so I can concentrate on running.

Mark

Coach Truce and Former Runner To Reunite in Ohio

News Flash to all!

 

Coach Truce is in Ohio visiting family and will make a stop in Hudson to visit Former Runner and his family this Sunday.  A pleasant and informal afternoon is planned for reminiscing and an enjoyable visit.  Since you can’t BS your own coach, no war stories will be attempted!  Follow up coverage is planned.  Hope all is going well for all and that you have a happy and healthy summer!

 

Quick note on the end of the Hudson High Track season.  Our milers made a surprise move at the state championships coming in 2 and 5 with times from 4:17 to 4:18 respectively.  This added on to a fifth place finish of our 4x800 relay earns Hudson a tie for ninth place in the team standings.  A  respectable showing and definitely ahead of pre-season expectations.  Our relay has qualified for the national high school championships later this month in Greensboro, NC.  While I won’t be able to attend, I will post an update on how they performed.

 

As for Greg, summer workouts have now begun.  Wrapped around his coming trip to Israel for 3 weeks in July, this should be a very interesting summer and a good lead-in to the fall cross country season. 

 

Regards to all,

 

Dave