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.