First half marathon ADVICE

BrianSharpe

nicolemarie999 wrote: »

OK I'm not even sure what to do about this comment. You are acting like I just said big foot is real or Elvis lives in my basement.

I have it on good authority that Elvis was last sighted at the Newport restaurant in Ottawa....

nicolemarie999

BrianSharpe wrote: »

nicolemarie999 wrote: »

OK I'm not even sure what to do about this comment. You are acting like I just said big foot is real or Elvis lives in my basement.

I have it on good authority that Elvis was last sighted at the Newport restaurant in Ottawa....

LMAO

AdrianChr92

In my opinion I would stick to the opinion of known runners and proven and tested methods. None of them will tell you to do or don't hiit and speed play but all of them will stress the importance of the long run and mileage. Build a base, run your first half, then you can add variation. Over complicating things is never a good practice especially if you are new

Also I will leave this here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3TYR3d9S1s1dFpwa3E4NmZfOW8/view

drachfit

nicolemarie999 wrote: »

Everything you said

1. Your anecdotal performance after a long hiatus from running is not evidence that HIIT is more effective than endurance training
2. You get high and mighty about scientific validity, claiming to have "studied under" a prominent researcher, but you fail to submit any credible evidence? (A personal anecdote and a globe and mail article is not evidence, nor a valid source)
3. I think your argument can be summed up as, "an untrained beginner will see faster progress in aerobic fitness by incorporating 1 HIIT session per 3 workouts instead of 3 slower distance sessions."
4. While point 3 is debatable, your wording was unclear and made it sound like you were advocating for far more HIIT.
5. Exclusive or high volume HIIT training is not sustainable for distance athletes. They cannot recover. Optimal training for these athletes includes some intervals but the vast majority of the work must be long aerobic work. But this is a side point and not relevant to OP, who is a beginner.

nicolemarie999

drachfit wrote: »

nicolemarie999 wrote: »

Everything you said

1. Your anecdotal performance after a long hiatus from running is not evidence that HIIT is more effective than endurance training
2. You get high and mighty about scientific validity, claiming to have "studied under" a prominent researcher, but you fail to submit any credible evidence? (A personal anecdote and a globe and mail article is not evidence, nor a valid source)
3. I think your argument can be summed up as, "an untrained beginner will see faster progress in aerobic fitness by incorporating 1 HIIT session per 3 workouts instead of 3 slower distance sessions."
4. While point 3 is debatable, your wording was unclear and made it sound like you were advocating for far more HIIT.
5. Exclusive or high volume HIIT training is not sustainable for distance athletes. They cannot recover. Optimal training for these athletes includes some intervals but the vast majority of the work must be long aerobic work. But this is a side point and not relevant to OP, who is a beginner.

1. You are very right, it's not scientific at all. But it did feel good to do and post on here like a badass. Lol
I think my point just was that you can maintain good aerobic fitness with HIIT....which takes comparetly little time and effort..... not that doing only HIIT would make you a good distances runner as clearly it would not.
2. I did sound a little high and mighty there didn't I? My bad. I could have just said I have a knowledge base in exercise physiology and some credentials but instead I went and named dropped.....you are right to call me out on that. I did sound like such a *kitten*, lol. In my defence I said i was no expert as well. But that doesn't mean the research isn't there.....again only stating that HIIT is as effective for improving aerobic fitness as endurance training, not stating that HIIT makes better endurance runners or that you don't need long runs and a milage base.
3 and 4. My point is just that a newbie runner should do some hill and speed work and doesn't have to exclusive focus on slow long distance runs. I was called out for giving advice to do a hill, long run and pace run to a newbie so I defended my position and perhaps got a little entrenched in the argument and didn't make it clear enough in subsequebt posts that of course you need to do long runs, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear by me saying endurance + speed work and that there needs to be long runs to condition your legs ( I'm paraphrasing here as I didn't go back and look at my posts). I just also think that a newbie could really benefit in higher intensity work and if done correctly it doesn't need to result in injury.
5. I agree. These post are probably very unhelpful to the OP- sorry OP! But it will be interesting to see where the research goes, perhaps your typical recreational runners' don't need to be doing such high volumes of mileage...? It will be interesting to see how runners train in 20 years. I hate to see people become injured and miss out on a great experience and in my non-expert opinion think that high volume milage puts a lot of recteational runners at risk. I wouldn't assume to know anything at all about elite runners.

nicolemarie999

_Waffle_ wrote: »

Why would I suggest speed work? Probably because it works ! I studied under Dr. Gibala at McMaster University, he is a leading researcher in HIIT.....which has been shown to very effectively improve cardiovascular health - more or equally effectively than "endurance training".

A leading researcher in HIIT? That sounds made up. Also, why is "endurance training" in quotes? What does that mean?

If you want to improve your cardiovascular fitness HIIT (speed and hill training) is the fastest and most effective way of doing it. In fact I am a firm believer that speed and hill work (given a slow, long, progressive warm-up) should be favoured over endurance runs and makes a runner less prone to injury when done correctly, so long as you start out easy, listen to your body and progress slowly -just as you would with endurance training. Although the intensity can be a bit much for a newbie. I have been running for 20+ years now (with a few breaks for pregnancy) and have only ever had one injury that kept me from running (for 2 weeks) and than was over 15 years ago. The speed intervals can start out very short; 30-45 seconds with 1-2 minute rests, and use HR or perceived effort as your guide. Besides, you should vary your training to get the most benefit (speed work + endurance training) and to avoid injury and boredom. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means, I'm sure there are people with more knowledge and experience than myself on this site, but I do have some knowledge of exercise physiology and a lot of personal experience with running.

This is where you list your PRs for the marathon and the half marathon to show how it is more or equally effectively than "endurance training". You missed out on that opportunity. I mean, if you're going to insist that it's possibly more effective than traditional endurance training at least point out how many half marathons Dr. Gibala placed in.

I'm sorry my previous reply to your comment was probably needlessly sarcastic, i had a knee jeek reaction to the tone I assumed from your post, I apologize. No need to get nasty here, right? I'm sorry if my previous post wasn't entirely clear. Dr. Gibala's research is about HIIT vs endurance training providing aerobic benefits and not specifically about distance runners and how they should train, that was all my opinion in case that wasn't clear. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough in my posts (long posts + a toddler do not mix). I believe that long runs and building milage is necessary but that speed work and hill work are highly beneficial and effeciently improve aerobic fitness and can be safely added to a beginner's program given all the usual precautions against too much too soon.

_Waffle_

nicolemarie999 wrote: »

_Waffle_ wrote: »

Why would I suggest speed work? Probably because it works ! I studied under Dr. Gibala at McMaster University, he is a leading researcher in HIIT.....which has been shown to very effectively improve cardiovascular health - more or equally effectively than "endurance training".

A leading researcher in HIIT? That sounds made up. Also, why is "endurance training" in quotes? What does that mean?

If you want to improve your cardiovascular fitness HIIT (speed and hill training) is the fastest and most effective way of doing it. In fact I am a firm believer that speed and hill work (given a slow, long, progressive warm-up) should be favoured over endurance runs and makes a runner less prone to injury when done correctly, so long as you start out easy, listen to your body and progress slowly -just as you would with endurance training. Although the intensity can be a bit much for a newbie. I have been running for 20+ years now (with a few breaks for pregnancy) and have only ever had one injury that kept me from running (for 2 weeks) and than was over 15 years ago. The speed intervals can start out very short; 30-45 seconds with 1-2 minute rests, and use HR or perceived effort as your guide. Besides, you should vary your training to get the most benefit (speed work + endurance training) and to avoid injury and boredom. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means, I'm sure there are people with more knowledge and experience than myself on this site, but I do have some knowledge of exercise physiology and a lot of personal experience with running.

This is where you list your PRs for the marathon and the half marathon to show how it is more or equally effectively than "endurance training". You missed out on that opportunity. I mean, if you're going to insist that it's possibly more effective than traditional endurance training at least point out how many half marathons Dr. Gibala placed in.

I'm sorry my previous reply to your comment was probably needlessly sarcastic, i had a knee jeek reaction to the tone I assumed from your post, I apologize. No need to get nasty here, right? I'm sorry if my previous post wasn't entirely clear. Dr. Gibala's research is about HIIT vs endurance training providing aerobic benefits and not specifically about distance runners and how they should train, that was all my opinion in case that wasn't clear. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough in my posts (long posts + a toddler do not mix). I believe that long runs and building milage is necessary but that speed work and hill work are highly beneficial and effeciently improve aerobic fitness and can be safely added to a beginner's program given all the usual precautions against too much too soon.

Well, when you put it that way it makes perfect sense. I misunderstood the earlier comment to mean that the HIIT was instead of the long runs. I probably misread something or missed a pivotal point.

Needlessly sarcastic? Sarcasm is never needless. I don't read too deeply into these things. Tone is hard to infer in written posts some times. No sweat.

jofjltncb6

_Waffle_ wrote: »

nicolemarie999 wrote: »

_Waffle_ wrote: »

Why would I suggest speed work? Probably because it works ! I studied under Dr. Gibala at McMaster University, he is a leading researcher in HIIT.....which has been shown to very effectively improve cardiovascular health - more or equally effectively than "endurance training".

A leading researcher in HIIT? That sounds made up. Also, why is "endurance training" in quotes? What does that mean?

If you want to improve your cardiovascular fitness HIIT (speed and hill training) is the fastest and most effective way of doing it. In fact I am a firm believer that speed and hill work (given a slow, long, progressive warm-up) should be favoured over endurance runs and makes a runner less prone to injury when done correctly, so long as you start out easy, listen to your body and progress slowly -just as you would with endurance training. Although the intensity can be a bit much for a newbie. I have been running for 20+ years now (with a few breaks for pregnancy) and have only ever had one injury that kept me from running (for 2 weeks) and than was over 15 years ago. The speed intervals can start out very short; 30-45 seconds with 1-2 minute rests, and use HR or perceived effort as your guide. Besides, you should vary your training to get the most benefit (speed work + endurance training) and to avoid injury and boredom. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means, I'm sure there are people with more knowledge and experience than myself on this site, but I do have some knowledge of exercise physiology and a lot of personal experience with running.

This is where you list your PRs for the marathon and the half marathon to show how it is more or equally effectively than "endurance training". You missed out on that opportunity. I mean, if you're going to insist that it's possibly more effective than traditional endurance training at least point out how many half marathons Dr. Gibala placed in.

I'm sorry my previous reply to your comment was probably needlessly sarcastic, i had a knee jeek reaction to the tone I assumed from your post, I apologize. No need to get nasty here, right? I'm sorry if my previous post wasn't entirely clear. Dr. Gibala's research is about HIIT vs endurance training providing aerobic benefits and not specifically about distance runners and how they should train, that was all my opinion in case that wasn't clear. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough in my posts (long posts + a toddler do not mix). I believe that long runs and building milage is necessary but that speed work and hill work are highly beneficial and effeciently improve aerobic fitness and can be safely added to a beginner's program given all the usual precautions against too much too soon.

Well, when you put it that way it makes perfect sense. I misunderstood the earlier comment to mean that the HIIT was instead of the long runs. I probably misread something or missed a pivotal point.

Needlessly sarcastic? Sarcasm is never needless. I don't read too deeply into these things. Tone is hard to infer in written posts some times. No sweat.

(Would you two please stop making up and get back to fighting? I don't read the MFP forums threads for this kind of nonsense.)

blues4miles

nicolemarie999 wrote: »

4. My point is just that a newbie runner should do some hill and speed work and doesn't have to exclusive focus on slow long distance runs. I was called out for giving advice to do a hill, long run and pace run to a newbie so I defended my position and perhaps got a little entrenched in the argument and didn't make it clear enough in subsequebt posts that of course you need to do long runs, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear by me saying endurance + speed work and that there needs to be long runs to condition your legs ( I'm paraphrasing here as I didn't go back and look at my posts). I just also think that a newbie could really benefit in higher intensity work and if done correctly it doesn't need to result in injury.

I guess the question is how do you define a newbie/beginner, and how do you define speedwork. I am not a fan of advising a new-ish runner to do speedwork until they have been running > 15 miles a week for a while and are currently running at least 20 mpw, preferably 30. Tempos and hill runs are just fine after you can run 3x a week 30 minutes a day, but I would suggest anyone not up to 20 (or really 30) miles per week avoid any sprints or speed intervals. Also think someone should be running at least 4x a week before they incorporate any speed work.

Why? Because the risk of injury is insanely high. Someone like you who has planned it all out and knows to look at their running log and make sure they are keeping their speedwork below 10% of weekly mileage, and is paying close attention to how they feel and willing to take rest days etc. is not the typical beginner. However, everyone (beginners and experts alike) will see a huge benefit going from 9 miles a week (typical "I just finished c25k" weekly mileage) to 20 or 30 and adding a 4th or 5th day. Their speed will automatically improve even if all they do is easy miles. If you took two identical beginners and had both build up from 9 miles a week to 30 miles a week and one did a day of speedwork and one did only easy miles, I would not be surprised if there was no discernible difference in their race speed at the end. Sure once they get there, adding speedwork might be what they need to improve. So that's why my advice for new runners is so conservative.