First half marathon ADVICE
Replies
-
BrianSharpe wrote: »nicolemarie999 wrote: »3 x a week is fine, just make sure you do a long run, a hill run and a tempo run.
Why would you suggest speed work to someone who can barely run 5K yet?
OP, focus on your aerobic base and, for the time being, ignore speed work. Your goal is to finish, upright & with a smile on your face.Now I've run 11 successfully since Jan 2016 -- my time has been between 2:43 and 3:16. Add me as a friend if you want, and I'm happy to pass plans or advice.
I'm hoping the 2016 is a typo. 11 half-marathons in less than 10 weeks?
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". 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.
macleans.ca/society/health/the-interview-the-benefits-of-short-intense-workouts/
theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/fitness/want-to-try-high-intensity-interval-training-consider-these-4-things/article14926092/1 -
I love the Hal Higdon plans! I used them for my first 5k, 10k, half and now marathon in May. You can do it! Find your food rhythm, I don't eat before I run and I don't drink until mile 10 (I don't eat til mile 8).0
-
Don't forget the importance of cross training at least once a week. Was instrumental when I was a runner.0
-
gcaracciolo2 wrote: »Don't forget the importance of cross training at least once a week. Was instrumental when I was a runner.
True stuff here. running builds your cardio endurance - but you need to build up you strength as well. I started running in the fall of 2014. Ran a couple of 5ks, HMs and my training time was pretty static. For the last 6 weeks I've been doing mostly boot camp (Camp Gladiator) which is more cross training/overall strength/cardio. I recently picked up running again and am almost a minute a mile faster. All those lunges, skaters, squats, lower body exercises have made me a much stronger runner.0 -
nicolemarie999 wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »nicolemarie999 wrote: »3 x a week is fine, just make sure you do a long run, a hill run and a tempo run.
Why would you suggest speed work to someone who can barely run 5K yet?
OP, focus on your aerobic base and, for the time being, ignore speed work. Your goal is to finish, upright & with a smile on your face.Now I've run 11 successfully since Jan 2016 -- my time has been between 2:43 and 3:16. Add me as a friend if you want, and I'm happy to pass plans or advice.
I'm hoping the 2016 is a typo. 11 half-marathons in less than 10 weeks?
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". 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.
macleans.ca/society/health/the-interview-the-benefits-of-short-intense-workouts/
theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/fitness/want-to-try-high-intensity-interval-training-consider-these-4-things/article14926092/
Interesting, I read his column in the Globe & Mail and even he concedes that the HIIT vs traditional training methods still requires more study.
Don't get me wrong, I think HIIT has it's place and it's something we use at my tri club. There's no doubt that when HIIT incorporated into a fitness program that it can confer considerable benefits but when dealing with a newbie runner it fails to take into account the mental stamina required for a longer race.
I'll stick with my advice for the OP to focus on aerobic base for now. HIIT later - for sure.
0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »nicolemarie999 wrote: »BrianSharpe wrote: »nicolemarie999 wrote: »3 x a week is fine, just make sure you do a long run, a hill run and a tempo run.
Why would you suggest speed work to someone who can barely run 5K yet?
OP, focus on your aerobic base and, for the time being, ignore speed work. Your goal is to finish, upright & with a smile on your face.Now I've run 11 successfully since Jan 2016 -- my time has been between 2:43 and 3:16. Add me as a friend if you want, and I'm happy to pass plans or advice.
I'm hoping the 2016 is a typo. 11 half-marathons in less than 10 weeks?
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". 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.
macleans.ca/society/health/the-interview-the-benefits-of-short-intense-workouts/
theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/fitness/want-to-try-high-intensity-interval-training-consider-these-4-things/article14926092/
Interesting, I read his column in the Globe & Mail and even he concedes that the HIIT vs traditional training methods still requires more study.
Don't get me wrong, I think HIIT has it's place and it's something we use at my tri club. There's no doubt that when HIIT incorporated into a fitness program that it can confer considerable benefits but when dealing with a newbie runner it fails to take into account the mental stamina required for a longer race.
I'll stick with my advice for the OP to focus on aerobic base for now. HIIT later - for sure.
I love that this is a debate now So much more interesting that talking about boring old calorie counting, lol.
As for mental toughness I think EVERY runner would agree running is 99% mental, I mean we don't need skill or good coordination or exceptional balance, etc.....all we need is the mental strength to keep going and going no matter how much it hurts. It takes mental toughness to do sprint intervals and run hills too, and the speed at which you improve and the feeling of accomplishment after is very motivating. This is also why I like 10:1, b/c mentally you can break the race or training down to just 10 mins of running, I find it's so much less daunting than thinking about running for 2 or 3 hours straight....
For sure, more research needs to be done on the long-term benefits and the mechanisms by which HIIT works. From a purely aerobic fitness perspective though HIIT is very well supported. I'm not suggesting a person can go out and run 13 miles without doing long runs, your legs would never make it, but I also don't think people need nearly the milage that we have traditionally thought is necessary. In fact I would love to see the future of this research going in that direction. And just to prove a point (because I'm an a#*hole, lol)....I went out for a run today. I haven't run at all in 2.5 years, except for two 20 min runs back in the spring of 2015. For one year I couldn't do any exercise (high risk pregnancy, bad c-section, high blood loss, split my pelvis) and then for one year I choose not to run because I was breastfeeding, and for reasons that are TMI for this site, I don't like to run while breastfeeding and then for the last 6 months I've just been off the running bandwagon. So I have been doing HIIT plyometric circuit style workout for 20-30 mins twice a week, a little weight lifting and yoga. Today I ran 5 miles in 48 mins (including a slow warm-up), I stopped at 5 miles because I was getting some twinges of pain where my pelvis was split. From a cardio perspective I wasn't taxed at all and my legs could have made it at least another mile at the same pace. Now my pace would have made me cry tears of shame a few years ago, lol, but for not running at all in 2.5 years its not terrible. All I'm saying is HIIT works for cardio fitness! Now if my pelvis would hold up I think I could possible get to 13 miles in about 8 weeks, maybe will try it just to come back on this site and claim I went from non-runner to half marathon in 8 weeks and stir up some s@*t, lol.
You can stick to your advice and I can stick to mine, lol.0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »nicolemarie999 wrote: »3 x a week is fine, just make sure you do a long run, a hill run and a tempo run.
Why would you suggest speed work to someone who can barely run 5K yet?
OP, focus on your aerobic base and, for the time being, ignore speed work. Your goal is to finish, upright & with a smile on your face.Now I've run 11 successfully since Jan 2016 -- my time has been between 2:43 and 3:16. Add me as a friend if you want, and I'm happy to pass plans or advice.
I'm hoping the 2016 is a typo. 11 half-marathons in less than 10 weeks?
Why not. She didn't say she raced them. That's me basically every weekend. 12 - 16 miles is a great Saturday morning workout.0 -
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.
0 -
nicolemarie999 wrote: »
As for mental toughness I think EVERY runner would agree running is 99% mental.
I wouldn't; I think it is primarily physical. It irritates me when I hear runners talking about 'mental toughness', which I think is a code word for 'I haven't done enough training and I know it'.
I'd also agree with other posters (from an anecdotal rather than scientific perspective) that I've seen more new runners get injured from trying to do speedwork as part of a low mileage week than I have seen runners get injured from gradually building up easy mileage.0 -
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.
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'm sure a quick Google search will show you that he is a professor of exercise physiology, has a PhD and does research in the area of HIIT ( high intensity interval training ). I have no idea if Dr. Gibala runs or not but I'm pretty sure the scientific validity of his research would not be effected either way.
I suppose my use of quotations could have been misplaced, but I just meant to convey by saying endurance training, the traditional advice of lots of long slow runs, basically resulting in high milage running.
I see you have also chosen to ignore the fact that I have said you also need long runs and endurance training as well....in every single post i wrote.....sigh
And you underestimated me, like most runners I will brag when given the opportunity and stated that I have run a marathon in Boston Qualifying time, but I am not a racer and never took running seriously beyond recreation. So sadley I haven't placed in a racr or won any Olympic medals, therefore I suppose you are free to ignore my advice, lol0 -
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....
0 -
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....
LMAO0 -
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/view0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
nicolemarie999 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.0 -
nicolemarie999 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.)0 -
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions