tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784767945961794741.post6634644343846960742..comments2024-03-25T05:14:43.028-04:00Comments on Physi-KULT running: Appearance vs Essence: Coaching and Counter-IntuitionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784767945961794741.post-74313576489456464642017-05-23T12:05:42.054-04:002017-05-23T12:05:42.054-04:00Nick, I think the downside of going too slowly on ...Nick, I think the downside of going too slowly on E-days would be more in terms of opportunity cost/maximization of time on one's feet rather than the risk of injury (few people can/will go "too slow" for any length of time, as DST at Guelph has been known, rightly, to point out). Daniels set his E-pace, somewhat arbitrarily, at the point of maximum cardiac stroke volume. Like Lydiard, however, he also recognized that there were many reasons an athlete might want to go a little slower than this pace on certain days, base on self-assessment and other non-running related considerations (at one point he mentions running with a friend!). My advice is always to use the full Daniels E-range, and to think in terms of maximizing volume before worrying about pace (which means erring a little on the side of slower E-pace). <br /><br />And thanks, Andrew. Re: your final point, I remember being very surprised to learn that John Walker (as much a product of Lydiard as the great Snell) would abandon a workout after a couple of reps if he didn't feel it was going to be productive. This was SO different from the way I had been trained as a teenager. (Due to having a coach who only knew one way of doing things-- the Fred Foot way, a la Bruce Kidd-- I was taught very early that abandoning a session for any reason was "failure"). It took me a while to learn to get used to the whole idea of "qualitative self-analysis" and to unlearn the habit of ignoring my body in pursuit of "toughness". Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01961146409986258631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784767945961794741.post-22832498040549400252017-05-23T10:29:09.604-04:002017-05-23T10:29:09.604-04:00Thanks again Steve for the thoughtful observations...Thanks again Steve for the thoughtful observations. As a devout Lydiardian (or is "Lydiardist"?) I read all of this while nodding my head. <br /><br />The aspect of form/technique is always an interesting topic, and while Paul Williams seemed to run "better" than Paul McCloy, they were very close in abilities. The aesthete or theory-obsessed biomechanist could argue that McCloy could have done better with a makeover, but my suspicions are, as mentioned here, the Newfoundlander "grooved" his efficiency over many years and miles. <br /><br />Paula Radcliffe and Zatopek are, I think, great examples of runners who employed nice lower-body function with a unique upper-body style that worked wonderfully as a metronome/rhythm maintainer -- something that comes in handy in long races once fatigue sets in.<br /><br />One final note -- from reading Lydiard, I remember a lot of his advice having to do with qualitative self-analysis. As an example, the aerobic running that underpins everything -- as Steve emphasizes here -- should be done to the point were the runner feels "comfortably tired" (or words like that). Put another way, the runner's body reactions form a tantamount metric as to how the training/stress is being processed. (and this brings up the importance of both effective communication with the coach, and the importance of flexible workout scheduling)<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14474955088130704004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784767945961794741.post-26867470134964275622017-05-20T15:57:59.422-04:002017-05-20T15:57:59.422-04:00Thanks Steve! Would the main problem with going to...Thanks Steve! Would the main problem with going too slow be not getting the heart rate up enough to stimulate the improvements E pace targets? Or is the danger of going too slowly more about reinforcing bad biomechanics?Nickolas Kosmenkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03001328953645581033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784767945961794741.post-19414018153052321052017-05-20T15:28:25.599-04:002017-05-20T15:28:25.599-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nickolas Kosmenkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03001328953645581033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784767945961794741.post-15495108049647352762017-05-19T13:40:09.095-04:002017-05-19T13:40:09.095-04:00My pleasure, Nick. In terms of E-pace, Daniels rev...My pleasure, Nick. In terms of E-pace, Daniels revisions (i.e. his broader ranges) pretty much cover the whole problem. If you're running slower than the very generous slow end of his new E-range, you're definitely going too slowly. Same principle re: the fast end. As for Snell and the other Kiwis, reports of what they did for their E-pace vary; but, since they would have been doing no quality work at all during their builds (as per Lydiard's typical plan), they were likely going pretty steadily (some say as fast as 3:45s, which would be hoofing it on the typical NZL terrain). It's possible to overthink the whole E-pace thing. If doing very high volume, or following very hard days, the slow end of Daniels is absolutely fine. If doing moderate volume and no or few hard sessions, the fast end will be fine. For everything in between, the middle of range is probably best most days. And going too fast is typically a far bigger problem than going too slow. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01961146409986258631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784767945961794741.post-58500627415491960342017-05-19T12:36:32.815-04:002017-05-19T12:36:32.815-04:00Hey Steve, thanks for writing and posting this! R...Hey Steve, thanks for writing and posting this! Regarding "easy" running, I recall a conversation we had last year wherein you mentioned that going too slow may actually be counter-productive. Surely what someone like Snell would have been doing on his easy days would still have been a somewhat brisk pace in order to get the heart rate up (maybe 6:00-7:00/mile?) as opposed to slogging along, would it not have been? For those of us who may be taking "easy" to the extreme (i.e., going too slow), would you be able to elaborate more on this topic, demonstrating why there is an optimum range associated with "easy" (if indeed there is)? Thanks!Nickolas Kosmenkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03001328953645581033noreply@blogger.com