Continuing on the theme of why I should change my approach to fitness … again, I have been fairly steadfast that a commitment to consistency is key for success in endurance events. And specifically, if you want to do well at marathons, you will be rewarded with a steady diet of running. Run more. More miles. More time. More often. Year round. Live like nobody else today so that you can live like nobody else tomorrow.
And this is certainly true nearly all of the time. Look at the guys who have garnered success in the MUT scene and most are working more and harder than you. Carpenter is noted for his commitment of 2 hours a day of training every day for a year leading up to Pikes. Guys like Nick Clark reflect a consistency day over day, week over week, month over month of miles, vertical, time on the feet. Arguably, any modicum of success I have had has come off withdrawing from the many training deposits I make over time.
So this sets to root a very strong belief that for me to run to the best of my abilities, particularly at a race like Pikes, I need to bank lots of miles in the fall, winter, and spring … in order to make for a good foundation for summer execution. 2010 was probably the pinnacle of this for me. Loads of miles, little missed training, consistency, boring, but beautiful.
But then there is 2008. I strained my groin in January. I could still run on it, but it was clearly a problem. After screwing around with it for several weeks, I sought medical assistance and considered the possibility of surgery for a so called “sports hernia.” I stopped running for a bit and took to cross training as I could. I gave up any hope of running the Pikes Marathon well and registered for the Ascent as well - aka the Double. How’s that for classic runner’s logic? I can’t do well in one event, so let me register for two!
2008 Pikes of course was the epic snow year. I went into the race weekend feeling unprepared with the training I had done, as that so called consistency had been, in my mind, compromised. The weather conditions did nothing to raise my expectations, but instead I took solace that the weather was not perfect: if it was, I’d lament more about a wasted opportunity.
But then I ran 2:48 up. The next day, after another ascent, I ran 1:42 down – and that included time for me to change my shoes at the summit. The Saturday effort was my 2nd best Ascent at the time (and 3rd best now), and if you combo’d that up and down from Saturday and Sunday, I would have run close to my current PR on the hill.
So how did I do that when I was not putting in the training that I thought was necessary for that? The real question probably ought to be was the so called training that I thought necessary really required? Or could such results be achieved otherwise?
So now an Olympiad of time later I am dabbling with a similar issue: an Achilles that I can run on but is clearly compromised. I face the dilemma of thinking I need to run on it more to assure success. But clearly there is evidence that I can accomplish good results off a different approach.
As I read through this one, I kept thinking of the law of diminishing returns.
ReplyDeleteWhat cross-training did you do in 2008? Was 2008 a matter of simply executing to a level closer to 100% of your abilities than other years' execution?
2009 has thus far been my best year on Pikes - even with a bit of struggle up high, I went 2:44. My training plan was quite informal - I spent more time on my bike than on my feet that year. 2008 - I was training for Ironman and was only running 1-2x a week, and comfortably ran 2:53.
The shift from 30 mile weeks (with significant cross-training) to 60 mile, mountain specific weeks has thus far yielded some pretty horrific results on this end, albeit I only have a sample size of three (3:21, 2:56, 2:59/1:37) to draw from.
Again, I can't help but wonder - you're dealing with such a small sample size it's hard to be certain. Could it simply be a matter of execution?
Sean - excellent questions. And I clearly think that execution is a significant part of the picture. And for what it is worth, I think when I am undertrained or less fit, I am more likely to execute more carefully. In other words, when I am super fit, I am more likely to get after it and hence - make mistakes early that can destroy me in the later stages of a race. I can provide dozens of personal examples of this.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I think the weather that year forced better execution. I often struggle up high and even cave. I think in part that happens because I mentally expect it. In 2008, I kept moving because I was COLD and knew that to keep warm I needed to run. So I did.
So I executed well ... so that is part of the picture. But I came off less than my so called mythical perfect training.
Which is to say ... not all roads lead to Rome. But there are many ways to get there.
This series has definitely caught my interest. I've got a bunch of questions, but I'll keep it short for now.
ReplyDelete1.) What is the goal of this "reboot?" Is it general fitness or Pikes Peak. I would guess the basics are the same, but the approach might be different depending on the goal.
2.) Will it be starting from a clean sheet or a more incremental approach? From reading the comments on your previous post, it seems like maybe incremental. In my opinion there are benefits to each, but it seems to me that your approach is pretty good as is. I'd hate to see the baby go out with the bath water.
Will - I will try to answer these questions. And keep 'em coming because I want my thinking and approach challenged.
ReplyDeleteThe goal ... great question. I am trying to strike a balance that assure maximum effectiveness physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually. Clearly I could define that just in the physical and it would be very easy to say what was necessary. But I don't consider the equation from just that factor. It would be shallow to do so. So talking this through is helping me describe that balance to some extent.
I am not sure what you exactly mean by clean sheet or incremental. I guess nothing is clean sheet. I am not a clean sheet. I am what I am from my experiences. I am not going to ignore those. So I guess that is incremental?
What I meant by clean sheet vs incremental was are you throwing out your current training philosophy and starting from nothing? Or are you keeping your current philosophy and tweaking, along the lines of "keep the 3-4 quality running workouts, figure out what to do the other days. Then maybe adjust or add some more stuff, be that mental or otherwise."
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing here but you probably make that choice at work all the time when you look at a new problem or process - is there something good here that we can preserve and build on or do we need to start over from scratch?
Thanks for the clarification.
ReplyDeleteI chose the term reboot because of some analogy there. A computer can get quirky at some point and folks say, "eh, have you tried rebooting it?" The idea behind that being that there are now memory leaks, stray processes, programs that are impacting performance. A reboot resets the baseline.
It is still the same operating system, but more focused.
Same thing here ... this is not a totally new OS but rebooting to consider things more appropriately.
A good recent irunfar article speaks to this issue. Joe Uhan was injured after AR50 in early April. He draws the magic ticket at Western lottery and rests up until Memorial Day. A quick bout of intense training and he is sharp enough for 11th place. I have had similar results. Even 1 sharp week after a layoff can reap amazing rewards:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.irunfar.com/2012/04/surviving-your-first-hundred-part-1-preparation.html
Perfect. Except the 11th place part. Actually that makes it even more perfect when I think about it.
ReplyDelete