Medium runs vs. Short runs
View Full Version : Medium runs vs. Short runs
During my run yesterday I was thinking about this: Recently
I've been running 2-3 times a week, usually between 50 and
80 minutes for each run, and cross-training on other days.
Would it be better to run for a shorter time period more
frequently, for example 4-5 times a week for 25 to 40
minutes? This does not include the long run which I've been
alternating with longer bike rides and do about every 2
weeks. As the summer progresses I will slowly increase the
total running time as well.
One issue I have with running more frequently is I *always*
do 10 mins of walking to warm up and 10 mins of walking to
cool down after as well to prevent injuries, but of course I
don't count this as running time. I also do about 5 minutes
of stretching after my runs. This 25 mins adds overhead to
my runs, and makes it a harder to run everyday. When I
bicycle the warmup and cooldown are just riding at a slower
pace and since I ride longer I don't bother to count this
time separately.
I've always thought that doing somewhat longer runs less
frequently would build my endurance more than shorter runs
done almost daily. But now I'm wondering if the legs will
get more efficient at running as a habit if done almost
daily. My goal is to build endurance for 80 to 100 minute
orienteering races (2 consecutive days), with a secondary
goal of running a Fall trail 50km race. Any insights from
the group would be appreciated.
- Tony
On 2004-06-09, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
Tony -- count me as being in the "short runs frequently"
camp. Keep in mind that I'm primarily training for middle-
distance, but then, a race of 80-100min duration is within
the bounds of that.
> During my run yesterday I was thinking about this:
> Recently I've been running 2-3 times a week, usually
> between 50 and 80 minutes for each run, and cross-training
> on other days. Would it be better to run for a shorter
> time period more frequently, for example 4-5 times a week
> for 25 to 40 minutes?
Why not take the middle road ?
You should be able to get in one moderately long every week
(say 90 min or so) Then several shorter runs. The short runs
help increase your overall volume, improve your endurance,
and don't rip your body up as badly as running long.
> This does not include the long run which I've been
> alternating with longer bike rides and do about every 2
> weeks. As the summer progresses I will slowly increase the
> total running time as well.
IMO doing a huge amount of volume on the bike isn't going to
help much.
> One issue I have with running more frequently is I
> *always* do 10 mins of walking to warm up and 10 mins of
> walking to cool down after as well to prevent injuries,
Is there any evidence that doing this sort of thing prevents
injuries ? My "warmup" is a slow first mile (about 30-40
seconds slower than average for the run) At the very least,
it should be possible to reduce this overhead.
> I've always thought that doing somewhat longer runs less
> frequently would build my endurance more than shorter runs
> done almost daily. But now I'm
I think going longer brings about adaptions that you can't
get from shorter runs.
> wondering if the legs will get more efficient at running
> as a habit if done almost daily.
What I've seen observing my own training and that of others
is that at least as far as running at a good pace over mid-
range distances is concerned, training frequency (and even
some speed work, especially tempo runs) counts for a lot.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Are you looking to Race the 50k or Finish the 50k? You're a
lot more dilligent about warm-up and cool-down than most
runners I know. For my money longer runs at less frequency
is the way to train for endurance.
Regards
Phil
Ultra-long distance runs are best, as long as you do them
over a very short distance.
"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1bFxc.102$wi2.47@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
> During my run yesterday I was thinking about this:
> Recently I've been running 2-3 times a week, usually
> between 50 and 80 minutes for each run, and cross-training
> on other days. Would it be better to run for a shorter
> time period more frequently, for example 4-5 times a week
> for 25 to 40 minutes? This does not include the long run
> which I've been alternating with longer bike rides and do
> about every 2 weeks. As the summer progresses I will
> slowly increase the total running time as well.
>
> One issue I have with running more frequently is I
> *always* do 10 mins of walking to warm up and 10 mins of
> walking to cool down after as well to prevent injuries,
> but of course I don't count this as running time. I also
> do about 5 minutes of stretching after my runs. This 25
> mins adds overhead to my runs, and makes it a harder to
> run everyday. When I bicycle the warmup and cooldown are
> just riding at a slower pace and since I ride longer I
> don't bother to count this time separately.
>
> I've always thought that doing somewhat longer runs less
> frequently would build my endurance more than shorter runs
> done almost daily. But now I'm wondering if the legs will
> get more efficient at running as a habit if done almost
> daily. My goal is to build endurance for 80 to 100 minute
> orienteering races (2 consecutive days), with a secondary
> goal of running a Fall trail 50km race. Any insights from
> the group would be appreciated.
>
> - Tony
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> On 2004-06-09, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm primarily training for middle-distance, but then, a
> race of 80-100min duration is within the bounds of that.
I've always thought that the bounds of 'middle distance' is
more along the lines of 800m - 1500m.
cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see putting other people
down constantly."
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On 2004-06-09, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Tony -- count me as being in the "short runs frequently"
>camp. Keep in mind that I'm primarily training for middle-
>distance, but then, a race of
80-100min
>duration is within the bounds of that.
>
>> During my run yesterday I was thinking about this:
>> Recently I've been running 2-3 times a week, usually
>> between 50 and 80 minutes for each run, and cross-
>> training on other days. Would it be better to run for a
shorter
>> time period more frequently, for example 4-5 times a week
>> for 25 to 40 minutes?
>
>Why not take the middle road ?
>
>You should be able to get in one moderately long every week
>(say 90 min or
so)
>Then several shorter runs. The short runs help increase
>your overall
volume,
>improve your endurance, and don't rip your body up as badly
>as running
long.
I think this sounds good.
>
>> This does not include the long run which I've been
>> alternating with longer bike rides and do about every 2
>> weeks. As the summer progresses I will slowly increase
>> the total running time as well.
>
>IMO doing a huge amount of volume on the bike isn't going
>to help much.
Actually the volume on the bike might not help the running
muscles exactly, but it does allow one to spend more time
building aerobic endurance and leg strength that comes in
handy for trail running. Also, intervals done hard on the
bike can crossover to running with alot less wear and tear
on the body - I've done this in years past and amazed some
of my orienteering friends. I can train more than twice as
much as with running alone, as I know my body will break
down if I try to do the same volume with only running. The
main thing is I also love cycling.
>
>> One issue I have with running more frequently is I
>> *always* do 10 mins of walking to warm up and 10 mins of
>> walking to cool down after as well to prevent injuries,
>
>Is there any evidence that doing this sort of thing
>prevents injuries ? My "warmup" is a slow first mile (about
>30-40 seconds slower than average for the run) At the very
>least, it should be possible to reduce this overhead.
I think the the extended warm-up and cool-down has helped me
to remain injury free. I have no proof of this. I've read in
a few books about the importance of warm-up, especially for
older athletes - I'm 41. The cool-down allows the body's
metabolism to adjust its state in a similar way to warm-up
and helps to clear acidic build-up. I always feel bettter
since I've started doing this (3rd year).
>
>> I've always thought that doing somewhat longer runs less
>> frequently would build my endurance more than shorter
>> runs done almost daily. But now I'm
>
>I think going longer brings about adaptions that you can't
>get from shorter runs.
>
>> wondering if the legs will get more efficient at running
>> as a habit if
done
>> almost daily.
>
>What I've seen observing my own training and that of others
>is that at
least
>as far as running at a good pace over mid-range distances
>is concerned, training frequency (and even some speed work,
>especially tempo runs) counts
for
>a lot.
I think my legs would run more smoothly if I ran somewhat
more frequently. Thanks for the advice.
- Tony
>
>Cheers,
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Phil wrote in message
<8bd8dc13.0406091153.9ca4283@posting.google.com>...
>Are you looking to Race the 50k or Finish the 50k? You're a
>lot more dilligent about warm-up and cool-down than most
>runners I know. For my money longer runs at less frequency
>is the way to train for endurance.
>
>Regards
>
>Phil
Fair question about racing or finishing the 50k. The answer
is something in between. Barring injury occuring during the
event, I know I can finish a 50km right now, though if it's
on a very challenging course I might be forced to walk a
little more. I don't have a goal pace for the 50k, but as
time draws closer I think I will. When I did 50 miles at
finger lakes 50s it was on less of a base than I have now
and less running too. During that race, not being able to
eat any more after about 30 miles hit me very hard at 43
miles and I was forced to start walking some, and the last 4
miles I walked, finishing in 11:32. But I passed 50km in
about 6:28, with several short stops and one long one
totalling 10-15 mins. So my 1st goal would be to break 6
hours, and with a higher % of running in my cross-training
than last time I believe this is within reach, though once
again, it depends on the difficulty of the trails. Offhand
then my goal is to break 6 hours.
As far as training runs go, the last couple of months I've
been running about every 3rd day, and what I think I'll do
now is start going every 2nd day sometimes and mix it with
every 3rd day and see how my body likes it. Then I may go
every 2nd day with cycling and rest days on the off day. In
alot of ways I like going a bit longer when I run because I
get out into the woods on the trails and I never know
exactly how long I will go for because I like to kind of
wander. Then after 2 days rest I usually really feel like
running, even if I bike hard in between. But I realize 2
days rest is sometimes too long to go between runs. I don't
see myself doing very many consecutive running days unless I
start doing shorter brick workouts: bike then run. That's
one reason I posted this question to the group. If 25 mins
running daily has some benefit over 50 mins ever other day
or 75 mins every 3rd day, then I could do brick workouts.
From the responses so far, I gather there's some benefit to
doing more frequent runs. If I can work up my running volume
to 50 to 70 mins every other day that might work best.
- Tony
ps. I consider warm-up and cool-down part of the ritual and
transition into my running state. I think the warm-up
has great benefits for morning workouts especially. The
cool-down allows the body to clear. Not gonna change
this habit; its changed my running for the better. The
warm-up also allows me to think about my session ahead
and to do some "coaching"; likewise the cool-down.
On 2004-06-09, SwStudio <shhhh_secrets@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
>> On 2004-06-09, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm primarily training for middle-distance, but then, a
>> race of 80-100min duration is within the bounds of that.
>
>
> I've always thought that the bounds of 'middle distance'
> is more along the lines of 800m - 1500m.
Doh! You're right, I'm abusing terminology.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
SwStudio wrote in message ...
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
>> On 2004-06-09, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm primarily training for middle-distance, but then, a
>> race of 80-100min duration is within the bounds of that.
>
>
>I've always thought that the bounds of 'middle distance' is
>more along the lines of 800m - 1500m.
>
In terms of track, yes 5,000m and 10,000 are long distance.
It shows you how things have changed over the years too with
many people running marathons and the ultra scene making a
comeback in the last 2 decades. The history of ultra type
events is fun to read about, the go-as-you-please 6 day
races of the late 1800's early 1900's being some of my
favorites.
>
>cheers,
>--
>David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
>insecure people are the ones you see putting other people
>down constantly."
"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<aGPxc.2660$wi2.1171@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>... --snip--
> ps. I consider warm-up and cool-down part of the ritual
> and transition into my running state. I think the warm-
> up has great benefits for morning workouts
> especially. The cool-down allows the body to clear.
> Not gonna change this habit; its changed my running
> for the better. The warm-up also allows me to think
> about my session ahead and to do some "coaching";
> likewise the cool-down.
I was suggesting you drop the warm up cool down.
For ultras I think that back to back runns are somewhat
essential. You got to get used to running on tired leggs. I
like folloing the day after my long runs (really only 2-3
hour runs) with a run of at least an hour follwed by maybe
two days rest.
Now I'm a slow ultra guy - just finished the 100 km version
of the Kettle Moraine 100 in 15:01 .
Regards
Phil
http://runners4bush2004.rantweb.com (http://runners4bush2004.rantweb.com/)
On 2004-06-10, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Actually the volume on the bike might not help the running
> muscles exactly, but it does allow one to spend more time
> building aerobic endurance and leg strength that comes in
> handy for trail running. Also, intervals done hard on the
> bike can crossover to running with alot less wear and tear
> on the body - I've done this in years past and amazed some
> of my orienteering friends.
Right, I'm sure it has some benefit, but not as much as
running. Given the choice between cycling and nothing,
cycling is a better choice, but given the choice between
running and cycling, running is better.
Especially with intervals, specificity makes a huge
difference. You might want to consider doing strides --
these specifically address running economy (which is the
main factor you're missing with the x-training)
> I can train more than twice as much as with running alone,
> as I know my body will break down if I try to do the same
> volume with only running. The main thing is I also love
> cycling.
You'll probably find that you can also get more volume in if
you use shorter runs. It's much easier to do two runs of 40
minutes duration than it is to do a single 80 minute run.
A reasonable target would be 3-4x40minutes + 1x90 minutes,
that's a total of 210-250 minutes (adjust this depending on
your milage goals). Both of these numbers give you two days
or more off per week.
I'd agree that with this sort of volume, you'd still benefit
from x-training.
> I think the the extended warm-up and cool-down has helped
> me to remain injury free. I have no proof of this. I've
> read in a few books about the importance of warm-up,
> especially for older athletes - I'm 41. The
For all this "I'm old and vulnerable" stuff, you're doing
ultras, and you're only 41. You may be "older" than 25, but
you're not even close to old.
> cool-down allows the body's metabolism to adjust its state
> in a similar way to warm-up and helps to clear acidic build-
> up. I always feel bettter since I've started doing this
> (3rd year).
Ultimately it's up to you -- find the balance that allows
you to get in workouts frequently, but also gives you a
positive experience.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aGPxc.2660$wi2.1171@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
>
> Phil wrote in message
<8bd8dc13.0406091153.9ca4283@posting.google.com>...
> >Are you looking to Race the 50k or Finish the 50k? You're
> >a lot more dilligent about warm-up and cool-down than
> >most runners I know. For my money longer runs at less
> >frequency is the way to train for endurance.
Yes and no.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Phil
>
> Fair question about racing or finishing the 50k. The
> answer is
something in
> between.
Only you can answer the question on strategy.
> I don't have a goal pace for the 50k, but as time draws
> closer I
think I will.
And I suggest you leave your watch at home and ignore the
clock. I'll repeat for the 2**45678 time, find a pace that
feels comfortable and then slow it down. This will give you
the most efficient pace. If you feel good at the marathon
mark pick it up. Finish on a positive note. If you focus on
time you most likely finish but have ****ty time(in effort
and on the clock). Get some finishes under your belt at
various distances and terrains and then play with the clock.
> From the responses so far, I gather there's some benefit
> to doing more frequent runs. If I can
work up
> my running volume to 50 to 70 mins every other day that
> might work
best.
50 to 70 minutes every other day? You may get to the finish
line but this barely training for 50k mush less a 50. Unless
you like bump the time limit you really need to get some
LONG runs in. 5-70 ain't long! For a 50k I suggest you
should work up to running at least 3 if not 4 hours every
other week. For a 50 4-5 hours and these runs should be of
the same or harder terrain than your race. You training must
include time on your feet.
DougF
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrncceo70.2an.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2004-06-09, SwStudio <shhhh_secrets@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> On 2004-06-09, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm primarily training for middle-distance, but then, a
> >> race of
80-100min
> >> duration is within the bounds of that.
> >
> >
> > I've always thought that the bounds of 'middle distance'
> > is more along the lines of 800m - 1500m.
>
> Doh! You're right, I'm abusing terminology.
Yeah, I guessed that you were just calling it "middle
distance" because it's simply in the middle of the distances
*you* would consider racing, more or less. It makes sense
that way. :)
cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see putting other people
down constantly."
Phil wrote in message
<8bd8dc13.0406100312.7e121f02@posting.google.com>...
>"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<aGPxc.2660$wi2.1171@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
>--snip--
>> ps. I consider warm-up and cool-down part of the ritual
>> and transition
into
>> my running state. I think the warm-up has great benefits
>> for morning workouts especially. The cool-down allows the
>> body to clear. Not gonna change this habit; its changed
>> my running for the better. The warm-up
also
>> allows me to think about my session ahead and to do some
>> "coaching"; likewise the cool-down.
>
>I was suggesting you drop the warm up cool down.
LoL noway Phil - thats the 'zen' part of my runs...
>
>For ultras I think that back to back runns are somewhat
>essential. You got to get used to running on tired leggs. I
>like folloing the day after my long runs (really only 2-3
>hour runs) with a run of at least an hour follwed by maybe
>two days rest.
>
>Now I'm a slow ultra guy - just finished the 100 km version
>of the Kettle Moraine 100 in 15:01 .
>
>Regards
>
>Phil
>
>http://runners4bush2004.rantweb.com (http://runners4bush2004.rantweb.com/)
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On 2004-06-10, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually the volume on the bike might not help the
>> running muscles
exactly,
>> but it does allow one to spend more time building aerobic
>> endurance and
leg
>> strength that comes in handy for trail running. Also,
>> intervals done
hard
>> on the bike can crossover to running with alot less wear
>> and tear on the body - I've done this in years past and
>> amazed some of my orienteering friends.
>
>Right, I'm sure it has some benefit, but not as much as
>running. Given the choice between cycling and nothing,
>cycling is a better choice, but given the choice between
>running and cycling, running is better.
>
>Especially with intervals, specificity makes a huge
>difference. You might
want
>to consider doing strides -- these specifically address
>running economy
(which
>is the main factor you're missing with the x-training)
True specificity is important.
>
>> I can train more than twice as much as with running
>> alone, as I know my body will break down if I try to do
>> the same volume with only running. The main thing is I
>> also love cycling.
>
>You'll probably find that you can also get more volume in
>if you use
shorter
>runs. It's much easier to do two runs of 40 minutes
>duration than it is to
do
>a single 80 minute run.
>
>A reasonable target would be 3-4x40minutes + 1x90 minutes,
>that's a total
of
>210-250 minutes (adjust this depending on your milage
>goals). Both of these numbers give you two days or more off
>per week.
>
>I'd agree that with this sort of volume, you'd still
>benefit from
x-training.
>
>> I think the the extended warm-up and cool-down has helped
>> me to remain injury free. I have no proof of this. I've
>> read in a few books about
the
>> importance of warm-up, especially for older athletes -
>> I'm 41. The
>
>For all this "I'm old and vulnerable" stuff, you're doing
>ultras, and
you're
>only 41. You may be "older" than 25, but you're not even
>close to old.
I don't consider myself old, but I'm built like a tank
(sprinter or wrestler type), and I'm always tight. While
warming up every time I run is probably not necessary,
there are some days when its very beneficial. You say you
also run the first mile of your runs somewhat slower as a
type of warm-up. Anyway each person knows what they need. I
gather from what you've said that you don't believe in warm-
ups or cool-downs. They're a pain sometimes, but I think
they help prevent injury and help both the running
metabolism and the recovery.
Another reason to warm up is that the body's metabolic
processes of course start to operate in a different way
once you start moving. it takes up to 10 mins for the fat-
burning aerobic system to fully activate when exercising.
Before that the glucose aerobic system becomes active after
about 2 mins of exercise. If you start running too fast
right away, the body won't settle into a healthy mix of
buring both fats and glucose for fuel; it will rely more on
glucose. While this might not interest middle-distance
runners, anyone training for a marathon and beyond wants to
enhance their body's fat buring ability. The kind of warm-
up you do (or lack thereof) can affect your metabolism
throughout your run.
With cool-down there is a similar metabolic transition, and
by slowing down at the end you allow your body to begin to
recover. It helps clear acidity out of the muscles and also
allows the body to transition slowly to a normal metabolism.
This aids in stretching, about which there is much debate;
but I've found it to be helpful for me to do several
different types of static stretches of a few minutes each.
- Tony
>
>> cool-down allows the body's metabolism to adjust its
>> state in a similar
way
>> to warm-up and helps to clear acidic build-up. I always
>> feel bettter
since
>> I've started doing this (3rd year).
>
>Ultimately it's up to you -- find the balance that allows
>you to get in workouts frequently, but also gives you a
>positive experience.
>
>Cheers,
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
"Phil" <runners4bush2004@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:8bd8dc13.0406100312.7e121f02@posting.google.com...
> "Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<aGPxc.2660$wi2.1171@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
> --snip--
> For ultras I think that back to back runns are somewhat
> essential. You got to get used to running on tired leggs.
> I like folloing the day after my long runs (really only
> 2-3 hour runs) with a run of at least an hour follwed by
> maybe two days rest.
I don't think b-2-b are necessary for distances less than 50
miles unless you are really planning to attack the clock AND
have some experience. For the 100, I agree with maybe one or
two about 2/3 of the way into your training.
> Now I'm a slow ultra guy - just finished the 100 km
> version of the Kettle Moraine 100 in 15:01 .
Great!!! I've always wanted to do KM but keep opting to
do Vermont.
VT100. It gives me more time to train after Bull Run. Kevin
Setness is a great person and RD. Going to try
Laurel Highlands(70 miles) this Saturday. Pray for
cool temps!!
-DougF
On 2004-06-11, Doug Freese <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>> From the responses so far, I gather there's some
>> benefit to doing more frequent runs. If I can work up
>> my running volume to 50 to 70 mins every other day that
>> might work best.
>
> 50 to 70 minutes every other day? You may get to the
> finish line but this barely training for 50k mush less a
> 50. Unless you like bump the time limit you really need to
> get some LONG runs in. 5-70 ain't long!
I think he's got the right idea! The 50-70 minutes every
other day is his bread and butter. He already does a long
run every other week (alternating with a long ride), and my
understanding is that he doesn't intend to get rid of these
long runs.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
On 2004-06-09, SwStudio <shhhh_secrets@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:slrncceo70.2an.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
>> On 2004-06-09, SwStudio <shhhh_secrets@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > "Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> On 2004-06-09, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm primarily training for middle-distance, but then,
>> >> a race of
> 80-100min
>> >> duration is within the bounds of that.
>> >
>> >
>> > I've always thought that the bounds of 'middle
>> > distance' is more along the lines of 800m - 1500m.
>>
>> Doh! You're right, I'm abusing terminology.
>
>
> Yeah, I guessed that you were just calling it "middle
> distance" because it's simply in the middle of the
> distances *you* would consider racing,
It's mid-range in the distance that r.r posters race. I used
it to distinguish myself from people who do
marathons/ultras.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
On 2004-06-10, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway each person knows what they need. I gather from
> what you've said that you don't believe in warm-ups or
> cool-downs.
The point is that I can't afford to "believe in" them -- I
run twice a day, and can't afford to take an additional 40
minutes overhead daily. So I warm up and cool down for speed
work (which I do no more than 3x/week) but not for everyday
runs. I also find that the amount of warmup/cooldown I need
depends on how hard the workout is. Easy workouts need very
little warmup/cooldown, hard workouts need quite a lot.
But that's me. You don't run twice a day, and you find
warmups more important than I do -- so even if you were
training 5 times a week (40 minutes most workouts, more for
long runs), 20 minutes of warmup/cooldown might be
acceptable, especially if you think of this as part of your
training, and not just overhead. Or maybe you'll want to
adjust this to 10 or 15 minutes with the shorter training
sessions. You'll work it out. But I think it's ill-advised
to allow your warmups to dictate your training -- should be
the other way around
IMO.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On 2004-06-11, Doug Freese <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>>> From the responses so far, I gather there's some
>>> benefit to doing more frequent runs. If I can work up
>>> my running volume to 50 to 70 mins every other day that
>>> might work best.
>>
>> 50 to 70 minutes every other day? You may get to the
>> finish line but this barely training for 50k mush less a
>> 50. Unless you like bump the time limit you really need
>> to get some LONG runs in. 5-70 ain't long!
>
>I think he's got the right idea! The 50-70 minutes every
>other day is his bread and butter. He already does a long
>run every other week (alternating with a long ride), and my
>understanding is that he doesn't intend to get
rid
>of these long runs.
Righto, I did 4 hours on trails 12 days ago and am due for
another this Sat, though I think I'll back it down to 3+ and
build again from there because 4 was a bit long for me at
this point.
- Tony
>
>Cheers,
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
