Run Run Away

Question:

I’ve never really known how fast I can run so have tried a few runs on a treadmill at the gym. My aim was to see what speed I can run a mile at. After a couple of attempts, I realise that I can do a mile (1.6km) at the max speed of the treadmill, i.e. 16kph, but can’t run much further than that at that speed. So I’ve upped the distance a bit and managed 2km at that speed so far. So my question is, is increasing the distance at a constant speed a useful form of training if, say, I want to eventually be able to run 5km at 16kph, or would I be better off pursuing some other method? I’m also doing longer around 10 miles or so. Paul

Response:

I’ve never really known how fast I can run so have tried a few runs on a treadmill at the gym. My aim was to see what speed I can run a mile at. After a couple of attempts, I realise that I can do a mile (1.6km) at the max speed of the treadmill, i.e. 16kph, but can’t run much further than that at that speed. So I’ve upped the distance a bit and managed 2km at that speed so far. So my question is, is increasing the distance at a constant speed a useful form of training if, say, I want to eventually be able to run 5km at 16kph, or would I be better off pursuing some other method? I’m also doing longer around 10 miles or so. Paul

Paul, stop jabbering.  You’re making the Brits on rec.running look bad. Establish precisely what you’re trying to say, then say it in one grammatically correct post of less than forty words. Many thanks.

Response:

I’ve never really known how fast I can run so have tried a few runs on a treadmill at the gym. My aim was to see what speed I can run a mile at. After a couple of attempts, I realise that I can do a mile (1.6km) at the max speed of the treadmill, i.e. 16kph, but can’t run much further than that at that speed. So I’ve upped the distance a bit and managed 2km at that speed so far. So my question is, is increasing the distance at a constant speed a useful form of training if, say, I want to eventually be able to run 5km at 16kph, or would I be better off pursuing some other method? I’m also doing longer around 10 miles or so. Establish precisely what you’re trying to say, then say it in one grammatically correct post of less than forty words.

Didn’t think it was so complicated… I can run 2km at 16kph. I want to be able to run 5km at 16kph. Is attempting to increase my distance each time I run, while maintaining the same speed, a good way to reach that goal? There you go, 38 words. Paul

Response:

I can run 2km at 16kph. I want to be able to run 5km at 16kph. Is attempting to increase my distance each time I run, while maintaining the same speed, a good way to reach that goal? There you go, 38 words.

Such effort merits a serious reply… It’s one way, and it’ll probably work, but it isn’t the best way. 5k isn’t far but it does rather test your ability to run anaerobically.   To this end you need to develop the ability to feel comfortable (and this is relative) near your anaerobic limit. Strangely enough, the best way to achieve this is to spend some considerable time training beyond this limit. You’ll find there are 10,000 different training plans that will achieve your goal.   Google ‘5K training plans’ or wait until Donovan picks up your question.    However, I did promise some advice so here it comes… Day 1    Run 2k Day 2    Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps Day 3    Run 1k Day 4    Rest Day 5    Run 3k Day 6    Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps Day 7    Run 2k Day 8    Rest Day 9    Run 4k Day 10  Rest Day 11  Run 3k Day 12  Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps Day 13  Run 2k Day 14  Rest Day 15  Run 3k Day 16  Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps Day 17  Run 2k Day 18  Rest Day 19  Run 5k Day 20  Rest Day 21  Run 4k Day 22  Sprint 400m on track x 8 with three minute rest between reps Day 23  Run 2k Day 24  Rest Day 25  Run 6k Day 27  Rest Day 28  Run 5k Day 29  Sprint 400m on track x 8 with three minute rest between reps Day 30  Run 2k Day 31  Rest Day 32  Sprint 400m on track x 4 with three minute rest between reps Day 33  Run 5k time trial. Total 46k road/grass, 17k track. The ONLY runs you time will be your track sprints and your 5k time trial.    Warm up and cool down THOROUGHLY before your track sessions. You should sprint HARD during these sessions.   Your final 5k time will be sub 20 minutes. Have fun.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I can run 2km at 16kph. I want to be able to run 5km at 16kph. Is attempting to increase my distance each time I run, while maintaining the same speed, a good way to reach that goal? It’s one way, and it’ll probably work, but it isn’t the best way. 5k isn’t far but it does rather test your ability to run anaerobically.   To this end you need to develop the ability to feel comfortable (and this is relative) near your anaerobic limit. Strangely enough, the best way to achieve this is to spend some considerable time training beyond this limit. You’ll find there are 10,000 different training plans that will achieve your goal.   Google ‘5K training plans’ or wait until Donovan picks up your question.    However, I did promise some advice so here it comes… Day 1    Run 2k Day 2    Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps [snip] Day 32  Sprint 400m on track x 4 with three minute rest between reps Day 33  Run 5k time trial. The ONLY runs you time will be your track sprints and your 5k time trial.    Warm up and cool down THOROUGHLY before your track sessions. You should sprint HARD during these sessions.   Your final 5k time will be sub 20 minutes.

When you say "Run 2k", what sort of pace would I aim for? As fast as I can, or some other effort level? Now I just need to find a track… Have fun.

Thanks! Paul

Response:

When you say "Run 2k", what sort of pace would I aim for? As fast as I can, or some other effort level?

I think (certainly hope) he means that the other runs are supposed to be fairly comfortable. Now I just need to find a track…

Or just measure out a 400m stretch (if you can’t measure one out, estimate it) Since the rests are 3 minutes long, you should have plenty of time to jog back to the "starting line" of each rep. Doing so should take you between 2 and 2.5 min — they’re supposed to be rests. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

When you say "Run 2k", what sort of pace would I aim for? As fast as I can, or some other effort level? I think (certainly hope) he means that the other runs are supposed to be fairly comfortable.

The recovery run the day after your track sessions should always be a steady jog, i.e. a pace at which you could maintain a conversation. For the others, I’d push as hard as you feel.   If you’re feeling strong, work hard.   If you feel ‘tender’, take it easy. Or just measure out a 400m stretch (if you can’t measure one out, estimate it)

No.  Find a track.  It’s more focussed and it’s accurate.   With any luck you’ll find others doing interval work (that’s what you’re doing) who’ll be happy to offer advice. Since the rests are 3 minutes long, you should have plenty of time to jog back to the "starting line" of each rep. Doing so should take you between 2 and 2.5 min — they’re supposed to be rests.

Agreed, but not too much of a rest.   The aim should be to assist lactic dispersal NOT to recover completely.   I’m trying to build a degree of lactic tolerance within the bounds of common sense for a newbie runner. The nice thing about this trackwork is that in the fifth and sixth session he’ll cover 3200m MUCH faster than his ‘time trial’ pace and around 2500-3000m in his recovery jogs.   He’ll probably spend around 34-36 minutes on his feet covering over 6k, most of that time being spent with lactic acid whooshing round his leggies.   I’m guessing a 6 min/mile 5k won’t feel too hard after that. Funnily enough, this is almost exactly how I started running. Concentrate on maintaining speed through regular interval work and the distance will take care of itself.   As I said somewhere else, I ran some spectacular road, track and cross country races – up to 10 miles – off 35 mpw, but at least half of those miles were track based (and I didn’t count the recovery jogs) and bloody hard work.

Response:

[snip] No.  Find a track.  It’s more focussed and it’s accurate.   With any luck you’ll find others doing interval work (that’s what you’re doing) who’ll be happy to offer advice.

[snip] The nice thing about this trackwork is that in the fifth and sixth session he’ll cover 3200m MUCH faster than his ‘time trial’ pace and around 2500-3000m in his recovery jogs.   He’ll probably spend around 34-36 minutes on his feet covering over 6k, most of that time being spent with lactic acid whooshing round his leggies.   I’m guessing a 6 min/mile 5k won’t feel too hard after that.

Advice appreciated. Thanks. Paul

Response:

A 5K is not very "anaerobic" at all.  It is an aerobic event, most of the time should be spent building the aerobic system first and then adding some lactate threshold work. Paul, I would recommend starting with running at an easy pace (conversation pace) several times a week for several weeks before doing anything hard. Run 5x/wk for at least 30min at a time.  Come back after 6 weeks and I’ll share more.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I can run 2km at 16kph. I want to be able to run 5km at 16kph. Is attempting to increase my distance each time I run, while maintaining the same speed, a good way to reach that goal? There you go, 38 words. Such effort merits a serious reply… It’s one way, and it’ll probably work, but it isn’t the best way. 5k isn’t far but it does rather test your ability to run anaerobically.   To this end you need to develop the ability to feel comfortable (and this is relative) near your anaerobic limit. Strangely enough, the best way to achieve this is to spend some considerable time training beyond this limit. You’ll find there are 10,000 different training plans that will achieve your goal.   Google ‘5K training plans’ or wait until Donovan picks up your question.    However, I did promise some advice so here it comes… Day 1    Run 2k Day 2    Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps Day 3    Run 1k Day 4    Rest Day 5    Run 3k Day 6    Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps Day 7    Run 2k Day 8    Rest Day 9    Run 4k Day 10  Rest Day 11  Run 3k Day 12  Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps Day 13  Run 2k Day 14  Rest Day 15  Run 3k Day 16  Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps Day 17  Run 2k Day 18  Rest Day 19  Run 5k Day 20  Rest Day 21  Run 4k Day 22  Sprint 400m on track x 8 with three minute rest between reps Day 23  Run 2k Day 24  Rest Day 25  Run 6k Day 27  Rest Day 28  Run 5k Day 29  Sprint 400m on track x 8 with three minute rest between reps Day 30  Run 2k Day 31  Rest Day 32  Sprint 400m on track x 4 with three minute rest between reps Day 33  Run 5k time trial. Total 46k road/grass, 17k track. The ONLY runs you time will be your track sprints and your 5k time trial.    Warm up and cool down THOROUGHLY before your track sessions. You should sprint HARD during these sessions.   Your final 5k time will be sub 20 minutes. Have fun.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] No.  Find a track.  It’s more focussed and it’s accurate.   With any luck you’ll find others doing interval work (that’s what you’re doing) who’ll be happy to offer advice. [snip] The nice thing about this trackwork is that in the fifth and sixth session he’ll cover 3200m MUCH faster than his ‘time trial’ pace and around 2500-3000m in his recovery jogs.   He’ll probably spend around 34-36 minutes on his feet covering over 6k, most of that time being spent with lactic acid whooshing round his leggies.   I’m guessing a 6 min/mile 5k won’t feel too hard after that. Advice appreciated. Thanks. Paul

Paul, based on what you have been doing, this seems like moving into this realm awfully fast. the 5K is an aerobic event dammit!

Response:

Paul, based on what you have been doing, this seems like moving into this realm awfully fast.

Piffle.    Based on his statement that he’s fit enough to sustain a 16 kph pace for 2k, he’s fit enough for that programme. He didn’t ask for a programme to introduce him to a lifetimes running, he asked for a plan to get to 5k at 16 kph.   That’ll do it.   the 5K is an aerobic event dammit!

Sure.   *Everything* is aerobic to the rec.runners.   Go google for a table displaying the relative aerobic/anaerobic components of the 5k. Or better still, go run one fast.   Then come back here and tell me it’s an aerobic event. For the few of you that have any inclination to actually *run*, you’ll have to become familiar with speed.   If you’ve mental discipline for it, I’d suggest fartlek, but it’s damn hard to push yourself as hard as you should when it’s only you and your god watching. OTOH, track work is blindly straightforward.   You have the track, your watch and your schedule.   You do the work, it hurts, but you get faster.   I’ve seen a slightly modified version of the programme work many times, although it’s fair to point out that it’s also broken a few spirits too. It’s a pure guess of course, but I’ll happily bet than anyone who could respond to my original post in the manner Paul chose has the personality to achieve his goals via the most direct route.

Response:

 Come back after 6 weeks and I’ll share more.

Ha!   In six weeks he’ll have completed his aim and be windsurfing in the Med, whilst you, my little plodder, are still churning out your pointless miles.

Response:

Try running on a road. A treadmill is only a simulation, and a poor one at that.

Response:

Paul, based on what you have been doing, this seems like moving into this realm awfully fast. the 5K is an aerobic event dammit!

I don’t think I said what I’ve been doing. Just got back from a lunchtime run: 11.5 miles at 07:55/mi.  I started running at the beginning of January and am running about 3 times a week and playing squash twice a week. My aim was just to get fit and lose some weight. I’ve lost about 17 pounds and gone from 24.5% fat to 17% (according to a tanita body fat monitor scale). Paul

Response:

Try running on a road. A treadmill is only a simulation, and a poor one at that.

Bullshit. — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Paul, based on what you have been doing, this seems like moving into this realm awfully fast. Piffle.    Based on his statement that he’s fit enough to sustain a 16 kph pace for 2k, he’s fit enough for that programme. He didn’t ask for a programme to introduce him to a lifetimes running, he asked for a plan to get to 5k at 16 kph.   That’ll do it.   the 5K is an aerobic event dammit! Sure.   *Everything* is aerobic to the rec.runners.   Go google for a table displaying the relative aerobic/anaerobic components of the 5k. Or better still, go run one fast.   Then come back here and tell me it’s an aerobic event.

Ingrid Kristiansen was a former record holder for the 5k and yet was a lousy sprinter. http://ingrid-kristiansen.com/holisticfitness/running.htm Sure it’s fast, but it’s all about endurance. Tell me something — who is a likely to be a better 5k runner, an elite marathoner or an elite 400m runner ? Could Michael Johnson beat Martin Lel in a 5k ? Of course the 5k is fast, but it’s still largely about endurance. For the few of you that have any inclination to actually *run*, you’ll have to become familiar with speed.  

Even then, you need to be able to not just sprint, but actually sustain a fast pace. I’ve found 1200m repeats very effective — the distance is short enough that one can do them at a good pace (faster than 5k pace), but long enough that you can’t just sprint through them. I found that the end result of doing 400m repeats was that I could beat other runners in short interval sessions, only to have the same runners kick my butt in races. If you’ve mental discipline for it, I’d suggest fartlek, but it’s damn hard to push yourself as hard as you should when it’s only you and your god watching.

IMO fartlek is better done in groups or as an "entry level" speed workout that one could use in weeks leading up to serious speed training (to me that means "track work" or hill work with a training group) OTOH, track work is blindly straightforward.   You have the track, your watch and your schedule.   You do the work, it hurts, but you get faster.  

You get faster at something anyway. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Ingrid Kristiansen was a former record holder for the 5k and yet was a lousy sprinter.

You’d like me to list the 5k record holders who are good sprinters? And what would that prove?   That we can both make lists? Sure it’s fast, but it’s all about endurance. Tell me something — who is a likely to be a better 5k runner, an elite marathoner or an elite 400m runner ? Could Michael Johnson beat Martin Lel in a 5k ?

You’re being disingenuous.   We both know it’s *easier* to encompass 5k and marathon running than it is to encompass 400m and 5k running. That wasn’t the point.   The OP asked for the ‘best’ way to reach 5k at 16 kph, and noted that he was already running up to ten miles.   I provided a minimum mileage, track based, answer.   It isn’t the only answer but, in this instance, I believe it to be the most straightforward way for the OP to achieve his goal. Even then, you need to be able to not just sprint, but actually sustain a fast pace. I’ve found 1200m repeats very effective — the distance is short enough that one can do them at a good pace (faster than 5k pace), but long enough that you can’t just sprint through them. I found that the end result of doing 400m repeats was that I could beat other runners in short interval sessions, only to have the same runners kick my butt in races.

We’re all different, but 400m repeats are a good place for a newbie to start   To suggest that someone only able to sustain a fast pace for 2000m should commence at any other level would be ridiculous. IMO fartlek is better done in groups or as an "entry level" speed workout that one could use in weeks leading up to serious speed training (to me that means "track work" or hill work with a training group)

Donny, Donny, Donny, you keep telling me what you believe, rather than what may be useful to the OP.   Frankly, I consider much of your advice to be a little too theoretical and research based, rather than founded on personal experience or observation.   Would you be insulted if I used the phrase ‘book learning’? Give yourself ten years of national-standard running and you’ll develop a more rounded approach to running theory and practice.    As I said elsewhere, Paul will achieve by attitude and effort what you would seek to diss through theory and statistics. Give me an athlete with a clear ambition over a head full of theories any day.

Response:

Ingrid Kristiansen was a former record holder for the 5k and yet was a lousy sprinter. You’d like me to list the 5k record holders who are good sprinters? And what would that prove?   That we can both make lists? Sure it’s fast, but it’s all about endurance. Tell me something — who is a likely to be a better 5k runner, an elite marathoner or an elite 400m runner ? Could Michael Johnson beat Martin Lel in a 5k ? You’re being disingenuous.   We both know it’s *easier* to encompass 5k and marathon running than it is to encompass 400m and 5k running.

You argued that the running 5k was "anaerobic". That was the point I took issue with. It is "anaerobic" in terms of technical definitions (above LT in intensity), but not in terms of training requirements. That wasn’t the point.   The OP asked for the ‘best’ way to reach 5k at 16 kph, and noted that he was already running up to ten miles.   I provided a minimum mileage, track based, answer.  

FWIW, I didn’t think your schedule was all that bad, and it wasn’t your schedule I was disputing. Even then, you need to be able to not just sprint, but actually sustain a fast pace. I’ve found 1200m repeats very effective — the distance is short enough that one can do them at a good pace (faster than 5k pace), but long enough that you can’t just sprint through them. I found that the end result of doing 400m repeats was that I could beat other runners in short interval sessions, only to have the same runners kick my butt in races. We’re all different, but 400m repeats are a good place for a newbie to start  

There’s nothing wrong with starting with 400m repeats, but … To suggest that someone only able to sustain a fast pace for 2000m should commence at any other level would be ridiculous.

By this argument, someone who runs 5k at 8:00 pace should start by doing 100m sprints, since they can only sustain a "fast" pace for about 400m. So I think it’s a silly argument. However, I agree that shorter intervals make a good starting point. Longer intervals take getting used to and beginners are likely to "bomb out" in long interval sessions unless they start with shorter sessions. For example, I prefer to do a few weeks of 800s before doing 1200s. IMO fartlek is better done in groups or as an "entry level" speed workout that one could use in weeks leading up to serious speed training (to me that means "track work" or hill work with a training group) Donny, Donny, Donny, you keep telling me what you believe, rather than what may be useful to the OP.  

I was commenting on your post, not giving advice to the OP. Frankly, I consider much of your advice to be a little too theoretical and research based, rather than founded on personal experience or observation.  

In this case, I call "bullshit". Not only do I *understand* it, through *experience*, I get a refresher on it every week. I’m not drawing on distant memories of great workouts in the distant past. I’ve done my track workout in the last week. Have you ? I’ve done fartlek running before, in groups and alone. I’ve done a lot of track training, it’s been my primary source of interval work, so I’ve probably done more track work than some of the more experienced runners here. You yourself said track work is "more precise". I’d argue that track work not only gives you precision, it gives you *structure*. When you go to the track with a watch, the track is simply a vast, barren, merciless landscape, and the watch is a brutal taskmaster. You can’t fool the track or your watch. That’s what makes it so demanding — the transparency of it all. Track workouts are just brutal. You can possibly make fartlek as demanding physiologically, but it doesn’t come close mentally. If you don’t understand this, go outside and do some track work instead of trolling usenet. Would you be insulted if I used the phrase ‘book learning’?

Why would I be insulted by such an obvious falsehood ? I’m out there doing the miles, doing my track work, doing my tempos, doing my races week after week, while you’re drawing from distant memories from back in "the good old days" when you felt more like a winner and less like a has-been. Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

You argued that the running 5k was "anaerobic". That was the point I took issue with.

No.   That was the point with which you took issue.   A Yankee grad student that can’t write.   Now there’s a surprise. FWIW, I didn’t think your schedule was all that bad, and it wasn’t your schedule I was disputing.

And this is meant to make me happy?   Now I’m convinced my schedule is wrong. So I think it’s a silly argument.

And boy, do you know all about silly arguments… I was commenting on your post, not giving advice to the OP.

Well don’t bother, for I have neither the time nor the inclination to point out the many technical and logical faults in your inane and self-congratulatory musings. In this case, I call "bullshit".

Of course.   It’s your standard response when you run out of words which, regrettably, isn’t that often. Not only do I *understand* it, through *experience*, I get a refresher on it every week. I’m not drawing on distant memories of great workouts in the distant past.

Therefore, when offering advice, experience carries no value, currency is all.    Donny, you are verging on the offensive.   May I suggest an apology would be appropriate here? I’ve done my track workout in the last week. Have you ?

Why, yes.   I have a race this weekend. I’ve done fartlek running before, in groups and alone. I’ve done a lot of track training, it’s been my primary source of interval work, so I’ve probably done more track work than some of the more experienced runners here. You yourself said track work is "more precise". I’d argue that track work not only gives you precision, it gives you *structure*. When you go to the track with a watch, the track is simply a vast, barren, merciless landscape, and the watch is a brutal taskmaster. You can’t fool the track or your watch. That’s what makes it so demanding — the transparency of it all. Track workouts are just brutal. You can possibly make fartlek as demanding physiologically, but it doesn’t come close mentally.

Donny, you’re telling me what I’ve already written. If you don’t understand this, go outside and do some track work instead of trolling usenet.

Surely even you can tell the difference between a post and a troll? I made my aims in this thread perfectly clear in my second post to Paul. I’m out there doing the miles, doing my track work, doing my tempos, doing my races week after week, while you’re drawing from distant memories from back in "the good old days" when you felt more like a winner and less like a has-been.

Oh dear!   Perhaps Wobbot was right, you are all hot air, testosterone and a strong right arm. A ‘has-been’ I most certainly am, but may I point out two things? Firstly, at least for some portion of my running career I was ‘there’, which you most certainly will never be.   And secondly, based on your posted run times, this ‘has been’ could still comfortably whip your ill-mannered ass over 5k, 10k and 10 miles.   Frankly, if I ever find myself in New York, I would consider it a pleasure to provide you with a lesson in both manners and running.   For free, of course.

Response:

You argued that the running 5k was "anaerobic". That was the point I took issue with. No.   That was the point with which you took issue.   A Yankee grad student that can’t write.   Now there’s a surprise.

Sure, your writing is indeed better than mine. I never argued otherwise. FWIW, I didn’t think your schedule was all that bad, and it wasn’t your schedule I was disputing. And this is meant to make me happy?   Now I’m convinced my schedule is wrong.

It’s a *fantastic* schedule. Also, let me remind you not to let Tom Wheeler paint your house. So I think it’s a silly argument. And boy, do you know all about silly arguments…

I’m learning from an expert even as I type … I was commenting on your post, not giving advice to the OP. Well don’t bother, for I have neither the time nor the inclination to point out the many technical and logical faults in your inane and self-congratulatory musings.

Fair enough — I understand that your time is an extremely scarce and valuable resource. Not only do I *understand* it, through *experience*, I get a refresher on it every week. I’m not drawing on distant memories of great workouts in the distant past. Therefore, when offering advice, experience carries no value, currency is all.    

They are both important. Donny, you are verging on the offensive.   May I suggest an apology would be appropriate here?

I’m sorry “verging on the offensive”, or challenging your experience. I try to do better than this. Let me try to say it more politely — I have experience and currency. I am not an elite athlete, but my experience is very relevant to newbies who are pushing towards the 6:00 range. In the other post, you repeatedly criticise me as being some sort of armchair-runner, which is a mischaracterisation that borders on dishonest. Sure, I read books. I try to understand the theories. Theories and more importantly, research results, are interesting, and they give us a framework for explaining our observations, but I understand that you don’t win races by having a better theory. Scientific curiosity drives my interest in theories and lab results, but I can assure you that such interest does not in any way inhibit my desire to run a great race, and do the required training. I’ve done my track workout in the last week. Have you ? Why, yes.   I have a race this weekend.

Great. I’m out there doing the miles, doing my track work, doing my tempos, doing my races week after week, while you’re drawing from distant memories from back in "the good old days" when you felt more like a winner and less like a has-been. Oh dear!   Perhaps Wobbot was right,

I see your humorous side is showing. A ‘has-been’ I most certainly am, but may I point out two things? Firstly, at least for some portion of my running career I was ‘there’, which you most certainly will never be.   And secondly, based on your posted run times, this ‘has been’ could still comfortably whip your ill-mannered ass over 5k, 10k and 10 miles.  

Neither your ability nor your unique experience places you in much of a position to trash mine. Ability is a gift, not a virtue. When a newbie who looks like he’s going to be the next Roger Bannister posts here, I have little doubt that your unique insights will be more relevant than mine (assuming of course that you’re being honest about your ability/achievements). Until that happens, and I’m sure we can agree that it may not happen terribly soon, perhaps we can both offer interesting and relevant perspectives. Frankly, if I ever find myself in New York, I would consider it a pleasure to provide you with a lesson in both manners and running.  

I’d be happy take you up on the running lesson. A lesson in manners ? Yes, sure. I would love to reciprocate by ensuring that you enjoy an equally enlightening experience.  I could arrange for Tom Wheeler to give you grammar lessons, how does that sound ? Cheers, — Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Response:

Fair enough — I understand that your time is an extremely scarce and valuable resource.

I’m more than happy – when the mood takes me – to offer what I can to those prepared to listen with an open mind.   I find it tiresome in the extreme to waste my time talking to someone who has nothing to learn, and who has an answer for everything. Donny, you will never rise above the herd if you insist on being right all of the time.   One intelligent probing question is worth a thousand trivial answers.   Concentrate on discovering what you don’t know rather than expounding upon what you do. They are both important.

Then why suggest otherwise? I’m sorry “verging on the offensive”, or challenging your experience. I try to do better than this.

You misunderstand.   Challenge all you want.   All I was asking was that you manage to do so with a degree of politeness. Scientific curiosity drives my interest in theories and lab results, but I can assure you that such interest does not in any way inhibit my desire to run a great race, and do the required training.

I’m wondering if this is true.   I think sometimes you let your ‘knowledge’ define your athletic expectations.   In short, you may have been a better and more adventurous runner had you ‘known’ less. Does that make sense? Oh dear!   Perhaps Wobbot was right, I see your humorous side is showing.

I wasn’t making a joke.   He may have you sussed. Neither your ability nor your unique experience places you in much of a position to trash mine.

Au contraire.   They place me in *exactly* that position.   I can spot an emperor without any clothes with ease. Ability is a gift, not a virtue. When a newbie who looks like he’s going to be the next Roger Bannister posts here, I have little doubt that your unique insights will be more relevant than mine (assuming of course that you’re being honest about your ability/achievements).

If/when that happens, he/she won’t be looking to me for advice. They’ll have the balls to find things out for themselves. Until that happens, and I’m sure we can agree that it may not happen terribly soon, perhaps we can both offer interesting and relevant perspectives.

Fine words, Donny.   I somehow doubt that either of us – for very different reasons – will live up to these idealistic goals. I’d be happy take you up on the running lesson.

Oh, it wasn’t a friendly offer.   I’d simply find out what race you were in and grind you into the ground.  I’ll even do my ‘you’re a pathetic loser’ dance as you stumble over the finish line. Sometimes I enjoy running for its own sake, and sometimes I enjoy it for the misery I can bring to the lives of those less talented…

Response:

Sometimes I enjoy running for its own sake, and sometimes I enjoy it for the misery I can bring to the lives of those less talented…

Speaking as one of those less talented… Well, I’ve located a track about 5 miles from home. Now got to figure out the logistics of getting there before work. I just have one more question about the training schedule. Is there anything special about the 2-5k recovery runs? Would swapping them with easy 6-10 mile ones do any harm, or must they be so short? Cheers, Paul

Response:

Sure.   *Everything* is aerobic to the rec.runners.   Go google for a table displaying the relative aerobic/anaerobic components of the 5k. Or better still, go run one fast.   Then come back here and tell me it’s an aerobic event.

You may find this hard to believe Paul, but the 5k *is* an aerobic event. I believe your idea of what aerobic means could be misunderstood. It would be impossible to run anaerobically more than a very short time. Even distance such as the mile and 800m have major aerobic significance. cheers, — David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org

Response:

DONOVAN SAID: Scientific curiosity drives my interest in theories and lab results, but I can assure you that such interest does not in any way inhibit my desire to run a great race, and do the required training.

ROGER REPLIED: I’m wondering if this is true.   I think sometimes you let your ‘knowledge’ define your athletic expectations.   In short, you may have been a better and more adventurous runner had you ‘known’ less. Does that make sense?

TRANSLATION: Donovan:  "Think and run better." Roger:  "Think less, run more." MY COMMENT: This exchange just about sums up why BOTH Roger and Donovan make valuable contributors to this NG.  Without their posts, would we really keep coming back here so often?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – DONOVAN SAID: Scientific curiosity drives my interest in theories and lab results, but I can assure you that such interest does not in any way inhibit my desire to run a great race, and do the required training. ROGER REPLIED: I’m wondering if this is true.   I think sometimes you let your ‘knowledge’ define your athletic expectations.   In short, you may have been a better and more adventurous runner had you ‘known’ less. Does that make sense? TRANSLATION: Donovan:  "Think and run better." Roger:  "Think less, run more."

It’s a translation. Donovan is the ultimate pragmatist that needs to track and justify every step with some applied science. He is by nature and job a type A scientist. I think Roger is sugesting one can over think, over science and maybe stifle progress because an action is bypassed that does not fit into a dogmatic plan. There are many way to skin the cat and what makes this so much fun. — Doug Freese "Caveat Lector"

Response: