Run Run Away

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Furthermore, my coach told me that people who are changing training methods should let the method takes its effect. It takes time for your body to get accustomed to a new training method. My guess is that 5-8 weeks is too short for any training method to take its full effect. My coach told me to think more in months than in weeks. So in your case, 5-8 months would be more sensible. Actually, there are a large number of training methods that all work (on some runners better than on others), and which take varying times to be effective. What is amazing is that some coaches are able to find training methods that don’t allow all of their runners to improve.  The training programm I currently favor produces PR’s in 1-2 weeks for runners who are in shape, and in 4-6 weeks for runners who are totally out of shape.  After the first PR, improvement for women running ~20 mins. for 5k would be expected to be on the order of 6-12 sec. per week throughout the rest of the racing season (assuming the runner is between 16 and 30 years old).

If you’re happy with your current training method, I’m happy for you. However, I have some comments, if you don’t mind. The Verheul Method doesn’t strive for quick solutions, but rather for long term solutions. It’s aim is not to get you into shape quickly (and get you injured just as fast). There is also no age limit (my 72 year old dad uses it as well), although younger newbie runners will obviously improve faster and further than much older newbie runners. So, I’m sure in the short term, your training method is much quicker to take its effect, but the question is if the effect lasts for long. From what you describe it looks more like the last phase of some periodization (is that the correct term?) scheme, and not a complete training program. Furthermore, there are no predictions for improvement, because the Verheul training method is driven by results, not by (uncertain) predictions like most other training methods. Most coaches want to achieve PB’s for their pupils ASAP, because it makes him popular, which in turn gives him a constant flow of new talent and keeps the T&F club’s management happy. From what I’m told I understand that Herman Verheul wasn’t at all like this. He wasn’t interested in popularity. He was more interested in building strong athletes who did their best. This building takes years, and only a few athletes will become national celebrities. However, I’m sure he was just as proud of runners who didn’t reach that elite level, but nevertheless, after years of training, reached their top performance. I’m sure popular coaches deliver more elite and sub-elite runners because they have a larger pool of possible talented athletes. The question is: "What happens with those less talented athletes?" Did they reach their peak performance as well, or are they the runt of the lot and did they have to bail out of the training school, because they got injured before they could prove themselves? IMO the promise of fast results are often an indicator of a destructive training method. I hope that not the case with your training method. Rene van Belzen hurray [at] REMOVEMExs4all [dot] nl My Running Log http://www.xs4all.nl/~hurray/myrunninglog/

Response:

Perhaps I should remove the table and rewrite the entire article, so that unsuspecting readers aren’t tempted to try this training method for a couple of weeks, after which they conclude it was nothing worth while for them (and then try something else for a couple of weeks). If someone is as dumb as that, there