Sunday, March 05, 2006

3 miles yesterday, 3 miles this morning

So far, so good. I know it's only 3 miles, but the times I've done this sort of training before, it did get difficult after 5-6 days at a new level, but then got easier. I even got up at 7AM on Sunday so I could stick to my schedule. I think it's better than sleeping in until noon on Sunday, and then having my rhythm totally screwed up for a half-week.

I'm curious to know how fast I'm going, because I haven't taken my watch with me for several weeks. But I think I'll run without it for a while longer. I might even run my leg of the Seabrook Relay without it. I tried racing with no watch before, and I hated it, but I think the main problem was because I didn't know the distances on that race either. That was the Jingle Bell Run, and the mile markers weren't even there half the time (at least I didn't see them). I've run the Seabrook trails a hundred times, and I know the distances between everything already, so I don't think it will be a big problem.

I like the consistency of running everyday, at the same time everyday. Maybe not everybody would like it, but I do. I posted this link before, but here it is again. --Rethinking the hard-easy myth-- It's an article about running consistent distances everyday, and how it might be beneficial for some types of training. It's probably not suitable for marathon training, at least not in its most simple extrapolation, but I have a couple of months before I start gearing up for another marathon.

-Keith

3 comments:

jen said...

I've been running without a watch these days as well.

Dave Smart said...

Thought provoking article. The caution to "beware of absolutes in training" has merit. The coach reminds me of my high school training days and college, running most every day. My HS coach constantly preached "getting out of the comfort zone" like this coach.

The article was mentioned that his athletes started at 5 miles every day, then increased 1 mile per month until maybe 7 or 8 miles a day. With Monday's long run only 1 (maybe 2) miles longer than the other daily runs, this might be a good thing for 5K's and 10K's, but like you say, you'd want to approach the half marathon and marathon training a bit different.

This coach works with 16 to 22 year olds. Where does the age of the runner come into play? I wonder if his approach would be the same for 40 or 50 something runners. Would the body respond in the same way? I wonder how my "problem areas" would respond to daily running (I'm running about 3 days per week now).

Speaking of "absolutes," last year I went to a "running form expert" whose only criticism was that I was running too upright (he even said "don't run like Michael Johnson") and said I needed a slight forward lean. Curiously, I've read that you should run upright; Galloway even uses the Michael Johnson example to emulate and images like "dangling like a puppet." Can someone figure that one out?

Keith said...

Good questions. I can't answer them, because I don't know.

But I thought of some possibilities that might be different for older runners. Since older runners don't recover as quickly:

- maybe they can't tackle as many miles per day.
- maybe they would ideally run every 28 hours instead of 24. (I admit that would be difficult to schedule)
- maybe they would just have to stay at a mileage level for longer, like maybe 40 days instead of 30.

But I think older runners have an advantage over youngsters training this way because they are so much more consistent and disciplined.

And running form is one of my favorite things to think about, but I can't speak authoritatively on that either. I bought a book called ChiRunning which describes running form in detail, and he describes a forward lean, and it seems like the Kenyans are leaning forward considerably. But I guess I wouldn't mind running like Michael Johnson.