Comments for Training Science

Comment on How Much Should You Run? – Part 3 Injury by How Much Should You Run? – Part 3 Injury | Training Science

How Much Should You Run? – Part 3 Injury | Training Science — Fri, 18 May 2012 21:06:31 +0000

[...] do running injuries have to do with training volume? These are the questions we will answer in part 3 of the How Much Should You Run [...]

Comment on Mileage Based Training: A Logical Analysis, Part 2 by Rich

Rich — Thu, 17 May 2012 11:32:22 +0000

Hi, Dave.

I recommend using a scale of 1-10, with 1 being no effort at all and 10 being maximum effort. The Borg RPE (rating of perceived exertion) scale has long been used as a way of measuring the instantaneous effort during a workout. Dr Carl Foster modified the RPE scale as a way to measure the overall intensity of a workout (session RPE) after the workout and his method has been shown to be very accurate. Look up Borg RPE scale and Foster’s modified session RPE if you want more info.

Cheers,

Rich

Comment on Mileage Based Training: A Logical Analysis, Part 2 by Dave

Dave — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:26:48 +0000

Love this stuff. A question I have is how do I measure intensity if I want to calculate training load for my runs? What would be a good numeric scale that would adequately reflect the difference in training load between an easy run and a high intensity run?

Comment on Muscle Factors by Steve

Steve — Wed, 09 May 2012 01:05:53 +0000

Very interesting! As a 12 year old who loved sprinting and racing against his friends or anyone else who was interested, but didn’t do any “training”, I was able to run 22:20 for 6km. I can just run that now, though I have spent the last 25 years trying out various methods of endurance training. I’ve always wondered how I was able to run that time as a youngster, and your power running hypothesis gives a plausible explanation. At times, in frustration, I’ve stopped trying to work out the perfect training method, and have just gone for a daily run with 4-6 90 m strides/sprints, and have found that I’ve raced very well. It didn’t make any sense to me before, but it makes more sense now. Once again I’ve become frustrated with training and feel like a change, but this time I might mix it up with hill runs and easy runs with strides, plus a couple of days off for recovery. I’ll let you know if I have some positive results. At 51 years of age I’ve got nothing to lose.

Comment on How Much Should You Run – Part 2 Tapering by Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 04 May 2012 15:38:50 +0000

I’ve spent 4 years in undergrad school studying exercise physiology, and 2 years of grad school in the same. These ideas are not widely recognized; but should be. Exercise physiology as it relates to limiting endurance performance is based off of principles that are not correct. They are based off of the cardiopulmonary system as a limiter of performance. When combined with traditional Lydiard style periodization we’ve become a population where volume is emphasized and rewarded.

I think these reviews are spot on and are a big step in pulling back the curtains and shedding light on proper training. We reward weekly volume socially; but it would seem that weekly volume just allows for a larger percentage of high intensity training.

“How much should you run part 2″ is a fantastic (and very logical) review of the tapering phenomenon. It’s great to have a site devoted to EVIDENCE BASED research. Which for some reason is the standard in the medical community, but not in the the general running community. This is a great site.

That being said: I would love to read more on how volume of training vs. intensity of training lead to positive metabolic changes. Although muscular adaptations seem to be the key adaptation to middle distance and high-caliber distance running; it would seem that the metabolic pathways have an increasing role as pace slows such as in marathoning and especially in ultras.

Thank you for the great articles. Looking forward to more

Comment on How Much Should You Run – Part 2 Tapering by How Much Should You Run – Part 2 Tapering | Training Science

How Much Should You Run – Part 2 Tapering | Training Science — Wed, 02 May 2012 22:58:35 +0000

[...] You Run” series looks at the available research on tapering to see what we can learn. Read part 2 here. Share this:FacebookEmail This entry was posted in endurance training, running. Bookmark the [...]

Comment on How Frequently Should You Lift? The Nautilus North Study by Rich

Rich — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 03:43:40 +0000

The gains took place over time. The amount of time to maximum gain varied over a very wide range of days. Some gained very quickly (a day or two) while some took much longer (10-11 days). Everyone else fell in-between the two extremes.

Comment on How Frequently Should You Lift? The Nautilus North Study by bradley

bradley — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:29:33 +0000

Does anyone know if the gains that occured actually took place in one day or whether it was a gradual manifestation?

Comment on Muscle Factor Training – a new paradigm by Nathan

Nathan — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 01:26:41 +0000

PS – I love the site. I read about it on the bearpowered.com forum.

Comment on Muscle Factor Training – a new paradigm by Nathan

Nathan — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 01:24:14 +0000

I also agree with performing to heavier sets first for the reasons Rich mentions. I also think it is much safer because it is harder to maintain safe form with a heavy weight. It seems logical to lift heavy when your concentration is freshest and you have as many fresh motor units as possible available to help control the load. IIA and IA motor units do fire off along with IIB when lifting very heavy weights too (though they don’t burn out during those sets of course) so I think it makes sense to not burn them out with high rep sets before handling weights that are challenging to control.

I know the HIT guys like to go to failure with moderately heavy weights, which should sequentially burn out the motor units from slowest to fastest as the set moves along. Dr. Art De Vany has a similar approach, in doing a light weight for about 15 reps, followed by a moderate set of 8, and finally a heavy set of 4 with no rest between sets. I think the HIT approach does not take advantage of the benefit of bearing heavy loads and I think that De Vany’s approach is not as safe as lifting a heavier load first.