What do you consider "training like crazy"

Welcome! Forums Running Forum What do you consider "training like crazy"

Viewing 24 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #10743
      runnerinwilmnc
      Participant

      If I'm not mistaken, in tenth grade (about five years ago) I was talking to one of the cross country coaches about Jim Ryun who if I'm correct went from a 5:38 mile to 4:07 in about a year, and the coach said that 5:38 is (in his words) “a great time” for someone who has little or no running experience/training; if I'm correct, he then said something like, “but for a person who runs a seven or an eight minute mile with little or no training, to get to a four minute 20 something mile in less than a year, that person would pretty much have to eat, drink, and sleep running, pretty much have no life outside of running”. (Of course, even doing that is not a guarantee that the person would get to that point that quickly, and I think the coach told me that later in our conversation.)

      Another time, maybe just a few months later, if I'm correct, a 4:05 high scool mile runner told me something like, “if you want to train like crazy and go sub four, more power to you, but you're going have to get real tough real quick, and you're going have to stop worrying about every little ache and pain, because you're going have lots”.

      Now, I'm not saying I'm going “train like crazy”, though to some people trying to exercise at least two hours every day and going from like 35 to 65 miles a week in a little over a month might seem like “training like crazy”.

      What do you consider “training like crazy” and do you think in rare cases “crazy training” can lead to quick results?

      Thanks.

    • #26715
      GTF
      Participant

      Crazy is stupid, like that PAAVO stuff that leads to a steep yet brief progression.  Is there any rational reason to believe that you are similar enough to Jim Ryun for there to be any link to advisable training?  Instead of pointing to other people, how about outlining how you have trained for the past 12-24 months?  It would make a lot more sense, at least.

    • #26716
      runnerinwilmnc
      Participant

      Crazy is stupid, like that PAAVO stuff that leads to a steep yet brief progression.  Is there any rational reason to believe that you are similar enough to Jim Ryun for there to be any link to advisable training?  Instead of pointing to other people, how about outlining how you have trained for the past 12-24 months?  It would make a lot more sense, at least.

      I don't think I'm anywhere close to the speed of Jim Ryun, and now I don't know that my main focus is the mile or even distances 10k or under, but at the time I was interested a lot in the mile. For me, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with just looking and thinking about what the elites do when trying to bring about good training for oneself. One article on this site says: “The first research I suggest doing for any questions of training is to look at what the elite runners do.” ( https://www.hillrunner.com/will-lifting-weights-help-my-running/370/ )

      I'm not necessarily interested in all of Jim Ryun's training (20-40 X 400, which I'm correct he did, doesn't appeal a lot to me right now). But the amount of time he spent training might be something I could handle some day. Would that be good for me? I don't know, but if I'm able to get up to that, I can try it for a while, and then evaluate it.

      I'm not looking to try this, but what do you think of this 3 mile week to 100 mile week in about 10 weeks – https://web.archive.org/web/20180128085345/http://www.bunnhill.com:80/BobHodge/Special/LydiardInterpreted.htm ? It seems to me that might too much for some people. But what kind of results might someone expect from that? Thanks.

      as for the amount of time he spent training, I might have the ability to handle some of that, and I don't know, maybe that could bring some, even small, benefit.

    • #26717
      GTF
      Participant

      It is not about speed, per se, it is about trainability and base talent level.  Even then, Ryun likely trained much harder to go from 4:07 to 3:55 than he did to go from 5:38 to 4:07.  What seems to be the mistake here is in looking at what just one or two elites do and not the great majority of them, what facets of their training have been similar.  What works as a rule rather than what works as an exception to the rule.  Which is a wiser assumption for a starting point, that one is a member of the group that is the rule or the group that is the “rare” exception?

      What kind of results someone could expect from any given training plan pretty much depend on that person and his or her athletic and health background.  I have seen the Molvar hypothesis and I have also seen it roundly dismissed by Lydiard adherents.  At any rate, if it is not being considered for implementation then why worry about it?  Unless and until one goes and does it, it is all merely mental masturbation.

    • #26718
      Ryan
      Keymaster

      It's great to look at the elites and I'm a strong proponent of doing so. However, note the plural. You can find a singular example of an elite doing almost anything. The greater question is what are a lot of them doing, as GTF noted.

      In addition, the key isn't just training like crazy but building up to that training in a very sane and calculated way. Anyone can go out and begin training like crazy tomorrow if they want to. Most will end up injured long before they run a 4:07 or even 4:30, 4:40, 4:50…

    • #26719
      Double
      Participant

      What's the question?

      I don't even pretend to know about the science behind running.  What I do know is people are born with different skill sets.  I noticed when I first went out for the track team several things were taking place.  Coaches put athletes were they seemed to best fit.  They trained to perform better.  Athletes who had a desire to succeed and were trainable tended to perform well.  Sometimes as athletes progressed physically and mentally other talents or skills shined through.  Good track coaches (or other sport coaches) are able to identify these traits and put athletes in their strongest events.

      When I ran in college, our coach used different workouts based on the athletes abilities.  Exceptional athletes ran some of their own workouts, or mixed in with the other runners.  Good coaching leads to successful programs and successful programs draw athletes.  When you have a nest egg of good talent, iron sharpens iron, a reputation is built and athletes find a home to succeed.

      To be able to “train like crazy” is a gift.  One should caution that those who fit this label usually are able to do so after many years of following progression.  Sure, guys like Jim Ryan come around once a decade.  They are the exception and clearly not the rule.  If it was the rule, we'd have piles of sub 4:00 in high school every year, but we don't.

      It reminds me of Joe Greene from the Steelers.  Greene lined up on defense at an angle and it took two or sometimes three blockers to contain him.  When other coaches from the NFL were asked why they didn't use the same tactic, the answer was the same.  “We just need to find another Joe Greene.”  

      Training like crazy is admirable to many of us.  Perhaps training smartly doesn't have the same punch.  For every person who trains like crazy there are ten smarter people ahead at the finish line most of the time.  I think this is were the drug culture kicked in.  If I can take a little of this, I will recover quicker and then be able to train at even higher levels.

      Running at a high level is much more demanding than most of us can imagen.  Just to have the desire and will to train hard everyday and overcome the physical and metal fatigue is a gift.  The other variable is patience.  It is hard to see improvement when you are tired all the time.  For top athletes, this is why coaching is so valuable.  For many going it alone, there is a tendency to train too much at the wrong times.

      So we have come full circle.  Find your gift, train smartly, and always leave enough in the tank to come back and train the next day.  Don't become intrigued by ever new (or old) training regiment.  The goal is still to arrive at the finish line faster than everyone else.  No two athletes get there the same way.  

    • #26720
      runnerinwilmnc
      Participant

      Well, I appreciate people's comments. I'm still personally open to trying things that might be out of the ordinary procedure, but I can appreciate other people's views. By the way, I think the last two lines of my last post were a kind of mistake, maybe something I wrote then wanted to take out but didn't notice until after.

    • #26721
      GTF
      Participant

      One article on this site says: “The first research I suggest doing for any questions of training is to look at what the elite runners do.” ( https://www.hillrunner.com/will-lifting-weights-help-my-running/370/ )

      https://www.hillrunner.com/forums/topic/excellent-team-usa-mn-feature/

    • #26722
      ed
      Participant

      I must let you know that I had tried this go all out approach and it has led to me to being a very inconsistent runner. 

      I realized that my thinking that I could be an exception to the rule is a very conceited approach and it had cost me time and energy that was poorly spent.

      The most inportant concern is injury prevention.  You have to build your body up.

    • #26723
      runnerinwilmnc
      Participant

      Again, I appreciate comments and I also appreciate concern.

      I would, however, like to graciously offer some words from a Running Times article, not that I necessarily agree with everything in Running Times or consider it a “Bible” for runners.

      “No one can find your limits but you…. not only can the end result of 'taking chances' be fruitful, but the pursuit can be invigorating as well.” ( https://www.runnersworld.com/ )

      Of course, I don't think anyone here has told me I shouldn't take chances. Maybe it's more a matter of what chances seem too risky to take. But with that decision, maybe one has to consider where things fall in the order of importance for them. Anyway, I'm not sure I want to make a big thing about this. The question of what's right and wrong in training maybe for me is a lot less serious than some of the moral/religious questions I've been tormented by. Not that if I get an injury, that couldn't be serious for me. It's a chance I take, but I think so far I'm doing not too bad. This past week I've done a lot for me and have been tired and with some pains, but I don't think it's completely all the time. Plus I'm not in school right now, so maybe it's not too bad for now.

    • #26724
      Ryan
      Keymaster

      First, anyone who knows me knows I agree with the principle being discussed there in regards to the silly 10% myth (or “rule” as some like to call it).

      That said, I think you basically addressed the issue here. There's a difference between taking a calculated risk, such as breaking such an arcane, ridiculous rule and recklessly ramping up to “training like crazy” as some, very possibly the exceptions to the rule, have. I agree with that quote 100%. There is only one way to find your limits and that's to challenge them and sometimes even go beyond them. The key is to do so in a thoughtful, calculated manner.

      In short, by all means, take risks but don't take them without really thinking them through and considering the true potential pros and cons. Go ahead and jump out of that airplane but make sure you have a parachute and you know how to use it.

    • #26725
      runnerinwilmnc
      Participant

      Thanks Ryan.

      I think if you and some of the others here saw my training in the past few weeks you wouldn't consider it too dangerous. Right now I'm recording my running (at least a lot of it) in minutes and not miles, and maybe for just a few weeks I'm increasing about 75-100 minutes a week (I don't know for sure right now, maybe I would have to go check my running notes to get the exact number), and my easy pace for this running might be in the 9:40-10 range, but I've also been doing walks during the week also. Some people might think adding more than an hour to an hour and a half of running to the week should only happen every third week or something, but I think for me it might be ok to do for a limited amount of time.

    • #26726
      Ryan
      Keymaster

      Well, part of the issue here is that I don't think anyone here knows or would have the ability to know your full history as well as your full intentions without you writing a novel, something I'm sure you don't want to do and I hope you don't take this the wrong way but something I'm sure most of us here wouldn't have the time or inclination to read through.

      This is where you have to apply your judgement. I think all we are trying to express is that, while restrained ambition is good, unencumbered ambition can be harmful. I'd encourage you to train like crazy, just be crazy like a fox.

    • #26727
      GTF
      Participant

      I think if you and some of the others here saw my training in the past few weeks you wouldn't consider it too dangerous.

      Unfortunately, none of us could have even the slightest idea of exactly what you have been doing and what you really have in mind.

      Right now I'm recording my running (at least a lot of it) in minutes and not miles, and maybe for just a few weeks I'm increasing about 75-100 minutes a week (I don't know for sure right now, maybe I would have to go check my running notes to get the exact number), and my easy pace for this running might be in the 9:40-10 range, but I've also been doing walks during the week also.

      It would be a better idea to see if you cannot get to a point where you can run all of your volume before increasing that volume. 

    • #26728
      runnerinwilmnc
      Participant

      I think if you and some of the others here saw my training in the past few weeks you wouldn't consider it too dangerous.

      Unfortunately, none of us could have even the slightest idea of exactly what you have been doing and what you really have in mind.

      Right now I'm recording my running (at least a lot of it) in minutes and not miles, and maybe for just a few weeks I'm increasing about 75-100 minutes a week (I don't know for sure right now, maybe I would have to go check my running notes to get the exact number), and my easy pace for this running might be in the 9:40-10 range, but I've also been doing walks during the week also.

      It would be a better idea to see if you cannot get to a point where you can run all of your volume before increasing that volume

      Well, one thing is that I don't necessarily count the time I spend walking as part of my volume. I consider it time spent exercising. After reading in an article that if we did two hours of exercise a day we'd be even better off than doing an hour and that the more exercise one does, the more one is reducing one's cardiovascular risk ( https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-much-exercise-is-really-necessary-1745305 ), I would like to get close to at least two hours a day and maybe eventually more, and it seems that if I try doing that by only running (which I might not want to do), that could take longer to get in that much exercise each day. But even if I took out my walks, I don't know that I would use all that time for more running; in other words, even if I stopped walking, I don't know that I would be comfortable doing any more running than I'm doing with the walking. I have been running twice a day some days, however. Also, what if I some day wanted to exercise four hours a day; four hours of running could be too much, but two hours of running, and two hours of something else might not be.

      I know some might prefer just to run with no other physical activities, but is it an absolutely dangerous and wrong thing to do for one to add other physical activities? If I'm not mistaken, in his book Jack Daniels suggests that other activities could possibly be of some benefit. Is it dangerous to just give it a shot? And even if it's not considered the best way to get better running results, and even if I don't get the best running results because of that, couldn't it possibly lead to improved overall fitness nonetheless? Thank you.

    • #26729
      Ryan
      Keymaster

      I know some might prefer just to run with no other physical activities, but is it an absolutely dangerous and wrong thing to do for one to add other physical activities? If I'm not mistaken, in his book Jack Daniels suggests that other activities could possibly be of some benefit. Is it dangerous to just give it a shot? And even if it's not considered the best way to get better running results, and even if I don't get the best running results because of that, couldn't it possibly lead to improved overall fitness nonetheless?

      Well, the answers to these depend on your goals. Of course, it won't be “absolutely dangerous and wrong” to do other things but it may not be conducive to competitive goals because it will take away time and energy from running. They will benefit your general fitness but they will not benefit your running-specific fitness as much as running more would. What you do would depend on what you want.

    • #26730
      runnerinwilmnc
      Participant

      Some questions came to mind.

      Is it possible that one could reach a point where so much running and/or similar exercise being done does not really do damage, but also gives no increased fitness benefit (cardiovascular, muscular, etc.) and is just burning extra calories?

      Also, about doing things other than running… now, he might be an exception to the rule, but if I'm not mistaken Rupp's coach said that Galen does a lot of other supplementary training ( ). It looks like in high school Rupp did 80 miles a week, but 20 of that in the pool ( https://web.archive.org/web/20110905212216/http://www.dyestat.com:80/3archive/page1-04aug6.htm ). Is aquatic training (at least the kind Rupp has done) a special activity outside running that can in fact be helpful?

      Thank you.

    • #26731
      r-at-work
      Participant

      Is it possible that one could reach a point where so much running and/or similar exercise being done does not really do damage, but also gives no increased fitness benefit (cardiovascular, muscular, etc.) and is just burning extra calories?

      Also, about doing things other than running… now, he might be an exception to the rule, but if I'm not mistaken Rupp's coach said that Galen does a lot of other supplementary training ( ). It looks like in high school Rupp did 80 miles a week, but 20 of that in the pool ( https://web.archive.org/web/20110905212216/http://www.dyestat.com:80/3archive/page1-04aug6.htm ). Is aquatic training (at least the kind Rupp has done) a special activity outside running that can in fact be helpful?

      Form what I've read. On the first point, what you would see at some point will be 'deminishing returns'… that means your improvement going from 80 to 100 mpw will not be as dramatic as when you go from 40 to 60 mpw, but you would still seem some improvement. On the second point, I think Galen and others who cross train find that they have (possibly) fewer injuries by adding cross-training… deep water running has no pounding, builds similar muscle & neuro pathways and from what I've noticed also can improve your form as the water has much more resistance…but getting to the pool or the gym can be more difficult than just walking out the door for a run. However if we have an ice storm, I'll be at the gym.

      -Rita

    • #26732
      Ryan
      Keymaster

      At some point, you would reach a point of no returns. Rita mentioned the point of diminishing returns. Honestly, your first step is the point of diminishing returns. Your second step is less beneficial than your first step. Your second mile is less beneficial than your first mile. At some point, these returns diminish to nothing before turning into negative returns.

      As for the second point, I don't think anyone is saying supplemental training, often called cross-training, can't be beneficial. If nothing else, it is beneficial by improving your overall fitness. In the case of water running, it can make you a faster runner than not doing it as long as you don't let it take away from your running. However, the question is whether you could use that same time and energy for running. If you can, that's where you will see the most benefit. For whatever reason, something we may never know, Rupp and his coach came to the conclusion that the extra 20 miles per week of dry land running would not benefit him. I wouldn't be surprised if they discovered an indicator of injury. At that point, they decided that doing the extra 20 miles a week in the pool would be better than not doing it at all or, for whatever reason they found, taking the risk of doing it on dry land. If a person were in this situation, it would make perfect sense to do the water running. However, to be perfectly honest, most people are not in this situation. Most people are nowhere near their limits of dry land running so, if they are looking for maximal running benefit, would be better served spending more time running on dry land.

    • #26733
      SBSpartan
      Participant

      I only scanned the entire thread but the first post had a great line hidden in it…something about counting on being sore/banged up all the time and not letting that stop you.

      I 100% agree that when you look at someone who has been successful at being an “athlete” in any sport they have worked out/competed through more pain that most people would.

      If you want to accomplish something you have to be tough. 

    • #26734
      GTF
      Participant

      Well, one thing is that I don't necessarily count the time I spend walking as part of my volume. I consider it time spent exercising. After reading in an article that if we did two hours of exercise a day we'd be even better off than doing an hour and that the more exercise one does, the more one is reducing one's cardiovascular risk ( https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-much-exercise-is-really-necessary-1745305 ), I would like to get close to at least two hours a day and maybe eventually more, and it seems that if I try doing that by only running (which I might not want to do), that could take longer to get in that much exercise each day. But even if I took out my walks, I don't know that I would use all that time for more running; in other words, even if I stopped walking, I don't know that I would be comfortable doing any more running than I'm doing with the walking. I have been running twice a day some days, however. Also, what if I some day wanted to exercise four hours a day; four hours of running could be too much, but two hours of running, and two hours of something else might not be.

      I know some might prefer just to run with no other physical activities, but is it an absolutely dangerous and wrong thing to do for one to add other physical activities? If I'm not mistaken, in his book Jack Daniels suggests that other activities could possibly be of some benefit. Is it dangerous to just give it a shot? And even if it's not considered the best way to get better running results, and even if I don't get the best running results because of that, couldn't it possibly lead to improved overall fitness nonetheless? Thank you.

      If one has time and energy enough to allow two (or four) hours of training, then there is no apparent reason to not spend it running.  The pace is the obstacle, not the distance.

    • #26735
      GTF
      Participant

      One article on this site says: “The first research I suggest doing for any questions of training is to look at what the elite runners do.” ( https://www.hillrunner.com/will-lifting-weights-help-my-running/370/ )

      https://www.hillrunner.com/forums/topic/excellent-team-usa-mn-feature/

      Another good article in this vein:
      https://web.archive.org/web/20121019114104/http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=15247

    • #26736
      Double
      Participant

      When I begin, I run until I'm tired and run home.  Then I run the next day until tired and run home.  After a month, I'm usually at around 50 minutes and run 5-6 days a week.  In the second month, I do the same thing, but run about 6 days a week and start running longer on one day.  In the third month, I try and run 6-7 days a week w/ all but one run between 1:00 – 1:20 and build the long run to close to 3 hours.  Then I stay around there and begin training specifically.  Things happen, I adjust.  Ten hours a week is about all I would want to run.  When I'm tired I don't run.  I can race well at absolutely any distance with this schedule.  This is peak load:

      Mon: 1:10  Easy
      Tue: 1:10  Interval work
      Wed: 1:10 Easy
      Thu: 1:10  Tempo
      Fri: 1:10  Easy
      Sat: 3:00  Anywhere over a variety of terrain 
      Sun : 1:10 Trails

      If I have to, I will split the 1:10 days into two runs.  3 hours is scheduled, but goes up and down depending on race plan.  If I build reserve time, I back off on Friday.  If I miss a day, I don't make it up, because I'm old and tired.  I expect to be tired a lot.  My body adjusts.  I get strong as hell.  When I hit 20 in the marathon I'm familiar with pain.  Past 23 I have no advice.  As I mentioned before, you have to climb inside your brain and operate all the working parts left from there.

    • #26737
      cesar
      Participant

      double, do you run in the morning or in the evening?

    • #26738
      Double
      Participant

      Primarily in the evening during the work week and in the morning on weekends.

Viewing 24 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.