The last few days, it seems like I've seen half a dozen stories about how hard it is to keep New Year's resolutions. The most recent, appeared in today's Boston Globe under the title "Why is Change So Hard?" It's hard to argue with the general conclusions of this and the other articles, "change can happen only if people don't set their expectations too high or try to tackle too many changes at once...People are better able to make changes in their lives with the help of others..." etc.
Why is Change So Hard?
I had been thinking about writing about new training habits for the new year, and these articles got me thinking about the whole new year's resolution binge that so many people go through. It seemed to me that there were some obvious things that these articles missed. So at the risk of just adding one more stupid essay to the pile, here are a few observations for the new year.
#1 - Habits are habit-forming
It's really amazing how much of what we do day-to-day falls is the result of our habits and the patterns of behavior we have established over a long period of time. However, I don't happen to believe it is that hard to change one habit for another. I think we do this more often than we think, for example, changing what time we wake up, what route we take to work, what section of the newspaper we read first, and so on. These habits are fairly easy to change because they don't involve a lot of pleasure or pain one way or the other.
But changing a habit like this does take time. If I decide, for example, that I want to get to bed earlier and wake up earlier so I can beat the morning rush hour, it usually takes me at least a week or two to get into the new routine. If I make it through that adjustment period, I'm all set. If not, I'm right back into the old routine before I know it.
I think with training, if one wants to train more effectively, it's saner and more beneficial to target some of our simple habits, rather than resolve to run 100 miles a week or do 1000 crunches a day. Here are some modest suggestions:
- Get 30-60 minutes more sleep each night (try getting off the computer 30-60 minutes earlier in the evening)
- Three times a week, do 10-15 minutes of body-weight exercises involving core muscles (push-ups, crunches, one-legged squats, planks, etc.) after your normal run
- Find at least one new person to run with, and ask them about their training and their goals.
#2 - Decide to Decide
Some changes are hard, but many changes are not so hard. For example, changing one's habits to go bed at 11 p.m., or run every day are not really that hard to accomplish. All it really takes is making a decision. Ah, but deciding to do it and accepting the consequences of that decision -- THAT'S hard.
The way it usually works is that we make a conditional decision, without really realizing it, I might add. So we say to ourselves, "I'll run every day UNLESS I feel tired, or have a sore throat, or have a social engagement, or it's too cold, or it's too hot, or my shoes are muddy..." There are always many, many good reasons not to run. Believe me, as someone who is definitely not addicted to running, I find it very easy to miss days, and when I do, it is almost always because I've decided, CHOSEN to let something else be more important.
I think that it's important to view our behaviors -- what we actually do -- as the result of our choices. So the question is, what do we really want to do? When we answer that question honestly, and then decide to act on our answer, then I think we can change our behavior.
#3 - Give Yourself Credit for Small Victories
When something makes us feel good, we tend to want more of it. So to reinforce desirable training behaviors, we should give ourselves credit when we do the right thing.
How do we do that? Well, to some extent, the trick is to always have a good mix of goals -- some big and far away, and many small and more easily attainable.
I'm a big believer in having daily goals. I think it's useful from a training perspective to know the purpose of any given run, and to get in the habit of setting and meeting a goal for that run. I think the key is to make that goal realistic and appropriate. Some days, the goal is to do a tough track workout and complete it at goal pace. But some days, the goal is just to get out the door and get in a recovery run.
I also believe that if you aren't meeting your daily goals most of the time, there is something wrong with the way you are setting goals. Training should be satisfying - ideally it should leave you satisfied just long enough so that the next day you want to get that satisfaction again. There are some athletes -- and I admire them greatly -- who have such desire that only very hard workouts on a daily basis will satisfy them. However, I am not that way. I need a hard workout about once or twice a week, and a lot of moderate runs in between. One of your goals has to be to get to know yourself better, and determine for yourself what satisfies you.
Once you know that, then you can create a training routine that you can follow and that provides the positive feedback that will lead you to better habits, and ultimately to better performances.
Showing posts with label Training. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Training. Show all posts
January 01, 2009
December 29, 2008
Junk Miles
On Saturday, Tyler doubled at the BU mini-meet, racing a little less than 3 miles total. He also warmed up about 3 miles for both races, and afterwords, cooled down with another 5 easy miles, for 11 more miles total and a 14-mile day.
On Sunday, I scolded him for all those "junk miles," but he challenged me right back by pointing out that I sometimes did laughably easy 3-mile runs in the morning when I was in the habit of doubling. What about those? Were they also junk miles? What exactly is a "junk mile" and how does it differ from a mile of greater value?
Well, having had a day to think about it, here's my answer: I don't know.
If we were talking about junk food, I'd say that what makes a food "junk" is the high proportion of "empty" calories -- fat or sugar without the other nutrients the body needs. A Big Mac has a lot of fat -- way too much fat for the amount of protein it delivers.
I guess the analogy to junk miles would be that a mile run too slowly provides too much impact stress without the intensity to produce useful training adaptation. Hence, the ubiquitous advice to do long runs at about 70-75% of max heart rate. Hence, also, the famous statement that "long slow distance makes long slow runners."
But missing in this perspective is the idea that running slowly might provide some other benefit, some other training stimulus that justifies the time spent trotting along at a leisurely pace.
Yesterday, I would have argued that the main benefit of a really slow run was that it promoted recovery from all the harder runs where the real training took place. But in searching the web for definitions of junk miles, I ran across the following article in Running Times by Matt Fitzgerald, in which he debunks this line of thinking:
Rethinking Junk Miles
Fitzgerald writes:
"It is widely assumed that the purpose of recovery runs [...] is to facilitate recovery from preceding hard training. You hear coaches talk about how recovery runs increase blood flow to the legs, clearing away lactic acid, and so forth. The truth is that lactic acid levels return to normal within an hour after even the most brutal workouts. Nor does lactic acid cause muscle fatigue in the first place. Nor is there any evidence that the sort of light activity that a recovery run entails promotes muscle tissue repair, glycogen replenishment, or any other physiological response that actually is relevant to muscle recovery. In short, recovery runs do not enhance recovery."
But instead of dismissing recovery runs, or slow miles in general, as useless, Fitzgerald goes on to argue that such runs promote running economy by providing an opportunity to "practice" running when still in a state of fatigue from previous hard efforts. While more intense workouts are necessary for maximizing aerobic and anaerobic capacity, volume (mileage) is useful for improving economy -- the ability to run farther and faster with the same energy expenditure.
Training is thus the art of finding the right balance between intensity and volume -- between the hard workouts and the recovery runs, between capacity and efficiency -- and, not surprisingly, this balance will be different for every runner.
So, back to our original question, what is a "junk mile?"
Well, in truth, we need to judge a mile on what result it produces. In fact, a junk mile might be slow or fast because it's really just a mile that serves no purpose but to pad the training log. Jack Daniels even talks about "junk speed" -- speedwork done at paces that aren't beneficial to improving specific energy systems.
I would argue that a slow run or slow mile can serve many purposes without being junk: it could get you to work or school, it could renew your connection with the outside world, it could be part of your social life. And yes, for some, slow runs can help make you faster.
I still want Tyler to think about all those miles he ran on Saturday and ask himself whether they were necessary or even useful. And I'll try to tell him that my early morning runs at 8:00 pace were useful -- to me, at least -- because they were correlated with some of my best racing in years.
But I'll also try to keep an open mind, and won't be so quick to call his miles "junk." I'll just suggest that he should judge a mile based on where it takes him.
On Sunday, I scolded him for all those "junk miles," but he challenged me right back by pointing out that I sometimes did laughably easy 3-mile runs in the morning when I was in the habit of doubling. What about those? Were they also junk miles? What exactly is a "junk mile" and how does it differ from a mile of greater value?
Well, having had a day to think about it, here's my answer: I don't know.
If we were talking about junk food, I'd say that what makes a food "junk" is the high proportion of "empty" calories -- fat or sugar without the other nutrients the body needs. A Big Mac has a lot of fat -- way too much fat for the amount of protein it delivers.
I guess the analogy to junk miles would be that a mile run too slowly provides too much impact stress without the intensity to produce useful training adaptation. Hence, the ubiquitous advice to do long runs at about 70-75% of max heart rate. Hence, also, the famous statement that "long slow distance makes long slow runners."
But missing in this perspective is the idea that running slowly might provide some other benefit, some other training stimulus that justifies the time spent trotting along at a leisurely pace.
Yesterday, I would have argued that the main benefit of a really slow run was that it promoted recovery from all the harder runs where the real training took place. But in searching the web for definitions of junk miles, I ran across the following article in Running Times by Matt Fitzgerald, in which he debunks this line of thinking:
Rethinking Junk Miles
Fitzgerald writes:
"It is widely assumed that the purpose of recovery runs [...] is to facilitate recovery from preceding hard training. You hear coaches talk about how recovery runs increase blood flow to the legs, clearing away lactic acid, and so forth. The truth is that lactic acid levels return to normal within an hour after even the most brutal workouts. Nor does lactic acid cause muscle fatigue in the first place. Nor is there any evidence that the sort of light activity that a recovery run entails promotes muscle tissue repair, glycogen replenishment, or any other physiological response that actually is relevant to muscle recovery. In short, recovery runs do not enhance recovery."
But instead of dismissing recovery runs, or slow miles in general, as useless, Fitzgerald goes on to argue that such runs promote running economy by providing an opportunity to "practice" running when still in a state of fatigue from previous hard efforts. While more intense workouts are necessary for maximizing aerobic and anaerobic capacity, volume (mileage) is useful for improving economy -- the ability to run farther and faster with the same energy expenditure.
Training is thus the art of finding the right balance between intensity and volume -- between the hard workouts and the recovery runs, between capacity and efficiency -- and, not surprisingly, this balance will be different for every runner.
So, back to our original question, what is a "junk mile?"
Well, in truth, we need to judge a mile on what result it produces. In fact, a junk mile might be slow or fast because it's really just a mile that serves no purpose but to pad the training log. Jack Daniels even talks about "junk speed" -- speedwork done at paces that aren't beneficial to improving specific energy systems.
I would argue that a slow run or slow mile can serve many purposes without being junk: it could get you to work or school, it could renew your connection with the outside world, it could be part of your social life. And yes, for some, slow runs can help make you faster.
I still want Tyler to think about all those miles he ran on Saturday and ask himself whether they were necessary or even useful. And I'll try to tell him that my early morning runs at 8:00 pace were useful -- to me, at least -- because they were correlated with some of my best racing in years.
But I'll also try to keep an open mind, and won't be so quick to call his miles "junk." I'll just suggest that he should judge a mile based on where it takes him.
September 06, 2008
"When Training Backfires"
Interesting and fairly balanced article in the NY Times on the subject of overtraining. I say balanced, because the article both describes the condition of training that is too hard for too long, and also cautions against over-diagnosis of over-training.
When Training Backfires: Hard Work That's Too Hard
Here's a representative quote:
"Overtraining is an unintended consequence of the only known way for athletes to improve — by pushing their bodies and stressing themselves by deliberately going faster or longer than feels comfortable. “Training a little bit beyond your capabilities is the only way to get better,” Dr. Kraus said. “But you have to balance that with rest and recovery. It’s a fine line. Where is that edge and how do you get as close as possible without going over it?”
When Training Backfires: Hard Work That's Too Hard
Here's a representative quote:
"Overtraining is an unintended consequence of the only known way for athletes to improve — by pushing their bodies and stressing themselves by deliberately going faster or longer than feels comfortable. “Training a little bit beyond your capabilities is the only way to get better,” Dr. Kraus said. “But you have to balance that with rest and recovery. It’s a fine line. Where is that edge and how do you get as close as possible without going over it?”
November 30, 2007
Voice of Reason
Flotrack (www.flocasts.com) has a series of terrific video interviews with Olympic medalist, exercise physiologist, and legendary distance running coach Jack Daniels.
From the Flotrack web site:
Daniels has coached 31 individual national champions, 131 All-Americans and has won 8 NCAA team titles. He earned two Olympic medals, Silver and Bronze, in the modern pentathlon. As coach, Daniels was been honored numerous times: he was named National cross country coach of the century, National coach of the year three different times and the World's best coach by Runners' World. In addition to coaching, Daniels has written five books, including Daniels' Running Formula.
In the following video, he discusses at length the question of how much training is best for young runners. Daniels argues that while there is no physiological reason why a runner will physically "burn out" with higher mileage, the real danger is that they will lose interest in the training.
Jack Daniels Interview: Questions I Get Asked
According to Daniels, the most important role of the coach is to make training rewarding, and to create an environment where each athlete can begin to realize their abilities.
From the Flotrack web site:
Daniels has coached 31 individual national champions, 131 All-Americans and has won 8 NCAA team titles. He earned two Olympic medals, Silver and Bronze, in the modern pentathlon. As coach, Daniels was been honored numerous times: he was named National cross country coach of the century, National coach of the year three different times and the World's best coach by Runners' World. In addition to coaching, Daniels has written five books, including Daniels' Running Formula.
In the following video, he discusses at length the question of how much training is best for young runners. Daniels argues that while there is no physiological reason why a runner will physically "burn out" with higher mileage, the real danger is that they will lose interest in the training.
Jack Daniels Interview: Questions I Get Asked
According to Daniels, the most important role of the coach is to make training rewarding, and to create an environment where each athlete can begin to realize their abilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
