Weekly day off back in fashion

I'm going to start taking Mondays off from running, mainly because I've started a training plan that has rest days then, but also because I'm coming around to seeing a day off a week as insurance against injuries, as argued in this article. 

Having a day off when you don't need one is far better than not having one when you do need one.

Could I listen to my body and play it by ear?

Ideally, yes. But I find it difficult. If I usually run on Mondays, it's hard to take one off, even if I suspect I probably should.

In fact, the last two (slight) injuries I've had reared their heads after I ran easy on a Monday after a few days of hard training.

I had no pain. I went for an easy run. I had pain afterwards.

The main cause of the injury wasn't the Monday run, but it was the trigger or the last straw. If I hadn't have gone for a run on those Mondays, I might have dodged the injury.

Don't trust one-size-fits-all training philosophies

specially if the advice is dogmatic and contrary to conventional wisdom.

Nearly all approaches work for someone but no approach works for everyone all the time. It's best to go with coaches or training philosophies that are open to individual differences and don't talk in absolutes for everyone.

A great example of such an open philosophy can be found in the book Science of Running by Steve Magness.

An example of one-size-fits-all approach that is contrary to the usual wisdom and dogmatic to boot is Runner's World Run Less, Run Faster book, also known as the FIRST approach.

I'd also put Maffetone's approach in the one-size-fits-all bag. In some ways, it's very close to traditional training philosophy, but it's dogmatic with some odd quirks.

If the arbitrary MAF formula works for you --- as it's bound to work for some --- you're in luck.

If not, you can be left wondering whether everything in the book is hogwash. You might even throw the baby out with the bathwater and turn to the opposite end of the spectrum and try something even crazier like the FIRST approach.

Non-running, jack-of-all-sport coaches who turn their hand to giving out running advice also often fit into this category. Brian Mackenzie and his book Unbreakable Runner come to mind.

So beware the one-trick-pony coach or training plan

You never hear about their failures or the athletes who simply stop showing up or drop the plan.

If a coach is dogmatic, they're usually not being honest or have not objectively weighed up the evidence that would tell them that their approach doesn't work for everyone all the time.

This is how it might go with such a coach:

1. "Try my approach. It's the best."
2. Athlete tries it and gets nowhere.
3. "Keep trying. It'll work."
4. Athlete still gets nowhere. Excuses and superficial tweaking from the coach. "Keep trying. It'll work."
5. Still doesn't work. Athlete gets fed up and changes coach.
6. Coach forgets about the experience, writes it off as an anomaly or chalks it up to the athlete not carrying out the training properly.

Altra Superior 4.0 vs Altra Superior 4.5

Doing nearly 1000 km on a pair of shoes is as good an excuse as any to get a new pair. So last week when I saw I'd done 993 km in my Altra Superior 4.0s, I jumped on Amazon to order a pair of Altra Superior 4.5s.

Not that the 4.0s look or feel like they need replacing. They've not showing much signs of wear, and I'm not going to retire them yet. I'll rotate them for trail runs with the new Superiors and my King MTs. I might use them for faster trail runs as they are lighter and do feel nimbler than the 4.5s.

Old meets new! New Altra Superior 4.5s (left) and 4.0s with 993 km (right)

The same with more padding

The 4.5s weigh 280 grams versus the 245 grams for the 4.0s (US size 11). That's quite a big difference.

I'm guessing most of that extra weight has gone into the extra padding you feel around your foot. (Is that what they call the "upper"?)

For me that has meant a better fit with the 4.5s. I got a blister on the heel of my slightly smaller foot when I started wearing the 4.0s. I felt a warm spot in the same place on my first longish run in the 4.5s, but it never went any further.

The 4.5s feel quite stiff, too. Stiffer than my 4.0s right now at least, but that might be because the 4.5s are newer. Regardless of whether the 4.5s are actually stiffer or not out of the box, hopefully they will soften with time.

In any case, in this update there's not too much change to a shoe I've enjoyed running in. Thank you, Altra! I'm still a fan.

(I currently own six pairs of Altras I run in --- the three trail shoes I mentioned above plus two pairs of Escalantes 1.5s and a pair of Altra One 2.5s. I've worn nothing else since I bought my first pair of Altras (the Superior 1.5) in 2014.)

Daniels' Running Formula by Jack Daniels - micro review

Practical, comprehensive but too hard for me

Daniels' Running Formula by Jack Daniels gives practical advice on how to train for middle and long distance events up to the marathon. It's a book by a practitioner and is full of insights and empirical evidence from years of coaching.

So you can believe that the methods and advice have been tried and tested.

However, I get the feeling there may be a bias towards younger or elite athletes in Daniels' recommendations and plans.

I've tried to follow plans from the book a few times but have never got anywhere. I found them too demanding.

Most of the many plans in Daniels' book ask for at least two interval workouts a week. That old familiar formula: short intervals, a tempo run and a long run each week --- or some twist to it.

This is unfeasible for me. Even in my 20s I don't think my body would have handled two hard sessions a week plus a long run for any length of time.

Perhaps if I'd understood this before trying his plans, I could have made them work for me.

But anyway, if you don't know what a tempo run is or how to do intervals, Daniels' Running Formula is a good starting point.

Tendon rehab protocol

 As mentioned in this podcast with Pete Dickinson.

1. Rest up front (just a few days maybe, depending on the extent)
2. Isometrics a few times a day
3. Bipedal exercises
4. Single-leg exercises
5. Heavier

 I can imagine, depending on the injury, you might be running when you can do 3 or even 2.

Strength training to aid recovery

Not just to get you stronger so you don't get injured, but doing it a few hours or a day after a run to enhance recovery.

As suggested in this podcast with Pete Dickinson.

This would be strength training of the lower rep variety. Heavy, but not pushing any limits.

Possible exercises for the workout:

• a single-leg exercise (e.g. single-leg deadlift)
• a bipedal exercise (e.g. squat or deadlift)
• a pulling exercise (e.g. pullup)
• a pushing exercise (e.g. dip)

That makes things simple!

You could do one of these workouts a week plus a higher-rep, muscular endurance workout.

Change of plan

Instead of following this plan I set out a few days ago (which was a reshuffle of what I'd been doing for some time), I'm going to bit the bullet and do a climbing- and strength-based mountain programme.

Why?

Apart from because I've talked myself into it since reading Training for the Uphill Athlete, I'm signed up to do the Ultra Pirineu in October 2021. In it's 94 km, it's got 6200 m of climbing, much more than anything I've done before. So if I am ever going to try a climbing-based programme, now is the time.

What programme?

A 20-week programme from the Uphill Athlete, Mike Foote's Big Vert Plan! 

I'm going to do it twice before next October with a month's transition in the middle. I'll start the week after next.

The first time through, I'll follow it loosely focusing on building up weekly elevation.

I'm currently averaging around 1200 m a week whereas the starting weekly elevation recommended in the plan for my goal event is 3100 m. So I'll use the first cycle to get my weekly elevation up.

I'll also use the first run-through to ease into the other training in the programme: the muscular endurance workouts, hill sprints and uphill intervals.

The second time through, depending on how the first cycle goes, I'll stick more to the letter of what the plan says I should be doing for my event.

Other tweaks for the first run-through

• add one day of lower-rep leg strength
  
• keep my usual upper-body and core strength exercises of pullups, dips, swings, TGU, snatches and presses.
• shorten the longest runs in the plan or perhaps run less of them
• take the hill sprints and intervals very easy
• add in races and tests for fun and to check training effectiveness
  
• add in cycling and swimming for recovery as needed

Last but not least!

• take days off whenever and especially for niggles
• don't try to recover missed workouts, just do the next thing in the plan. Keep moving!
  
• change things around as needed
  

Getting sold on time-in-the-mountain argument

In my dilemma over whether it's better to do more flat running or climbing (i.e. speed versus strength) for trail running I spoke about here, I'm gradually being swayed to the climbing side. 

Or I'm swaying myself by looking for people who will tell me that story, like in these podcasts:

https://www.scienceofultra.com/podcasts/133

https://www.uphillathlete.com/training-for-ultra-running-podcast/

It seems speed and marathon-like training may serve you will for shorter trail events and in the short term. But for long-term adaptations (especially to the lower legs and in technique) and longer events, you might need to spend more of time in the mountains.

Ideally, you'd also do strength work. But I'd do it in either case.

I've never gone all out training in the mountains. At the most I've trained twice a week on the trails.

So why not give it a shot?

Did I just dodge a bullet?

Twinge on Sunday. Pain on Monday starting in my run and lasting throughout the day. Two days off running. Light run today. 

It seems to be OK. There is something there. But easy running for a time and strength exercises should do the trick.

Wasn't that responsible injury management from me?

It might have been a lot worse if I'd used my usual strategy of running through it, gritting my teeth and hoping for the best.

You live, you learn, and occasionally you put what you've learnt into practice!

Injury becuase of too steep a ramp?

I've taken today off to rest because of pain in my knee since my run yesterday after a twinge I'd forgotten about the previous day.

Did I pick up this niggle and possible injury because I upped my training load too much recently?

Probably, yes.

I went from averaging 57km, 1218m of vert and 6hr 25min for 4 weeks to averaging 76 km, 1572m and 8hr 49min for the next 2.

That's a 33% increase in distance, 29% increase in vert and a 37% increase in time!

Oh yes, I definitely overstepped the mark!

I was pushing as hard as I could to up the load. But I should have paid more attention.

In one sense, this is actually good. At least I know why I the knee hurts.

It also means that the load wasn't necessarily too high. It actually felt easy. The ramp up was just too steep.

Don't loaf the downhill

Yesterday, on the last technical downhill stretch of my long rum, something clicked. I found myself working my legs much harder that usual with higher cadence and more engaged hamstrings.

This instead of loafing or floating downhill.

It seems I'm getting used to running technical trails again now I'm doing more of it more often.

I read somewhere recently --- I think in the Uphill Athlete book --- that you shouldn't lean back on the downhills but attack them more. This way the quads don't get so punished.

I don't think I ever lean back. But the way I was running yesterday might be easier on my quads. It was hamstrings all the way and fast feet.

I could have worked much harder, too. But I thought I shouldn't push it given it was a new thing. My legs might not be ready for it.

If felt like a neuromuscular breakthrough; not a fitness or strength one. Maybe it was sparked by reading what I mentioned above.

It also might have been because I've recently started doing one-legged strength exercises, like step-ups, step-downs and lunges.

I thought these exercises would be more beneficial on the uphill, but I'm sure I felt some of their movement patterns in what I was doing going downhill.

I look forward to working more on this.

Weekly routine #1: making 8 to 9 hours the norm

Main goal:

• make eight to nine hours a week of running and hiking the norm

How:

• run easy and make the early part of the week as easy as possible to recover from the weekend but still get the time in
  

By:

• running flat terrain until Thursday instead of varied trail and flat throughout the week. Assuming flat is always less stress than easy mountain (maybe it isn't because of less variety)
  

Mon	20-40' recovery, rest or bike
Tue	55-75' Z1 flat
Wed	55-75' Z1/2 flat + speed or AeT test	Build to short then long intervals
Thu	55-75' Z1 tech trail with vert	Maybe swap with Wed to do AeT test today
Fri	55-75' Z1 hills + hill sprints	Build up
Sat	90'-180' Z1 flat, hills or fire roads	Build up to 180' or AnT or other test
Sun	90'-180' Z1 tech trail with vert	Build up to 180'

 Strength:

• two leg days: one higher-rep endurance session on the same day as an easy run and one heavier session on the day of a hard run. Remember to include a single-leg exercise in the heavier day
  
• pullups, dips, and kettlebell snatches, swings, Turkish get ups, cleans and presses each once per work for core

Cross-training:

• swim or cycle for recovery if you want
  

 

Training for the Uphill Athlete: MAF without the mumbo jumbo! (book review)

Aerobic and base training are king says the Uphill Athlete. As do many other books, but this one explains better than any other I've seen why and how the aerobic threshold (AeT) changes with training.

The authors do give some methods for finding your AeT in the book, but you'll find their most practical test on their website: Uphill Athlete heart drift test for finding AeT.

I winced and thought about throwing the book in the bin when I saw they cited Phil Maffetone's hit-and-miss MAF method.

I read Maffetone's book years ago and bought his low-HR story hook, line and sinker. This against my better judgement.

How could his one-size-fits-all formula of 180-age for finding your AeT fit all runners? Knowing, as I did, how variable heart rate can be from one person to another.

But as a fervent disciple of the Maff, I put my blinkers on and did at six months of MAF training and MAF training only (no intensity), only to find my fitness and performance drop off a cliff.

Maff's argument made sense to me --- he is a persuasive creature --- but his methods didn't work for me. 

Now, all these years later and thanks to the Uphill Athlete, I know why.

It was of course because of the highly individualised nature of the AeT. Mine must have been, as it is now, a fair bit higher than the magical MAF number, and I was undertraining.

This wasn't helped by me following Maff's other tenet of not doing any hard running --- or anything else bar MAF runs.

If I'd done also run hard occasionally, I wouldn't have been so undertrained. I did actually get fitter when I did some races.

Anyway, the Uphill Athlete is crystal clear on how and why you should run mainly easy.

To be fair to Maff, he isn't the only one giving out blanket methods for finding your AeT (top of zone 2). Just about every other book or zone system calculates it off either your lactate threshold or your maximum heartrate. No-one tries to pinpoint the AeT as sharply as the Uphill Athlete.

As well as telling us how to find the AeT and how individual it is, the Uphill Athlete drives home the message that it moves with training.

If you are aerobically deficient, something you discover by doing AeT and lactate threshold (AnT) tests, your AeT will be much lower than your AnT. When you get fitter, your AeT will rise and this gap will close.

In practice, it may not matter that much if you just follow the often touted advice to run easy a lot.

If you're aerobically deficient and run easy, you'll be running in zone 2 most of the time. This, according to the book, will raise your AeT over time and make you less deficient.

If you're not aerobically deficient and run easy, you'll be running in zone 1 most of the time. Something, again according to the book, you should be doing to maintain your AeT or raise it further.

But it's good to know where you sit on the scale of aerobic deficiency as you can see if you're training is working. You'll also know when you should do more intensity (zone 2 or 3).

Other interesting points from the book:

• specific, mainly higher rep strength training is favoured over the lower rep general exercises (e.g. squats and deadlifts) often recommended
• distinction between category 1 and 2 athletes. Category 2 athletes averaging over 400 hours of foot-borne training a year plus some other things
• non-impact cross training only for recovery (foot-borne training rules!)
• proponents of doing a lot of vert (as a opposed to not doing too much to not get slow as talked about in this post)*
  
• weekly long runs of a higher percentage of weekly mileage than often suggested*
• fantastic photos and athlete stories
  

* probably due to the authors having mountaineering backgrounds as opposed to other books by mainly runners