I spend my days writing, reading, and reviewing scientific papers. And when I read your posts, I get the energy to get off my couch and go for a run. So good!
Great article! I have two observations and one questions.
Observation 1: It is surprising to me that scientists still try and find “the best”. It’s not that I don’t expect improvements, but it seems obvious to me that there is no one “best” but actually a lot of tools which should be adopted at various stages of training and whose effect will vary depending on the individual and their past training.
Observation 2: You hinted towards it, but time matters. A lot of these studies can do an experiment for X weeks, but it is hard to track over a longer time scale. When you do, there are so many confounding factors which you need to take into account because life is multi-variate, and it’s an output is almost never the result of one input, especially over a longer time range.
Question: Did we figure out everything with regards to training periodisation? We went from only low intensity, to only HIIT and everything in between. We did intervals as short as 6 seconds to multiple minutes. We had people running 40 miles a week and over 200 miles a week. Is there anything else we need to learn when it comes to periodisation, or are we just going to continue cycling between these two extremes forever? Personally, I think that we are better off trying to see the benefits of cross-training or other external factors rather than trying to find the “perfect” periodisation, because it is so individual there is no general “perfect”.
For instance, over a career, what we see is often building volume up and then a slight decrease. So for an elite 5k runner that might mean build up to 100mpw over a few years, then during peak phase, down to 85ish, so there’s more room for other stimuli and you’re just maintaining.’
In a season, the role of easy running can shift and change. So it’s building during the base, but might be maintenance during the competition phase. So the volume or speed of those easy runs will change.
Great article. One thing I find confusing is the swapping of outcomes. Studies will often focus on something like vo2 max but runners are often more interested in actual running times and performance. People interested in health are however often more focused on vo2 max due to the podcast influencers who persuade that this is one of the most important metrics. It may be. But it isn't necessarily directly translatable to running performance. I think part of the debate goes on because this is not addressed often enough.
Okay…much of the material on Substack is garbage. This is incredibly awesome.
I have only recently gotten bitten by the running bug. I read “Born to Run” in March and subsquently ran my first ever race in June. Next up is a Marathon in Boulder in September. I am using the Runna app to train and this article has me thinking about how my training is structured. I will also be buying the author’s book as it looks right up my alley.
Outstanding article Steve, you cleared up a lot from that confusing morass of marathon training debates of “what type of training is best” to get a faster marathon time.
Thank you very much, so helpful particularly with your historic reminder. Do you think that threshold sessions or HIT sessions need to be in a fresh state? Do we need to achieve our HRmax or keep a little strength for the next day? What about HIT blocks eg Ronnestad?
Does it count as base/easy mileage if you think you're doing "easy" mileage but actually running in zone 3-4. While not technically running a workout, the HR and effort is in a higher zone. Should people heart rate train more to avoid this?
I spend my days writing, reading, and reviewing scientific papers. And when I read your posts, I get the energy to get off my couch and go for a run. So good!
Thanks so much! So glad they resonate!
Great article! I have two observations and one questions.
Observation 1: It is surprising to me that scientists still try and find “the best”. It’s not that I don’t expect improvements, but it seems obvious to me that there is no one “best” but actually a lot of tools which should be adopted at various stages of training and whose effect will vary depending on the individual and their past training.
Observation 2: You hinted towards it, but time matters. A lot of these studies can do an experiment for X weeks, but it is hard to track over a longer time scale. When you do, there are so many confounding factors which you need to take into account because life is multi-variate, and it’s an output is almost never the result of one input, especially over a longer time range.
Question: Did we figure out everything with regards to training periodisation? We went from only low intensity, to only HIIT and everything in between. We did intervals as short as 6 seconds to multiple minutes. We had people running 40 miles a week and over 200 miles a week. Is there anything else we need to learn when it comes to periodisation, or are we just going to continue cycling between these two extremes forever? Personally, I think that we are better off trying to see the benefits of cross-training or other external factors rather than trying to find the “perfect” periodisation, because it is so individual there is no general “perfect”.
Does easy running ( taking into account the volume of it) need periodization?
Yep. Over a season and career.
For instance, over a career, what we see is often building volume up and then a slight decrease. So for an elite 5k runner that might mean build up to 100mpw over a few years, then during peak phase, down to 85ish, so there’s more room for other stimuli and you’re just maintaining.’
In a season, the role of easy running can shift and change. So it’s building during the base, but might be maintenance during the competition phase. So the volume or speed of those easy runs will change.
Great article. One thing I find confusing is the swapping of outcomes. Studies will often focus on something like vo2 max but runners are often more interested in actual running times and performance. People interested in health are however often more focused on vo2 max due to the podcast influencers who persuade that this is one of the most important metrics. It may be. But it isn't necessarily directly translatable to running performance. I think part of the debate goes on because this is not addressed often enough.
Okay…much of the material on Substack is garbage. This is incredibly awesome.
I have only recently gotten bitten by the running bug. I read “Born to Run” in March and subsquently ran my first ever race in June. Next up is a Marathon in Boulder in September. I am using the Runna app to train and this article has me thinking about how my training is structured. I will also be buying the author’s book as it looks right up my alley.
Outstanding article Steve, you cleared up a lot from that confusing morass of marathon training debates of “what type of training is best” to get a faster marathon time.
I’m in the 1920s: lots of walking (sometimes hills with a rucksack) with one short speed session per week.
That’s my endurance training. Then I do weightlifting 3x week for my specificity. That’s hard.
Is walking valid for “easy” category? Hard runs 3 times a week. Walking everyday…
Thank you very much, so helpful particularly with your historic reminder. Do you think that threshold sessions or HIT sessions need to be in a fresh state? Do we need to achieve our HRmax or keep a little strength for the next day? What about HIT blocks eg Ronnestad?
OK what about Zone 3 though?
Does it count as base/easy mileage if you think you're doing "easy" mileage but actually running in zone 3-4. While not technically running a workout, the HR and effort is in a higher zone. Should people heart rate train more to avoid this?