A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Running
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Interview with Anton Krupicka



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 28th 10, 09:37 PM posted to rec.running,uk.rec.running
Tony S.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 181
Default Interview with Anton Krupicka

"Parker Race" wrote in message
...

"John Hurley" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 1:27 pm, Charlie Pendejo wrote:

snip

I can't speak to the ultra world, but from what I've seen 3 hours is
uncommon for competitive runners at distance up to and including 42k.


That does not match my experience or pass the sniff test sorry.


I don't know any of my peers in this area who if they are still
competing at the marathon distance are not putting in at least 2 3
hours runs every month. That changes to some extent based on racing
schedule and planned events.


The people I know that run Marathons competitively run 3 hour runs,
but rarely twice a month.
The typical weekly long run is 2 hours and only goes up to 3 hours
when preparing for a Marathon. This is usually twice a year preparing
for Spring and Fall Marathons. This is as prescribed by their coach
who has a 2:19 Boston to his credit.


So in some of their cases, they're doing runs in training longer
time-wise than their marathon race time, though probably shorter in
terms of miles.

I think it depends more on time than distance. Many runners who are
faster than average, say 2.5-3.5 hours for the marathon, can more easily
cover the long runs in training, because they don't take as long. But
the question even here might be what is the right balance between the
training effect from a run of a certain duration, and the damage, to
muscles and otherwise, from that run?

On the other hand, if your best-effort marathon is 4-5 hours, or more,
as it would be even for some more talented age-groupers, then the
question of how long the long run should be becomes more of a question.
Most slower people, because of either talent or age, can't run as many
hours per week as the faster and/or younger runners, and this makes
their long run a much larger percentage of the weekly mileage.
Ironically this probably forces them into doing longer runs time-wise
than their faster counterparts, because they don't have the weekly
mileage base to fall back on, so they have to do more specific training
by making the long run longer, not by miles but by time.

-Tony


  #2  
Old January 28th 10, 10:40 PM posted to rec.running,uk.rec.running
Paul Rudin[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 236
Default Interview with Anton Krupicka

"Tony S." writes:


So in some of their cases, they're doing runs in training longer
time-wise than their marathon race time, though probably shorter in
terms of miles.


Maybe, but I've come to think that you're actually better off running at
your target marathon pace; rather than running slower. Clearly you can't
go out and do 26 miles every weekend at this kind of pace; but in the
build up to marathon do progressively higher distances at marathon pace
peaking at maybe 20 miles 3 weeks before the event itself.

Anyway ... that's what I'm trying to do this time around; although I've
not done it in the past.
  #3  
Old January 29th 10, 12:34 AM posted to rec.running,uk.rec.running
Tony S.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 181
Default Interview with Anton Krupicka

"Parker Race" wrote in message
...

"Tony S." wrote in message
...
"Parker Race" wrote in message
...

"John Hurley" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 1:27 pm, Charlie Pendejo
wrote:

snip

I can't speak to the ultra world, but from what I've seen 3 hours
is
uncommon for competitive runners at distance up to and including
42k.

That does not match my experience or pass the sniff test sorry.

I don't know any of my peers in this area who if they are still
competing at the marathon distance are not putting in at least 2 3
hours runs every month. That changes to some extent based on racing
schedule and planned events.

The people I know that run Marathons competitively run 3 hour runs,
but rarely twice a month.
The typical weekly long run is 2 hours and only goes up to 3 hours
when preparing for a Marathon. This is usually twice a year
preparing for Spring and Fall Marathons. This is as prescribed by
their coach who has a 2:19 Boston to his credit.


So in some of their cases, they're doing runs in training longer
time-wise than their marathon race time, though probably shorter in
terms of miles.


True.

I think it depends more on time than distance. Many runners who are
faster than average, say 2.5-3.5 hours for the marathon, can more
easily cover the long runs in training, because they don't take as
long. But the question even here might be what is the right balance
between the training effect from a run of a certain duration, and the
damage, to muscles and otherwise, from that run?


This coach doesn't specify a distance just time. He would also
presxribe one long run of 2 hours prior to a race (5.6 miles) early in
the Fall. The idea was to run Marathon pace for the race after the 2
hour "warm up". Of course most ran faster than Marathon pace in the
race. I looked back at the results from the last time I did this in
2004. I averaged 7:43 per mile pace for this race after a rolling 16
mile warm up. My actual Marathon pace a month later was 7:54 per mile.
I was a little dissapointed I had hoped to run at closer to the 7:43
pace. I may have run the first half a little to conservatively.


On the other hand, if your best-effort marathon is 4-5 hours, or
more, as it would be even for some more talented age-groupers, then
the question of how long the long run should be becomes more of a
question. Most slower people, because of either talent or age, can't
run as many hours per week as the faster and/or younger runners, and
this makes their long run a much larger percentage of the weekly
mileage. Ironically this probably forces them into doing longer runs
time-wise than their faster counterparts, because they don't have the
weekly mileage base to fall back on, so they have to do more specific
training by making the long run longer, not by miles but by time.


I'll ask him what his philosphy is for runners who are expected to run
4 hours or more. I suspect that he would not suggest runnning much
longer than 3 hours though.


I'd be interested to hear what he has to say. The question is even
bigger for events like 50 miles. How much advantage, if any, do you gain
by doing runs over 4 hours, as opposed to maintaining a more consistent,
somewhat higher weekly base and doing periodic long runs of 3 hours or
less? I know Doug thinks a lot of consistent longer long runs, but I
believe that's because the long stuff comes a bit more naturally to him.

I know when I was training for the 50 milers I did in 2005 (10:04) and
2006 (9:57), I tried to do a bunch of runs of about 4+ hours and then
one last one a few weeks before of 5-6 hours. I feel that those wore me
out a great deal, totally messed up my consistency, and may or may not
have given me any advantage over shorter training runs. My only other 50
miler (2002 11:33) was on little training, and I was still able to
finish it despite hotter temps in the Summer, which is part of what
slowed me to a walk the last 10 miles. I felt somewhat better after the
two I had trained for, but I still felt wiped out and had real trouble
just walking for days afterward.

-Tony


  #4  
Old January 29th 10, 01:40 PM posted to rec.running,uk.rec.running
I2Run
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Interview with Anton Krupicka

Pendejo wrote:
| It almost seems like one way to divvy up runners into two groups is
| those who do some training runs at race pace for 2/3 or more of the
| distance (whatever race distance), and those who don't.
|
| I fall into the latter camp. If I could possibly run 20M at some
| pace, outside of a race and sans taper, in the midst of heavy marathon
| training (leaving aside whether I thought such an effort was good
| training for me) I'd damn well hope to run my marathon a good bit
| faster! Both the taper and the race environment contribute to my pace
| on race day. But from reading I understand this isn't universal.
Good training philosophy. The least it can do is not drop you
in the injury bucket. Most of my training runs feel like base building
than training for a race, as they lack any speed or MP training. My long
runs had been about 120% of MP with one exception. The exception
was the most recent marathon where my last long training run interestingly
fell into your magic 110% MP. I wasn't paying any attention to what my
pace should have been for the training, just finishing it. Probably because
I could do a 20+ mi training run with a day's rest at 110% MP, I was able
to finish the marathon (with taper) pretty strong over the last 10K.

| As a general rule I find about 1/3 race distance at race pace pretty
| challenging in training. 1M at 5k pace (say 3 of 'em in a session),
| 9-10M at marathon pace, or the most oft-cited tempo run formula ala
| Jack Daniels, 20 min at hour race pace. Not sure what I'd find to be
| my max effort on a solo training run - guessing more like half of race
| distance at pace, probably not much more.
Thanks CP, very logical (at least for me) presentation. If I ever get into
speed training, I would more likely to follow your guidelines here,
they are more manageable and *fun* than say, track workouts.


  #5  
Old January 29th 10, 06:10 PM posted to rec.running,uk.rec.running
Tony S.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 181
Default Interview with Anton Krupicka


"Dot" wrote in message
...
Tony S. wrote:
"Parker Race" wrote in message
...
"Tony S." wrote in message
...
"Parker Race" wrote in message
...
"John Hurley" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 1:27 pm, Charlie Pendejo
wrote:

snip

I can't speak to the ultra world, but from what I've seen 3 hours
is
uncommon for competitive runners at distance up to and including
42k.
That does not match my experience or pass the sniff test sorry.
I don't know any of my peers in this area who if they are still
competing at the marathon distance are not putting in at least 2
3
hours runs every month. That changes to some extent based on
racing
schedule and planned events.
The people I know that run Marathons competitively run 3 hour
runs, but rarely twice a month.
The typical weekly long run is 2 hours and only goes up to 3 hours
when preparing for a Marathon. This is usually twice a year
preparing for Spring and Fall Marathons. This is as prescribed by
their coach who has a 2:19 Boston to his credit.
So in some of their cases, they're doing runs in training longer
time-wise than their marathon race time, though probably shorter in
terms of miles.
True.
I think it depends more on time than distance. Many runners who are
faster than average, say 2.5-3.5 hours for the marathon, can more
easily cover the long runs in training, because they don't take as
long. But the question even here might be what is the right balance
between the training effect from a run of a certain duration, and
the damage, to muscles and otherwise, from that run?
This coach doesn't specify a distance just time. He would also
presxribe one long run of 2 hours prior to a race (5.6 miles) early
in the Fall. The idea was to run Marathon pace for the race after
the 2 hour "warm up". Of course most ran faster than Marathon pace
in the race. I looked back at the results from the last time I did
this in 2004. I averaged 7:43 per mile pace for this race after a
rolling 16 mile warm up. My actual Marathon pace a month later was
7:54 per mile. I was a little dissapointed I had hoped to run at
closer to the 7:43 pace. I may have run the first half a little to
conservatively.

On the other hand, if your best-effort marathon is 4-5 hours, or
more, as it would be even for some more talented age-groupers, then
the question of how long the long run should be becomes more of a
question. Most slower people, because of either talent or age,
can't run as many hours per week as the faster and/or younger
runners, and this makes their long run a much larger percentage of
the weekly mileage. Ironically this probably forces them into doing
longer runs time-wise than their faster counterparts, because they
don't have the weekly mileage base to fall back on, so they have to
do more specific training by making the long run longer, not by
miles but by time.
I'll ask him what his philosphy is for runners who are expected to
run 4 hours or more. I suspect that he would not suggest runnning
much longer than 3 hours though.


I'd be interested to hear what he has to say. The question is even
bigger for events like 50 miles. How much advantage, if any, do you
gain by doing runs over 4 hours, as opposed to maintaining a more
consistent, somewhat higher weekly base and doing periodic long runs
of 3 hours or less? I know Doug thinks a lot of consistent longer
long runs, but I believe that's because the long stuff comes a bit
more naturally to him.


I think there's some folks that do long stuff easily, and other people
who may be more prone to doing speed work and get more benefits from
that. I've ready something that suggested it's related to slow / fast
twitch composition.

Around here (as well as online ultra groups), most runners that I'm
aware of tend to run 6-9 hr long runs on a regular basis (every 2-3
wks). Many of the online folks sound like it's just another day in the
park running with friends up and down the mountains. To be sure,
they're tired at the end, but I never hear them complain about excess
fatigue or DOMS. It's variable what they do for workouts midweek, but
it definitely doesn't cause any inconsistency in their training, other
than a few more hours one day than other days.

One of the more experienced / faster women here will run a 25-mi
tuneup race on Sat and help with light trail work on Sunday. And I
think that one time, it was about 10mi of hiking / running plus work
in -9F. (I think that was day after race, but could be wrong. They're
doing the work day later this year. I do remember her wondering about
how tired she was after 10mi, and how she ever survives 100miles.
She's run many, including the Su100 about 10 times, winning the
women's foot division most of the time.)

When I first did 4-5 hr runs (4? yr ago), they were a struggle. And
the first hilly ones each year are always a little of a struggle, but
the thing I've noticed over the years is how my recovery has dropped
and how much easier (relatively) the long runs (at least 3-4 hrs) are
because I generally keep them in my training year round, if I can.
Last year I didn't (colder, mashed potato snow, feet problems). This
year (good, hardpacked snow), I've been doing close to 4hr every 2-3
wk with an occasional pit stop or stopping to talk with someone for a
couple minutes (can't be anti-social), but not walking more than a few
steps through a drift - on a flat route. I've been alternating rolling
hills (first 3+hr run, more walking cuz of some soft snow in places)
and flattish (last couple). Something's bound to give soon in
conditions though.

I don't follow the training threads closely, but iirc, weren't you
doing your long runs near 80% HRmax?

Dot


No, most of my long runs I went/go slow - 70% MHR early in the season,
and up to 75% later when I'm fitter. There were specific sessions on the
hill where I did run harder up the hill, over 80% 2-3 times (60-90 mins)
below what would be MP for me, but those were the exceptions not the
rule, and all of those were less than 4 hours.

-Tony


  #6  
Old February 4th 10, 12:37 PM posted to rec.running,uk.rec.running
Doug Freese
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,148
Default Interview with Anton Krupicka


"Tony S." wrote in message
...
"Parker Race" wrote in message
...

"Tony S." wrote in message
...
"Parker Race" wrote in message
...

"John Hurley" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 1:27 pm, Charlie Pendejo

I'd be interested to hear what he has to say. The question is even
bigger for events like 50 miles. How much advantage, if any, do you
gain by doing runs over 4 hours, as opposed to maintaining a more
consistent, somewhat higher weekly base and doing periodic long runs
of 3 hours or less? I know Doug thinks a lot of consistent longer long
runs, but I believe that's because the long stuff comes a bit more
naturally to him.


As you know I'm a big believer in specificity. For the others listening
there are three variables for long runs for my races, elevation, hours
and miles and in that order. I try like hell to work up to about 2/3 to
3/4 of the elevation in the race. I also disect the elevation to get
even more specific. Is the race like the HAT run with 1/2 mile the
longest pull yet 10,000 feet over the 50k or are they like Vermont 2-4
mile pulls with roughly the same elevation. And let's not forget the
slope.

As an example, I got my ass hammered in a100 a few years back. I had a
brain fart and swapped 6 trips up Overlook on the trail, rather than 3
trips from the village. The first is 2.5 and 1,400 a pop while the
second is 5,000 over 5 miles. Both 30 miles, similar elevation, yada
yada. Long story short, my quads turned to **** about 60 miles with
those short intervals and barely got under 24 hours. It was not fun. I
lacked to long pulls up but even more, those long sustained downs.

It's the quality of the miles/hours. I don't know if they come more
"naturally," but more to the fact that I have been running that hill
for 20 years and a good grasp of my recover rate.




I know when I was training for the 50 milers I did in 2005 (10:04) and
2006 (9:57), I tried to do a bunch of runs of about 4+ hours and then
one last one a few weeks before of 5-6 hours. I feel that those wore
me out a great deal, totally messed up my consistency, and may or may
not have given me any advantage over shorter training runs.


Or you need to streetch those runs out over a longer period of time?



My only other 50
miler (2002 11:33) was on little training, and I was still able to
finish it despite hotter temps in the Summer, which is part of what
slowed me to a walk the last 10 miles. I felt somewhat better after
the two I had trained for, but I still felt wiped out and had real
trouble just walking for days afterwar


Recover after a race is proportional to the training for the race.

-D


  #7  
Old February 6th 10, 12:50 PM posted to rec.running,uk.rec.running
Doug Freese
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,148
Default Interview with Anton Krupicka


"Tony S." wrote in message
...

"Dot" wrote in message


No, most of my long runs I went/go slow - 70% MHR early in the season,
and up to 75% later when I'm fitter. There were specific sessions on
the hill where I did run harder up the hill, over 80% 2-3 times (60-90
mins) below what would be MP for me, but those were the exceptions not
the rule, and all of those were less than 4 hours.


Tony, I don't see the value of running up that hill 2-3 times at 80% and
would suggest it is almost counter productive. It's a strength workout
and should be done slowly especially if repeated. That extra 5% on that
severe a slope can really tear you up and slow recovery. Save the speed
for another day on gently rolling hills.

-Doug


  #8  
Old February 6th 10, 11:07 PM posted to rec.running,uk.rec.running
Doug Freese
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,148
Default Interview with Anton Krupicka


"Charlie Pendejo" wrote in message
...
Doug:
I got my ass hammered in a 100 a few years back.


Nowhere near an AIDS station, I hope!


Your shyness is showing, a crowd always builds your spirits. Their goes
your XXX career.

I've never heard of such shenanigans happening in a marathon or
shorter. Another reason to stick to the roads.


A better reason to run the trails. You have to come out of that shell!

-D


  #9  
Old February 7th 10, 03:34 PM posted to rec.running,uk.rec.running
Doug Freese
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,148
Default Interview with Anton Krupicka


"John Hurley" wrote in message
...
On Feb 6, 5:07 pm, "Doug Freese" wrote:

Real runners race on the roads. Nothing wrong with doing some
training on the trails.


And there I thought we were going to have some kids and you go a throw a
rock in the quiet pond. I would have thought your 50k would have taught
you some humility. All of us trail runners tip our hat to you superior
road racers. We bow in humility at your feet begging for your
forgiveness.


-D


  #10  
Old February 9th 10, 12:32 PM posted to rec.running,uk.rec.running
Doug Freese
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,148
Default Interview with Anton Krupicka


"Dot" wrote in message
...
Tony S. wrote:


Around here (as well as online ultra groups), most runners that I'm
aware of tend to run 6-9 hr long runs on a regular basis (every 2-3
wks). Many of the online folks sound like it's just another day in the
park running with friends up and down the mountains. To be sure,
they're tired at the end, but I never hear them complain about excess
fatigue or DOMS. It's variable what they do for workouts midweek, but
it definitely doesn't cause any inconsistency in their training, other
than a few more hours one day than other days.


No experienced runner will do a long run be it 3 or 9 hours such that
they experience fatigue or
DOMS. It defeats the purpose of the training run - save that for race
day. The length of the long run is dependent on your pending race/trek
and how much time you need to build up. These long ruins are not done
by some super human gentic freaks but people that take months but more
likely years to build a base.

The good news once you build the base you can take rest breaks and
easily ramp back up.

When I first did 4-5 hr runs (4? yr ago), they were a struggle. And
the first hilly ones each year are always a little of a struggle, but
the thing I've noticed over the years is how my recovery has dropped
and how much easier (relatively) the long runs (at least 3-4 hrs) are
because I generally keep them in my training year round, if I can.
Last year I didn't (colder, mashed potato snow, feet problems). This
year (good, hardpacked snow), I've been doing close to 4hr every 2-3
wk with an occasional pit stop or stopping to talk with someone for a
couple minutes (can't be anti-social), but not walking more than a few
steps through a drift - on a flat route. I've been alternating rolling
hills (first 3+hr run, more walking cuz of some soft snow in places)
and flattish (last couple).


I remember some fun discussions over the years on building up slowly.
In the early years to had to take it easy because of some imbalances.
You are a great example of purpose and patience.

-Doug


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interview with Anton Krupicka Doug Freese Running 1 January 28th 10 01:53 PM
OT Interview Killer Weights 0 August 17th 08 07:45 AM
Walking around St Anton Austria. Maps needed. EddyStone Walking in the UK 3 May 10th 07 10:36 PM
Interview with Jurek Doug Freese Running 15 February 24th 07 08:54 PM
Arnold's Oui Interview ATP Weights 18 September 10th 03 02:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.