Assessing FIRST - Part 3 Specificity

Monday, January 25, 2010

Since I left behind my FIRST training plan for a custom training plan purchased from Greg McMillan I have had many miles to reflection on why I felt the need to make the change. One of the things I keep thinking about is a well known principle of training, the principle of specificity. Generally, the principle says that if you want to be a runner, the most effective training is to run. You train for what you want to be good at. In FIRST they take the principle a little farther. The principle is applied to training paces, temperature and humidity during training vs projected temperature and humidity during the key race, hills etc. It may be why there is no flexibility on the pace of a work out.

For me, the principle is not a lot of help beyond keeping me focused on running. I live at 6200 ft elevation. I plan to race at 400 ft. Every where I look from my home I see hills. My target race has some rolling hills in the first 6 miles then is essentially downhill for the last 20.2 miles. I'm running in winter mountain temperatures and plan to race near sea level in California. There is nothing about my training environment that is specific to my target race environment.

So what am I to do? FIRST doesn't really give me a way to adapt my training. Your not supposed to adapt your training. It is supposed to be specific to the conditions of your target race. But that doesn't help me. To be fair, Scott Murr did point me to an appropriate 5K pace that was intended to compensate for the elevation difference. But there was still no way to accommodate hills, snow, wind or other training variables that are out of the runner's control.

I think if you lived in San Diego and were training for a local marathon, the principle of specificity as interpreted by FIRST would be satisfied. And probably very useful. Even if you were a less black and white person than I am, you might still find it acceptable. My problem, is if you tell me I have to run 20 miles at a specific pace (not range) to be successful this in a workout, then that's what I will do. Ignoring snow, wind, hills. Even if it nearly kills me. With FIRST I was completing my workouts, but I was not enjoying running.

It may be fair to ask what my goal is - to enjoy running or to qualify for Boston? The answer for me is easy - both. I have no desire to give up the joy I get from running, even temporarily, to achieve a goal like qualifying for Boston. I guess I'm not that driven. I love running and have as long as I can remember. Almost as long as that I've dreamed of qualifying for Boston. But it's a dream that is build upon doing well at something I love to do.

It is true that we tend to like things we are good at, but for me running doesn't really fit that tendency. I love running because it clears my head, running allows me to solve difficult problems, to enjoy the outdoors, and to feel healthy. There is also something less tangible. I am part of a community of runners, of like minded people, of wide ranging abilities and yet still brother and sister runners. We have a common bond and can enjoy each other's company with little introduction.

In any case, I would never abandon the joy from my running to achieve a time goal. And I have never felt I needed to. My half marathon time, adjusted for altitude and projected to the marathon distance said I had the speed to qualify for Boston. What I needed to do was to build the endurance to run 26.2 miles. Does that mean that a Boston qualifying time is the best I can do? Probably not. But I'm not sure I care (right now) to run the fastest marathon I'm capable of. I would be very content to quality for Boston.

Bottom line, you need to understand your goals and what's important to you. If it happens that you can train under the same conditions that you will be racing under, I think FIRST is worth a look. If not, there are other approaches. I have found Greg McMillan's custom training plan to be an excellent approach. I'm enjoying my training, working hard and beginning to feel prepared.

I'd better. Napa is less than 6 weeks away.

P.S.

In case you're thinking that all this talk about enjoying my running means I must not work very hard at my workouts, come on out to the track on Thursdays. I love a good interval session.

12 comments:

William January 28, 2010 at 10:34 AM  

Hi Steve. I've read your blog with interest because of some parallels. Last year I used the FIRST training for the Lake Tahoe Marathon. I have to say your assessments are right on target. In the end I didn't feel I got enough time on my feet.

I'm definitely interested how McMillan is panning out and what the final result will be. I may be using his plan for my fall Marathon in hopes for my own BQ. But for right now, using Yasso's intermediate a a step stone and have some racing races to submit to McMillan.

Keep posting!

WRZ

Steve Beebe January 28, 2010 at 10:37 AM  

William - thanks for your thoughts on FIRST. I am probably getting a little ahead of myself by targeting a BQ on my first marathon. But I believe with the right training, I can do it. I'll definitely keep posting progress. And in the mean time, I'm very happy with the McMillan plan.

Steve

William January 28, 2010 at 11:06 AM  

Nothing wrong with a worthy goal, like a BQ! Instead of starting off slow I pursued the Marathon as my first challenge....

I'm figuring my upcoming spring marathon will be a great barometer on how it will go for the fall. So for right now I will have to stick with Yasso's intermediate Plan and maybe mix in some McMillan principals re the long runs. Then I will have hard results in hand, bite the bullet and fork the $$ over. Getting a BQ is worth it!!!

Unknown February 9, 2010 at 11:34 PM  

I had a lengthy email exchange a few years back with the Furman folks. I had gone back a few years to my PR's and quickly realized that I could not have completed their workouts. Especially the long run and the interval day. I gave them feedback saying that I felt their paces were way too fast but in all honesty they had data that showed it did work for many runners. Just not me.

I might use their program but with a heart monitor. I would run the long run at 70-75% of max, the tempo run at 85-90% and intervals at 90-95%. I think there is value in the program but it needs some give for the individual and only we the runner, can give a program that flexibility.

Steve Beebe February 10, 2010 at 6:48 AM  

@Richard - in My Experience with FIRST post, I compared the training times using McMillan's approach with FIRST. The differences are significant and consistent with your comments. Interestingly, McMillan's approach pretty much targets the heart rate ranges you describe for the various runs. I think the thing to remember is that the data in support of FIRST (which I very much respect) assumes you are running their prescribed paces.

I would be interested to hear how you do if you decided to use the structure of the workouts but modify the training paces. Good luck and good running!

Unknown April 23, 2010 at 5:31 PM  

Steve, what was your outcome at the Napa Marathon? I'm working through the FIRST program and have enjoyed your comments.

Steve Beebe April 23, 2010 at 10:04 PM  

Brad - the outcome at Napa was great. 3:32:47 - I qualified for Boston with a couple of minutes to spare (qualifying time for my age group is 3:35).

I have drafted a couple a posts for the day before the race and race day. I really need to get them up on the site. Good luck with your training!

Unknown August 1, 2022 at 1:13 AM  

visit site d0a50v0i62 gucci replica replica goyard bags replica bags from korea have a peek at this site f7y04x8w92 replica bags korea replica bags online uae gucci replica handbags k5s27q0w13 replica bags paypal accepted

Post a Comment

Site template based on The Beach   © Blogger template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009 and customized by Steve Beebe

Back to TOP