Comments on: Book Review: ‘Run Less, Run Faster’

By: Aaron Engelsrud

Aaron Engelsrud — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:09:16 +0000

Wow! I’m glad so many people are as excited about this program as I am! I’ll be keeping track of my progress and writing about my experiences over at my blog – engelsrud.com.

Thanks!

Aaron

By: ff_jeff

ff_jeff — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:23:55 +0000

Funny as I write my latest post about this book and flip through CRN I come across this article. I have read this book and plan to use it to run Detroit. I’ll be keeping and update on my blog. I just ran Ottawa using the book “advanced marathoning” 55 mile 18 week program. I shaved 40 minutes off of last year. So we’ll see if improvement is in the works this time! With 5X20 milers and way intense runs I’m sure I will cut alot more time off!

By: Melisa (Irish Blue)

Melisa (Irish Blue) — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:23:36 +0000

I just received this book in the mail a few weeks ago. A coworker of mine used it to train for a marathon and loved it.

I haven’t finished the book, but it seems to make sense. Each run has a purpose…speed, tempo, long. It seems like a very targeted approach.

I don’t think the mileage is really much less than the traditional Hal Higdon type plan.

I am running my first marathon in October using Hal Higdon’s Novice Plan. If that goes well, I hope to use the FIRST plan next year.

By: Blaine Moore (Run to Win)

Blaine Moore (Run to Win) — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:13:29 +0000

I used to run the super-high mileage (averaging 85 miles per week over the course of the year, including my off-seasons) and it worked well for a while, but any time I go much over 50 miles per week multiple weeks in a row now I seem to get hurt.

Then again, I am running times on 40 miles per week that my friends can’t manage on 60 or 70 miles, so something must be working for me.

By: Aaron Engelsrud

Aaron Engelsrud — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:51:58 +0000

Mark,

Actually, mileage wise, I would guess over the course of the entire program (16 weeks) the weekly mileage is not much different from most conventional plans (At least for an average, mere mortal, runner like me). I’d never be able to do 100+ miles a week – that’s not even realistic, I don’t have the time nor the drive. As is stands right now, I am in the 2 week of a 16 week program and looking at a 15 mile long run on Sunday. There are 5 or 6 20 + mile runs in this program vs. 3 or less in most conventional plans. In the end, my mileage will end up being very similar. What is very different is the intensity of my training – there are no ‘easy days’ – no junk miles. Everything has a point.

Only time will tell if this works or not, I guess I’ll find out. Honestly, I didn’t even realize when I wrote this review that there was a controversy at all – the plan just seemed to fit me well. Like most things, I believe there is more than one way to achieve results. Even the experts can’t agree on a ‘best way’.

Thanks!
Aaron

By: Mark Iocchelli

Mark Iocchelli — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:08:53 +0000

Although this book has its fans, it certainly also has its detractors – mostly from the elite side of the sport. Many elite/sub-elite runners, coaches, and other running researchers have outright panned the book. Here is an example of the stuff I’ve been seeing.

I’m not personally wanting to get into a debate over the merits of high versus low running volume but I think it’s important to state that this book, and the research it’s based on, is not being well recieved in some circles.

Perhaps others will want to wade into the issue in a debate on CRN?

By: jank

jank — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:52:18 +0000

By an amazing coincidence, my lovely wife Melissa is using this exact book to train for Hartford. Hopefully, she’ll post her thoughts.

I’m a big fan of this book. For years, whenever I’d read a running, biking, or triathlon book (with no obvious success), Missy’d ask me “So, what’s it say? Run? Run faster?”

It’s a lot funnier to me now…