Darebee running programmes vs. classic training theory

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Darebee running programmes vs. classic training theory

    Browsing the running section, I realized that the Darebee programmes contain only relatively few runs in the 75% HRmax zone, while classic training theory asks for about 3/4 of your runs to be in that zone, especially for beginners, to build a solid base.
    Do you have any literature or links on the theory the Darebee programmes are based on? What is the benefit compared to the classic approach?

  • #2
    I am curious about this too. I used the 8 Weeks to 5K program and loved it--I ended up wanting to continue running rather than quit, which I did three years ago using a 5K running app.

    Right now I'm using the half marathon training program and also loving it, but I wonder about the emphasis on running hard for three out of the four weekly runs. Most programs advise running 80% of the time at an easy pace. Darebee seems to advocate for the opposite.

    Can anyone shed some light?


    • #3
      Tagging neilarey, Damer, and TheRaven, to give them the head's up about this question.


      • #4
        BusyBumbleBee that's a great question. Our running programs are based on the HIIT principle, with active recovery built into the program itself. The programs help beginners build strength in the muscle groups that are involved in the activity and then help them build the physical and mental resources necessary through tough bursts. Some of the science for this came from studies on the effects of HIIT on aerobic and anaerobic performance like this one here and here and our own in-house experience from the worlds of boxing, martial arts and competitive sprinting. This is not to say that we advocate that there is a "best" way to do this. The classical approach has worked well for decades now. Our strength has always been in looking at what we can pull together from different disciplines that have a solid corpus of evidence on the effectiveness of their training approach, that would then give those who use our programs a gain of time as well as of performance. We experiment with programs and workouts and spend, on average, up to three months testing each before it goes live.

        When we brought our running programs out we were aware that we were going a little against running orthodoxy but we were seeing results with our test groups so here we are Our internal process always starts intuitively and then we look to science to make sure we are on the right track, otherwise we don't follow through with our ideas Each article in our running section, these days, has a full resource on the studies we drew to put it together with direct links to them.

        I hope this helped answer your question.

        wjs thank you for the ping.


        • #5
          Damer thank you!
          I think I might try "your" way as soon as my current running plan is done. Have been wishing for a way to get rid of the boring slow runs for a while now


          • #6
            BusyBumbleBee it would be great if you start a thread (if you could) when you do try it and just let is know how you find it and how it works for you. Seeing how you will have the benefit of having trained differently I bet a lot of Bees (myself included ) will be really interested in it.


            • #7
              Damer ok will do my current plan will be on until end of may though, so it will take a bit until I can even think about starting your half marathon plan.
              But that leaves more time to figure out how to squeeze that one in to my schedule, as it is a lot less flexible than my current 3-days a week plan and in the way it is set up clashes quite a bit with my other activities