| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
 posted Apr-14-2007 06:57 AM
   
I don't dislike him either. I just think it is strange how most can not understand Lydiard's theories. On Richard's web site he dismissed Lydiard and then went on to describe his concept of training load exactly the way Lydiard had described it. The conclusion I drew from this is that he never read a Lydiard book. I have taken time to try to read whatever literature is written on the subject so that if I disagree with something I want to have the knowledge to discuss it without insulting someone or myself.
I will always come on the message boards and defend Lydiard especially when people make very ignorant statements about him. Lydiard's impact on running stretches way beyond the Olympic athletes he trained. They just validated his training methods. Lydiard took great pleasure in spreading the popularity of our sport amonst the non-gifted. Everyone is bent on the 100 mile per week thing.
Lydiard had said that NO MATTER WHAT YOUR TALENT LEVEL trying to run BEYOND 100 miles per week at a high aerobic effort was not possible. His athletes would run real easy for the rest of their miles. They had to build up initially to reach that volume and he did not recommend it for everyone. 1 1/2 hours of running could mean 15 miles or it could mean 10 miles or less for an individual running at a high aerobic level. The body does not know how far it is going it just knows the effort over time. No Richard, this is not a new concept. Lydiard developed this before you were born.
IP: Logged |
mopak
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 08:49 AM
Thank you Brian.
Arthur's ideas were pivotal in the development of modern elite level training but also in the development of recreational/fitness running.
The principles are universal regardless of your genetic ability.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 09:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by fuzz:
...your recommended training methods are based solely on unproven phys theories, are they not? (E.g., the CGM; muscle contractility being the limiting performance factor, etc.) That's at least a consistent position, if an indefensible one.But if training methods stand apart from phys theory, then you fail on not one count but two: First, your recommended training methods for the "average" runner haven't been empirically tested. In fact, they run counter to a hundred years of empirical testing by hundreds of thousands of coaches and runners. Second, the phys theories you promote also have not been proven (at least, not yet). History may prove you right. The problem is you have no basis for making such a claim at this time. The evidence just isn't there. In the meantime, pointing out known shortcomings in current theory and practice does not prove the efficacy of your own.
fuz, The training methods I propose are based chiefly on 3 things: training research, injury research, & genetic research. The training methods I propose are my application of that research. The physiological explanation I offer for the limits of performance, why we tire, why we can't run faster, etc. are generally based on physiological research and the physiological models that have been suggested by the physiological community as answers to these types of questions. Perhaps this example will illustrate why I make the distiction: Whether VO2max or the Central Governor or muscle contractility limits performance doesn't change the fact that we know tempo runs work, they improve performance. The only thing that changes is our explanation for why tempo runs work (they improve lactate threshold or re-set the Central Governor or they increase muscle contractility). ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 09:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Brian McN:
...Everyone is bent on the 100 mile per week thing. ...1 1/2 hours of running could mean 15 miles or it could mean 10 miles or less for an individual running at a high aerobic level. The body does not know how far it is going it just knows the effort over time. No Richard, this is not a new concept. Lydiard developed this before you were born.
Brian, Thanks for sharing your insights on Lydiard's training methods. I think the first sentence quoted above is a key point when discussing Lydiard. No matter what Lydiard really recommended - runners believe he recommended 100mpw for everyone. I can't explain why Lydiard is credited with 100mpw for everyone if that is, in fact, not what he recommended. In any case, it is very interesting that a key part of the training method I recommend is in agreement with Lydiard's training recommendations and, by your accounting, was actually developed by Lydiard before my birth. Note: For those not familiar with my training recommendations the Power Running Training Guide is posted in the training section of my web site. It is the most up-to-date and complete guide to my recommendations and supersedes all my previous training recommendations. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com [This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-14-2007).]
IP: Logged |
kemibe
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 10:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
No matter what Lydiard really recommended - runners believe he recommended 100mpw for everyone.
No, you believe this, because instead of paying attention to what Lydiard actually wrote, you bought into whatever stereotypical portrayal of his training methods suited your argumentative needs. Sure, you're not the only one who uncritically accepted the 100-miles-a-week thing as a universal dictum, but others aren't touting themselves as research mavens and training innovators and bloviating on the Web. This is merely one more example of how your laziness and sloppiness has rendered you a less than serious or competent analyst, your professed (albeit jocular) love of reason,logic and science notwithstanding. quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Whether VO2max or the Central Governor or muscle contractility limits performance doesn't change the fact that we know tempo runs work, they improve performance.
Excellent back-pedaling. Humility or obligation? Who knows. We also know that training more than two or three times a week improves performance, but that fact seems not to matter to you. [This message has been edited by kemibe (edited Apr-14-2007).]
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 10:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by kemibe:
We also know that training more than two or three times a week improves performance, but that fact seems not to matter to you.
Kevin, You really should read the Power Running training guide so you can get your attacks up to date. Your continued reference to a training frequency of 2-3 times a week indicate you are ignorant of my training recommendations. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
kemibe
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 11:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
You really should read the Power Running training guide so you can get your attacks up to date. Your continued reference to a training frequency of 2-3 times a week indicate you are ignorant of my training recommendations.
So you didn't write the words on this page? "I recommend 2 – 3 days a week of running for runners of average talents." There's not much basis for claiming that someone's ignorant of your recommendations after you specifically use the word "recommend" in this way. Perhaps you've changed the relevant HTML file to reflect that you no longer endorse the 2-to-3-sessions-a-week suggestion, but forgot to FTP it to your site? I don't think it's at all unreasonable to point out that it's your responsibility to keep the content consistent throughout your site, not the responsibility of everyone reading it to decide which of your conflicting recommendations you actually believe. In fact, it's inarguable. Rather than ask people to to sort through a morass of links and clashing opinions on your site, which is all your Training Guide appears to be, why not just state for the record right here a brief summary of your ideas regarding the optimal volume/frequency of runners of "average genetic talent"? That's what the thread is about, after all. Or better yet, why not go whole hog and respond to the challenge I posted yesterday, perhaps as an ongoing project?
[This message has been edited by kemibe (edited Apr-14-2007).]
IP: Logged |
newguy56
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 11:25 AM
From what I see and read there are many who take up the sport and want to run a marathon on the cheap. What i mean is the american way, do as little as possible to do it. To finish. Heck I see the point that running 2 or 3 days a week and bingo you to can run a marathon. Look I have seen the 5+ hour marathoners, and take no offense but they are slow and there is nothing wrong with running the marathon slow since that will be your goal to finish. Now that said Myself I know my limits to mileage. If I go over 80 miles a week now boom I get hurt. I am now 51 and average 65 miles a week. I ran a 3:30 marathon last fall. I am done with getting any faster. I know if I keep running 65 miles a week I will be able to run marathons in the 3:30 to 3:45 time frame. The higher the mileage the better chance you will run a faster marathon. My 2.58 marathon 25 years ago was run with a big mileage base with over 4 weeks of over 100 miles a week.
IP: Logged |
Abadabajev
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 11:36 AM
All the capillary beds you have revived will not go away and you will get more effective use out of the "speed work." The reduction in volume will allow you to handle the quality work with recovery regardless of your talent level. I know very few people who train this way. I doubt that the lionshare of people in any one of your studies periodizes their training correctly. I know people who run high mileage and mix it with a ton of races and speed before they have had a chance to adapt. They get injured and then someone blares the horn and somehow it is Lydiard's fault yet nobody has really bothered to read what he wrote. It is not confusing. His books are more clear than anything else I've read.You are correct. No one knows what periodization is.
The high "mileage" thing does not work right away. It takes months for the heart to get stronger and capillaries to form. Full development takes years. I've heard people say they have tried Lydiard's training methods and it didn't work. After some questioning I would learn they tried it for a very short period of time or did it wrong. The funniest responses I get is when someone tries the high "mileage" thing and decides it's not for them, they then proceed to cut their mileage and do speed work and their times drop. What they didn't realize is that they were getting faster because of their body's adaptations aerobically during their base period. They really believed that what made them fast were the two or three 400 sessions they did after they gave up on mileage. You have to develope aerobically to reach your potential regardless of genetic ability.
You bring a few tears to my eyes. So true. This is so classic. They try high mileage. It's not for them. They then proceed to a few anaerobic intervals, drop their time in a race and believe it was the speed work. You know why they find Lydiard principle so complicated? Because it's too simple.
IP: Logged |
newguy56
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 11:46 AM
One of my 3200 meter high school runners when crazy last summer 100+ mile weeks for 5 weeks, dropped his 3200 time from 9:37 to 9:16 so far this season. Speed work, he dogs does not like it. But tell him to go out and run 20 he is like a puppy out in a field!!Loves the high mileage. He will be a monster in College!
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 12:32 PM
Sure I wrote that. But, as you can see, it's a simple statement about training frequency and doesn't address any of the myriad other important training factors/issues/recommendations. I never imagined that anyone would believe a single sentence on training frequency for runners of average genetic talent was a complete training recommendation or even a reasonable summary of my training beliefs. But since you keep referencing it, it appears I was wrong. If you would like to eliminate your ignorance about my training beliefs I recommend the training guide to you. It is the most current and contains the most detail as to my training recommendations.------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-14-2007).]
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 01:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by newguy56:
From what I see and read there are many who take up the sport and want to run a marathon on the cheap. What i mean is the american way, do as little as possible to do it. To finish. Heck I see the point that running 2 or 3 days a week and bingo you to can run a marathon. Look I have seen the 5+ hour marathoners, and take no offense but they are slow and there is nothing wrong with running the marathon slow since that will be your goal to finish.
But why do you assume that people train 3 days a week are going to take more than 5 hours. In a non-clinical study of one 44 year-old newbie runner following a 3 day a week program, 100% of particpants finished in less than 4 hours 
IP: Logged |
kemibe
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 02:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Sure I wrote that. But, as you can see, it's a simple statement about training frequency and doesn't address any of the myriad other important training factors/issues/recommendations.
Quit trying to spin this, Richard; it makes you look extremely oafish. You wrote "I recommend 2 – 3 days a week of running for runners of average talents." You either believe this or you don't, and it either agrees with these "myriad other important training factors/issues/recommendations" or it doesn't. If someone operating a wingnut nutrition site declares "No one should eat ice cream," I don't care what "myriad other important dietary factors/issues/recommendations" such a person posts to her site. I want to know why she believes it and I want to know why I should listento her. If, upon being questioned, the wannabe-nutritionist were to say, "If you would like to eliminate your ignorance about my nutritional beliefs I recommend the eating guide to you. It is the most current and contains the most detail as to my dietary recommendations," it would be clear that the wannabe-nutritionist was an idiot whose statements about ice cream were not supportable with anything resembling evidence. Also, people would laugh at her use of "ignorance" to describe others' rightful pointing out of her hanging-curveball claims. Your quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
...it is very interesting that a key part of the training method I recommend is in agreement with Lydiard's training recommendations
It's when you say things like this that it's plain you don't always lie; sometimes, you're frankly delusional. (In fact, every time you use the word "interesting," it is an almost-sure sign that you are about to make an inappropriate comparison between someone else's training ideas and your own.) It is beyond surreal that you would discern any unique similarities between Arthur Lydiard's training suggestions and your own. His suggestions and yours are not in the same solar system. His ideas about what constitutes a sufficient base and the physiological rationale for long slow distance parallel your own in about the same way that a ballet parallels a WWE production.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 02:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kemibe:
...sometimes, you're frankly delusional...It is beyond surreal that you would discern any unique similarities between Arthur Lydiard's training suggestions and your own.
quote:
Originally posted by Brian McN:
On Richard's web site he dismissed Lydiard and then went on to describe his concept of training load exactly the way Lydiard had described it.
------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-14-2007).]
IP: Logged |
kemibe
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 02:27 PM
Nice try, Richard, but you've banged your face on the ground again. I said nothing about any overlap between Lydiard's words and your blathering about training load. quote:
Originally posted by kemibe:
It is beyond surreal that you would discern any unique similarities between Arthur Lydiard's training suggestions and your own.
As you pointed out yourself, physiology (either the real stuff or your version) and training are not synonymous terms. And don't forget that the only reason Brian pointed out what he did was to indicate that you'd again contradicted yourself and proven you hadn't even read Lydiard -- it wasn't a pat on the back. I recommend 2 – 3 days a week of running for runners of average talents. Those runners with above average genetic talent can run more often, say 4 or 5 days per week, while elite level talent can run even more often – 6 or more times per week. So do you see a range of 2 to 5 days of training per week for the vast majority of runners (i.e., everyone who's not elite, by your not-supplied definition) as synonymous with, or even remotely resembling, Lydiard's training suggestions as you now understand them? Do expand on this.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 02:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Brian McN:
On Richard's web site he dismissed Lydiard and then went on to describe his concept of training load exactly the way Lydiard had described it...The body does not know how far it is going it just knows the effort over time. No Richard, this is not a new concept. Lydiard developed this before you were born.
The comparison was to the concept of training load, not training frequency. Brian is saying is that my training recommendation of finding your individual optimal training load is the same thing Lydiard espoused. I don't believe he was saying everything I recommend is the same as Lydiard recommended. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-14-2007).]
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 03:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Sure I wrote that. But, as you can see, it's a simple statement about training frequency and doesn't address any of the myriad other important training factors/issues/recommendations.
So what you're saying is, you say 2-3 days a week is optimal for most runners and then go on to explain why this isn't so at all, essentially contradicting yourself. I suppose if you simply say enough stuff then you can always point so something close to valid, buried amongst a pile of invalid stuff. You've never based anything you say on scientific theories or studies. All you've ever done is look for stuff you can take or distort to fit your own theories. That's not scientific.
IP: Logged |
masrun
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 04:50 PM
Hi all,I have not been following this thread very close but find the whole high mileage / low intensity training approach to be very interesting. I guess my question is can a runner gain significant improvements in speed / pace by doing nothing but high mileage / low intensity training over a long period of time (months or years)? I know of runners who do no speed work, but tons of mileage, and put in very respectable times in longer races (10K up to marathon). One well-known ultra-runner (although not elite) that I have spoke with is Dean Karnazes. Most know Dean does insane mileage but at very easy paces. But Dean does no speed work. Despite this, he has run a 2:40 marathon. And for those who have seen Dean, know he is also very muscular in the upper body so is carrying a bunch of extra weight. So the bottom line: Will running 100 miles a week at a very easy, comfortable pace (absolutely no speed work) done for a long period of time make every serious runner faster? Sorry if this question is generic or has already been answered!
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 05:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by masrun:
Hi all,I have not been following this thread very close but find the whole high mileage / low intensity training approach to be very interesting. I guess my question is can a runner gain significant improvements in speed / pace by doing nothing but high mileage / low intensity training over a long period of time (months or years)? I know of runners who do no speed work, but tons of mileage, and put in very respectable times in longer races (10K up to marathon). One well-known ultra-runner (although not elite) that I have spoke with is Dean Karnazes. Most know Dean does insane mileage but at very easy paces. But Dean does no speed work. Despite this, he has run a 2:40 marathon. And for those who have seen Dean, know he is also very muscular in the upper body so is carrying a bunch of extra weight. So the bottom line: Will running 100 miles a week at a very easy, comfortable pace (absolutely no speed work) done for a long period of time make every serious runner faster? Sorry if this question is generic or has already been answered!
Why does it have to be all or nothing? Run whatever aerobic volume you can manage without breaking down and add in one or two faster sessions ( intervals, hills, tempo, fartlek ) and see how that affects you. You will probably need to tweak it a little to find the variation that works for you, but in broad terms, that's it. Many people seem to think the secret is either high volume low intensity, or low volume high intensity. In reality, once you've developed a good level of aerobic fitness you can do high volume and maintain a high level of intensity and that's what it's all about.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 06:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by masrun:
Hi all,I have not been following this thread very close but find the whole high mileage / low intensity training approach to be very interesting. I guess my question is can a runner gain significant improvements in speed / pace by doing nothing but high mileage / low intensity training over a long period of time (months or years)? I know of runners who do no speed work, but tons of mileage, and put in very respectable times in longer races (10K up to marathon). One well-known ultra-runner (although not elite) that I have spoke with is Dean Karnazes. Most know Dean does insane mileage but at very easy paces. But Dean does no speed work. Despite this, he has run a 2:40 marathon. And for those who have seen Dean, know he is also very muscular in the upper body so is carrying a bunch of extra weight. So the bottom line: Will running 100 miles a week at a very easy, comfortable pace (absolutely no speed work) done for a long period of time make every serious runner faster? Sorry if this question is generic or has already been answered!
Oh man, that is such a can of worms. You should look for answers elsewhere. This thread now revolves around a couple articulate folks twisting poor Richard like Gumby in a taffymaker. Maybe you should check in with the Maffetone thread. Jesse Leitner has had some success running high mileage at an easy pace, but would tell you that he is idiosyncratic and concede he might be faster if he added "speedwork."
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 06:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Sure I wrote that. But, as you can see, it's a simple statement about training frequency and doesn't address any of the myriad other important training factors/issues/recommendations. I never imagined that anyone would believe a single sentence on training frequency for runners of average genetic talent was a complete training recommendation or even a reasonable summary of my training beliefs. But since you keep referencing it, it appears I was wrong. If you would like to eliminate your ignorance about my training beliefs I recommend the training guide to you. It is the most current and contains the most detail as to my training recommendations.
Kemibe is my new hero. You got Richard to agree that anyone who accepts his statements as written is a boob.
IP: Logged |
runnerman
Member |
posted Apr-14-2007 07:08 PM
As mentioned earlier in this thread, I have been conversing with Richard on this very topic. You can see how weird and twisted his responses to my questions are. They contradict eachother at every turn. Here are some excerpts:1) Richard claims genetic ability is the cornerstone of his training programs
2) I ask how genetic ability is measured
3) Richard says its measured by the results of training (ie race results)
4) His website lists the recommended mileage for people of differing race times
5) I tell him a 3:30 marathoner (me) who at one point was in his recommended range (40-60MPW) lowered his time to 2:45ish by increasing to 90MPW
6) He says his plan is just a recommendation of where he thinks the optimal training amount is for someone in each bracket
7) He says that each runner must find for themselves where their optimal training load is
8) I ask how that is genetics based and how its any different or new when compared to the established principles of any running book out there
9) Ricahrd says he's done, that I have to figure that out for myself. So I decided to figure out what was new from Richard's plan to Pete Pfitzinger in "Advanced Marathoning"(I should never compare Richard to Pfitz, its not fair to Pete). Here's what I got: Pfitzinger: 3 different levels with different training loads. Leaves it up to the runner to figure out which training load is right for that runner. Says plans are just guides. Richard: 4 different levels with different training loads. Leaves it up to the runner to figure out what training load is right for that runner. Says plans are just guides. Richard responded that I'm too stupid to understand. So this begs the question: Here I am, a runner who has figured in the lat 3 years how to go from 3:30 to 2:45 (and am currently working to go lower) who has coached multiple other marathoners including a female who will likely run in the Olympic Trials and I am too dumb to figure out what someone who has not coached a single runner nor conducted a single study is saying about running.
IP: Logged |
fuzz
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 08:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
The training methods I propose are based chiefly on 3 things: training research, injury research, & genetic research. The training methods I propose are my application of that research.
Your training recommendations aren't based on real-world experience & experimentation, a la Lydiard (or Pfitzinger or Daniels or Glover or ...) You don't have numerous students following your recommendations. You yourself haven't gotten good results following them (assuming you do follow them; if you don't, well...)So if your training isn't based on real-world experience, it can only be based on theory. But the theories you cite are speculative, preliminary, and incomplete, and not a sound basis for specific, real-world training recommendations. quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
The physiological explanation I offer for the limits of performance, why we tire, why we can't run faster, etc. are generally based on physiological research and the physiological models that have been suggested by the physiological community as answers to these types of questions. Perhaps this example will illustrate why I make the distiction: Whether VO2max or the Central Governor or muscle contractility limits performance doesn't change the fact that we know tempo runs work, they improve performance. The only thing that changes is our explanation for why tempo runs work (they improve lactate threshold or re-set the Central Governor or they increase muscle contractility).
Again, it's fine to post information about the latest theory and research, and it's OK to speculate about their implications (though you should expect to get slapped around from time to time by the PhDs). But you really do go too far when you try to assemble all your unproven speculations into some sort of grand Power Running "paradigm," or whatever it is, complete with specific training recommendations. It's a house of cards with neither an empirical foundation nor a sound theoretical one.
[This message has been edited by fuzz (edited Apr-14-2007).]
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 08:24 PM
Will aerobic base conditioning alone make you faster? The answer is yes but it's just a part of the puzzle. According to Lydiard you also need to train your body to perform at an anaerobic level. He believed that this could be done in as little as a few weeks though and then you flat line. This is the reason why he had recommended such a large aerobic phase before working on "speed". He was the first to predict the Eastern Africans would rule the world in distance running because of the many aerobic miles they would run long before ever being exposed to interval work and racing.
He often said that if you picked up one of his books and went right into the "speedwork" schedules in the back without an initial base phase those workouts were not worth the paper they were written on.
He has said that younger runners possess an already high aerobic level of fitness which would explain why with speedwork you can get a relatively low mileage high school runner down to 4:20 in the mile. As they get beyond twenty they need to work on maintaining their aerobic level of fitness by running aerobically or they will slow with age. The only way to do this effectively is by longer sessions at a high aerobic effort. There are no shortcuts. In fact the less gifted runners benefit more from this because it is really the greatest thing they can work on due to their lack of talent. Maybe that means going from a 4:00 marathoner to a 3:30 marathoner. Is it worth it? It would be to me, maybe not to someone else.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-14-2007 09:19 PM
Wow! Such an interesting debate is going on here! I need to graduate from letsrun.com and move on??? ;o)Just as the US had started to do well in distance running, it's about time someone comes out and pull the pendulum back to the other direction? I found all this "genetic" talk interesting. Coming from the Lydiard school and one of the hard-core country for the Lydiardism, Japan (I was a corporate team coach in Japan for a while). I just read a book written by Toshihiko Seko recently. He was a high school middle distance running champion in the 70s. Yes, so I guess you could say he was very talented. However, what's surprising is the fact that he had a hard time for an hour jogging when he first came under the influence of the late Kiyoshi Nakamura. Nakamura's philosophy was such that, because Japanese are not genetically gifted (how many sub-4-minute miler coming from Japan can you name?), the only way Japanese can compete equally against the rest of the world, particularly "naturally gifted" Africans is to train harder (in general, more). This is THE philosophy that drove Seko to train up to 50 miles for a stint; the same thinking that drove Naoko Takahashi (who was not even top 10 in college, wasn't even recruited for a corporate team) to run up to 70km a day during the build-up phase; same thinking that drove many Japanese marathon runners to run somewhere between 1000 to 1200km a month; Fujita, Ogata, Aburaya... All in this category. Takaoka, who is generally recognized as a talented runner, trains actually less; perhaps because he could get away with it. When asked why many good American college runners don't train 100 miles a week, Lydiard answered; "I had to train my athletes with 100 miles a week because they were not a talented superhuman..." Most of Japanese, at least oldies like myself, generally used to think if you're not naturally gifted, the only way you can beat the gifted is to train harder. This is a good old gutsy approach. That alone would not get you too far. You also need to train smarter. Roulph Doubell comes to mind; apparently he was very fragile and, if he trained too hard, he would get injured. So he trained less, or very effectively, and won the only sea-level gold medal in middle distance and distance events in 68 Mexico City Olympics. I guess, because he couldn't train hard (more), he was NOT gifted... Same with Henry Marsh. He just couldn't train too hard; 9 miles was his max. One of the things that made Lydiard so special was his absolte positive thinking. "Even if you don't have time to train, even if you go and run for 15 minutes; then you're still winning," Lydiard said. That's Arthur Lydiard. For his 50-mile run, Seko said, "When I toe against other runners at the start of the race, I can think, 'I trained harder than any of these guys.'" It could be scientifically stupid approach; but that mental confidence could weigh much more than some lab findings when you are running all-out and both you and your competitors are struggling, spitting blood, at 38km into the marathon race. I'd say the hell with the physiology...
IP: Logged |
 |
