| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
 posted Apr-03-2007 01:10 PM
  
Deena Kastor ran 130 miles a week for marathon training.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 01:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Abadabajev:
Another dumbass physiologist article.
With bogus information about what mileage elites are running.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 01:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
Deena Kastor ran 130 miles a week for marathon training.
Yes but you need to caveat that statement with the fact that she does not run 130 mpw year round (nor does she run 130 mpw flat out). Brian Sell claims he need to run 150 mpw + because he does not have the talent of a Keflezighi or Ritzenheim, who can get by on a peak of 100 and 120 respectively. No making a point, just a comment. [This message has been edited by bigapplepie (edited Apr-03-2007).]
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 01:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
Yes but you need to caveat that statement with the fact that she does not run 130 mpw year round (nor does she run 130 mpw flat out).
Yes 80 to 90 miles for a taper. The article claims lower peak mileages than reality. If I had a couple of hours I could find the mileages run by the the elites. Meb does 100 to 120 at 4000 to 8000 feet with some long tempos. A 55 year old Henry Rono was putting in 3 hours a day at 6000 feet.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 01:40 PM
Noakes is wrong. His beliefs came from watching guys like Thys who got
nailed for drugs a couple of years ago.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 01:44 PM
Letsrun poster: the more miles I ran, the more talented I got.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 02:19 PM
Maybe overuse injuries are a myth.
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 02:39 PM
"The more miles I ran the more talented I got" was something Bob Hodge used to say.
IP: Logged |
Dakota Ridgerunner
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 03:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
"He found "that the men average 90 miles per week with a peak mileage of 120, while the women averaged 72 miles per week with a peak mileage of 95 for the year leading up to the Trials." This is B.S. Brian Sell ran a peak week of 155 before Boston and 160 miles before New York.
Fredurie, other than anecdotal evidence, on what do you base your belief that this is false? Do you have access to the raw data from the study? Are you saying the US Olympic Marathon trials qualifiers lied to the researchers about their mileage, or that the researchers misrepresented their findings? Even if Brian Sell ran a peak week of 155 (and I have no reason to doubt that he did), that doesn't make Jason's findings, as stated above, false. ------------------
My User Profile
Sub-40 10k Blog
IP: Logged |
runawayjesse
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 04:12 PM
I agree. it would just be arrogant to say that high mileage works for everyone. Each person has their upper limit and to push beyond that would be even worse than low mileage. Common sense tells me to race your best you need to find your upper limit and work with that whatever that number may be. Not all elite's are doing high mileage either and some who insists are just getting injured(Ritz).About Lydiard- Here we go with another Lydiard misconception. So many people are so snowed as to what true Lydiard principles are. Lydiard would have you doing exactly what I explained above. He would have you run at your upmost volume at your best aerobic pace possible. Believe it or not he wasn't all about 100 mile weeks. If you believe he was you need to study Lydiard a bit further. He had athlete's doing wayyy less than 100 MPW. The point is that they were working at their upmost volume possible before breaking down. Peter Snell often struggled with 100 mile weeks. Looking at his logs you see lots of 80's,70's sometimes 50's during his base phase. Lydiard didn't believe in overtraining instead he was an advocate in putting your body's warning sighns above all else. He stressed this more than any coach and certenly more than Jack Daniels type "A" style. Lydiard wouldn't have you stretching for a pace, he didn't even time or measure intervals on most occasions. He also would have you run by time instead of mileage.I think even most novices can reach his time suggestions. It's not all that much running. If you can run 60 miles in 10 hours of running per week you are following a Lydiard model. You will gain fitness and volume will follow till you platue. From time to time I contact Nobuya "Nobby" Hashizume( a coach who has studied Lydairds methods for over 20 years) and he agree's that people really misconstru the whole 100 MPW thing. this study is interesting but really I think it is very much in line with Lydiards principles. When you come up with a study showing that you can race "better" off of a volume that is way under your personell threshold vs. off of a volume that is near your upmost ability in terms of volume than we can have something to discuss. Really all your presenting is the fact that you race worse from overtraining- a concept Lydiard had figured out long before any scientists.
IP: Logged |
arc918
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 05:19 PM
lucky us - thanks to Richard we now know the truth...
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 05:29 PM
All this energy to say "experiment of one". Yes, elite athletes typically run higher mileage than non-elites. Yes, people respond differently to training. Yes, some runners--elite and non-elite--overdo it and don't listen to their bodies. Yes, genetics has a large influence on talent. Fine. Great. I feel smarter already. To my mind, what this is really about at the end of the day is people defending their own training. Fine: defend high mileage, low mileage, no mileage, whatever. Each of us runs for different reasons and our training reflects this. [This message has been edited by tuscaloosarunner (edited Apr-03-2007).]
IP: Logged |
charlieeee
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 05:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Abadabajev:
2 things that have destroyed middle and long distance running in the last 24 yrs, 1) heart rate monitor
2) exercise physiologist I wish everyone would stop listening to those physiologist. All they do is talk talk talk. They try to explain everything with a pencil and paper. They influence many runners with their research and articles in running magazines. Lydiard did all of his research on the track. The greatest trainer of all time.
Someone told me not long ago that physiologists have hi-jacked the sport. I truely believe that now. I'm upset now. Another dumbass physiologist article.
I strongly agree. I see so many runners never progressing, and this is because they use "heart rate zones" as an excuse not to work hard. And there are so many myths about running it's unbelievable. One I heard just yesterday was, "Well I might not do track because I won't be as good since breathing cold air makes you tired." Wow. HRM have minimal advantages but are taken advantage of too much. I'll listen to what's working for me, not some physiologist who's never jogged a mile in his life telling me to quit running since I have shin splints.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 05:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by arc918:
lucky us - thanks to Richard we now know the truth...
No need to thank me. That's what Running Times titled it on the cover of their magazine. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 05:37 PM
PS: I'd rather put in the miles and see where it takes me. If it doesn't work, fine, then I learn and move on. Fredurie, Aba the Russian (am I right?), Laker, Greg, Hubitron, Andy, Mainers, Lucas--just to name of few people on this board--put in the mileage and their times show it.I think I'll give this mileage thing a try. If it doesn't work, fine, I'll learn from it.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 06:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
On Arthur Lydiard's high mileage approach for everyone, Jason quotes Jack Daniels PhD, "I think Lydiard ruined many more athletes than he helped." That comment is likely to stir things up.
That is an amazing coincidence because in the May edition of Running Times Jason Karp also quotes David Costill Ph. D as saying "I think Lydiard ruined many more athletes than he helped."I haven't found the Daniels quote yet.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 07:01 PM
My bad - it is David Costill that is quoted saying that, not Jack Daniels. Thank you for catching the error. I have corrected it in the orginal post.------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com [This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Apr-03-2007).]
IP: Logged |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 11:18 PM
I think pushing the "genetic limit" belief, and hoping people believe it, is doing a disservice to running humanity. If someone gets the idea, based on a race or a vo2max test, that they may or may not have the correct genetics, this might discourage them from a very real desire to push themselves farther an faster, realizing what potential they have.Lydiard is a symbol for experimentation, and for working hard to exceed your perceived limits. He discovered his system using his own body, pushing himself this way and that way, seeing what worked. Within his experimentation was his will, his desire, and the power of his mind. These things can not be discounted. These physiologists are symbols for limitation. There interested is in finding limitation in the laboratory, publishing there "facts" found in their lab experiments, and making a mark in their scientific fields. They don't really have an interest in true running experimentation, the power of the mind, and motivating runners to exceed their perceived limits. Each runner is on their own journey. If each keeps testing themselves, and reaching, they will accomplish times they never thought they could.
Injury will most likely be part of the journey. It's easy to get injured and then blame it on this or that, when you don't really know why it happened.
"I ran 100 miles, now I'm injured" doesn't mean it was the 100 miles. Or "I ran intervals at 5k race pace and now I'm injured" doesn't mean it was the speedwork. Of course, there are common sense principles of training that can't be denied, like the value of periodic rest and recovery, hydration, varying speeds, etc. Yet, if a runner has the desire and uses all his will and focus, this idea of "genetic limits" becomes just words someone is throwing at you to try to make you stop what you are doing. Why would someone try to do this to a runner who is shooting for the stars? There are a million answers to that--all coming down to fear of something or greed. I say throw this "genetic limitation" idea in the sh*tter, and get to the business of exceeding your dreams, perceived limits, and creating a unique running journey. And supporting the efforts of others to experiment and to exceed their own. --Jimmy
"on the behalf of running humanity" @@@@
jog log
IP: Logged |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-03-2007 11:32 PM
P.S. The name of this thread is "The Truth About Mileage." Notice it wasn't named "A study About Milage" or "Some Possibilities About Mileage." The author, Richard, thinks he has the truth, wants you to believe his truth, and is presenting his Power Running as the truth. Is it? Not my truth. His is too limiting. All based on fear of, and avoiding, injury.
If a person is serious about excelling, this can't be dictating your training.
Injuries will happen from time to time when training hard. --Jimmy Jog Log
zzzzzzz
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-04-2007 12:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by runawayjesse:
I agree. it would just be arrogant to say that high mileage works for everyone. Each person has their upper limit and to push beyond that would be even worse than low mileage. Common sense tells me to race your best you need to find your upper limit and work with that whatever that number may be. Not all elite's are doing high mileage either and some who insists are just getting injured(Ritz).About Lydiard- Here we go with another Lydiard misconception. So many people are so snowed as to what true Lydiard principles are. Lydiard would have you doing exactly what I explained above. He would have you run at your upmost volume at your best aerobic pace possible. Believe it or not he wasn't all about 100 mile weeks. If you believe he was you need to study Lydiard a bit further. He had athlete's doing wayyy less than 100 MPW. The point is that they were working at their upmost volume possible before breaking down. Peter Snell often struggled with 100 mile weeks. Looking at his logs you see lots of 80's,70's sometimes 50's during his base phase. Lydiard didn't believe in overtraining instead he was an advocate in putting your body's warning sighns above all else. He stressed this more than any coach and certenly more than Jack Daniels type "A" style. Lydiard wouldn't have you stretching for a pace, he didn't even time or measure intervals on most occasions. He also would have you run by time instead of mileage.I think even most novices can reach his time suggestions. It's not all that much running. If you can run 60 miles in 10 hours of running per week you are following a Lydiard model. You will gain fitness and volume will follow till you platue. From time to time I contact Nobuya "Nobby" Hashizume( a coach who has studied Lydairds methods for over 20 years) and he agree's that people really misconstru the whole 100 MPW thing. this study is interesting but really I think it is very much in line with Lydiards principles. When you come up with a study showing that you can race "better" off of a volume that is way under your personell threshold vs. off of a volume that is near your upmost ability in terms of volume than we can have something to discuss. Really all your presenting is the fact that you race worse from overtraining- a concept Lydiard had figured out long before any scientists.
Very well said, the best post on this thread by far.
IP: Logged |
rivas
Member |
posted Apr-04-2007 12:56 AM
To say that those with a high maximal oxygen uptake are the only ones that can handle high mileage is ridiculous Anyone can handle it or at lease you can handle the same time spent as those “elites” putting in 100+ mi/wk. If you’re getting hurt all too often, then you’re running too fast too often. There have been those with relative lower than average VO2max that perform just as well as those with high VO2max. To name a few Derek Clayton (2:08.33 – 66.8ml/kg/min), Frank Shorter (2:10.3 – 72 ml/kg/min) and Kjell Erik Stahl (one of the best masters runners 66.8 ml/kg/min) I’m pretty sure these elites were high mileage runners.
One study doesn’t tell much. Always take scientific articles with a grain of salt, there are many variables that affect exercise. As noted by tuscaloosarunner, this study only tells several things“ elite athletes typically run higher mileage than non-elites”
“people respond differently to training”
“Some runners –elite and non-elite overdo it and don’t listen to their bodies”
“Genetics has a large influence on talent” Another study done by Sjodin,B (1985) on elite, good, and slow marathoners proved similar results but can be interpreted a differently.
Elite
Age (yrs) 26
Weight (kg) 66
Type I fibers 76
Training Years 7
Average weekly distance 145
VO2max (ml per kg/min) 72
VO2 at 15km/h 45%
LT at 4mM/l 88% Good
Age (yrs) 30
Weight (kg) 67
Type I fibers 67
Training Years 4
Average weekly distance 115
VO2max (ml per kg/min) 66
VO2 at 15km/h 49%
LT at 4 mM/l 88% Slow
Age (yrs) 36
Weight (kg) 71
Type I fibers 56
Training Years 2
Average weekly distance 57
VO2max (ml per kg/min) 59
VO2 at 15km/h 51%
LT at 4mm/l 85% Slower runners have less of everything from weekly distance training runs, training years, and not as economical as those that run more frequently. Another… Marti B. (1988) studied 4358 joggers, and what was the most important predictor of 16k race time? You guessed it, WEEKLY TRAINING DISTANCE. In order were:
Weekly training distance
Age
Body mass index
Years of regular training
And weekly training frequency Training isn’t all that difficult to understand. Find way to stimulate an adaptation. High, medium, low, fast and slow mileages all have their place. Both acute and chronic exercise bouts affect the organ structures. Both maximal and supramaximal results in structural damage to tissues, followed by a period of impaired function. Tissue repair leads to an adaptive response, making tissues more resistant. Regular and chronic bouts at moderate intensities are followed by an adaptive response result in an enhanced functional capacity to the organ structure. Genetics plays a role in everything we do. We all have an estimated 100,000 genes. Genes make proteins that influence the structure and function of cells. However, (just as someone posted we all are different), we are different in the fact that we have slight sequence variations that affect how gene functions. The environment also plays a crucial role that affects our genes. The combination of certain genes and environment cause a predisposition for some individuals to disease and differences in their ability to respond to various diets, exercise, or drug treatments. If genetics has anything to do with how some one performs at any level, I say it’s more psychological than anything. Those that are determined and have the will to work towards a goal are the ones that improve and succeed towards their personal goals. Oh, and some one mentioned Deena Kastor, her case study defiantly proves that mileage improves performance. Prior to Vigil coaching her she was only running 40 mi/wk. with a collegiate best of 16:06 5k. She built up to 70 mi/wk in 1999. Vo2max 70.2, increased up to 90 mi/wk a year later. Vo2max increased 77.5. Moved up to 100mi/w Vo2max improved 81.5. Her last 5k of her Olympic sliver medal performance in Athens was 16:02, 4 seconds faster than her collegiate PR. Abadabajev – Physiologist nor HRM have done nothing to “highjack the sport”. Its others that don’t understand the application and use of data. Sorry for my long rant.
IP: Logged |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-04-2007 09:32 AM
To suggest you can measure someone's VO2 or other parameters BEFORE they train, and predict their talent, is about the dumbest thing I've heard Richard suggest. And that's saying a lot.Genetic potential is just that....potential. Only after years of applied effort can it be exposed to a degree that you can see the probable peak of your abilities. By my sophomore year of HS I was only a 20min 5k runner, 6min mile. I increased my mileage (almost double) and consistency and was 17:24/4:53 the next year. But this was already 5 years after I started running regularly! After college I was a 16:13/34:18 5k/10k guy. This was 10 years after I began running. I doubled my average mileage again, and last year (now 16 years after I began running) ran 30:57 10K with a 15:18 closing 5K. If anyone had measured my VO2max years back, it would have reflected my CURRENT CONDITIONING, not my potential. Training turns potential into reality. If genetics were the answer, why would any of us train? Richard, I know you are upset that you failed and need to find some way to deny responsibility for it by proving that you were destined to fail all along and had no part in the matter. Get over it, and get over yourself. Nobody is stealing quotes from powerrunning.....no one reads it much less gives it credibility. Speaking of credibility, someone got the link to Richard's Greatest Hits so the newbies can read up before they buy into any of this? I'm in a hurry and can't look it up right now.
IP: Logged |
RRainey
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-04-2007 10:48 AM
There are physiological limits. No one will ever long jump 40 feet, run sub 8 sec 100M or run a 3 minute mile.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-04-2007 11:05 AM
The tone of the Running Times article is:If your weekly mileage is low you will benefit from increasing your mileage. If your weekly mileage is moderate to high, you may benefit from increased mileage. If you run more than 70 mpw you may benefit from increased mileage but there is an increased risk of injury. In other words, nothing earth shattering.
IP: Logged |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
posted Apr-04-2007 11:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by RRainey:
There are physiological limits. No one will ever long jump 40 feet, run sub 8 sec 100M or run a 3 minute mile.
Don't be so sure about that. Very limiting thoughts. Evolution, mutation, and the power of human consciousness just might bring us there. Records keep getting broken all the time. I think that someday we will be able to break all those times and distances. Might be 50,000 years, a million, or a thousand, but we'll do it. --Jimmy Jog Log
zzzzzzz
IP: Logged |
 |
