| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
 posted May-01-2007 11:14 AM
   
The axe I have to grind with exercise physiologists is that, as a discipline, they seem to be unusually guilty of picking apart the machine, analyzing one part, and then declaring they understand the machine from that one part without checking to make sure their findings make sense in the context of the whole machine. As a scientist I know how important it is to look at big-picture context when trying to apply findings. If what you've discovered by studying the widget does not make sense when you apply it back to the whole machine, chances are your widget interacts with another gizmo in a way that you have not figured out yet!This was especially poignant when reading through a string of editorials in the J of Ex Phys with Noakes et al arguing about oxygen deliver and metabolism limitations. Many of the scientists were making very broad conclusions off of very narrow observations....everyone wants their personal research to be the explanation of everything it seems. Science can be a true aid to training, but only if applied in a way that adds to the body of knowledge we have developed about what works, and does not work, with training. It cannot yet form the fundamental base for how we train as endurance athletes.
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted May-01-2007 02:49 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nobby:
[B]Okay, I'm going to try to shoot two birds with one stone. Tigger. Nobby basically nailed your question here. All I would add for someone who is older is the most important aspect is recovery. As Nobby said if it takes 3 days it takes 3 days.
To go back to Jack Foster, he would do a 2 to 3 hour run on a Sunday over VERY rugged countryside (Rengle can verify).
However. sometimes he said he would be so tired on a Monday , the last thing he wanted to do was "go for a run". He would then just get on his trusty bike and ride for 12 or 13 miles at an easy pace. If he was still tired Tuesday he would have an "easy run".
The same with Trevor Ogilvie, many times I have said to Trevor a day or 2 after a hard session. "bag todays workout, we are going for an easy run at my pace".
In fact we did exactly that on Saturday after we had been working at the marathon for a considerable part of the day.
We enjoyed a very leisurely 45 minute run through Forest trails discussing the "whys and wherefors" of various subjects.
At the finish he said. "That is just what I needed" As for the "scientists' factor. In Exercise Physiology terms I have what they say is "Enough knowledge to be dangerous"
However, I find with my own Coaching that I tend to rely on what I have learned over the years from the "old hands". Especially Bill Baillie, Arthur and the "Lydiard Boys" of Lynndale.
But I would throw into that Knoweldge base contributions from one of the Coaches I had in the US and from others in the various clubs I have belonged to.
In recent times I have learned heaps from the likes of Tinman and Nobby who as I have stated is the foremost authority on Arthurs training
At least once a week I will have to think about some Ex Phys application to what we are doing but really that knowledge is only a reinforcement of what I picked up over the years. Much of what we do is plain common sense. It is just every now and then we may "stuff it up". Knowing the why is a valuable tool.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-01-2007 07:26 PM
Thanks for the response. It is what I expected but I am glad to have my own thoughts reinforced. Living in the coastal mountains of W Canada allows me to run the most extreme hills I can imagine, but I never imagined they would be that good for me.
IP: Logged |
Cottonwood Trail
Cool Runner |
posted May-01-2007 09:01 PM
Nobby, HRE, Kim,I know you each stress the importance of a weekly long run. For someone running 5 days and 40mpw, would you say they should still have the long run (15-18) or spread the mileage more evenly through the week like 5, 8 milers? I hope that makes some sense?
IP: Logged |
Cottonwood Trail
Cool Runner |
posted May-01-2007 09:02 PM
That's to be prepared to race 5k-13.1
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted May-01-2007 09:30 PM
Nobby,Something you posted the other day got my attention and I meant to ask you about it. You said that a three hour run would suffice in training for a five hour marathoner. I'm not doubting what your saying is correct, I'm just curious as to why. For me it's not a problem as my long runs in excess of 20 are all under three hours however if someone comes to me for advice I'd like to be able to tell them why going beyond the three hour mark would not be beneficial for them.
Also, if a "faster" runner decides to enter in an ultra marathon and will be racing in excess of three hours would this time limitation in training also apply to them.
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted May-01-2007 09:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Cottonwood Trail:
Nobby, HRE, Kim,I know you each stress the importance of a weekly long run. For someone running 5 days and 40mpw, would you say they should still have the long run (15-18) or spread the mileage more evenly through the week like 5, 8 milers? I hope that makes some sense?
No ! Keep a long run and spread the rest through the week.
In times past I have had to do that. ------------------
Run easy, Run long
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 06:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Brian McN:
Nobby,Something you posted the other day got my attention and I meant to ask you about it. You said that a three hour run would suffice in training for a five hour marathoner. I'm not doubting what your saying is correct, I'm just curious as to why. For me it's not a problem as my long runs in excess of 20 are all under three hours however if someone comes to me for advice I'd like to be able to tell them why going beyond the three hour mark would not be beneficial for them.
Also, if a "faster" runner decides to enter in an ultra marathon and will be racing in excess of three hours would this time limitation in training also apply to them.
I'd be interested in the answer to that one as well. I've read that advice only from runners who have no problem whatsoever running 20 - 26.2 miles well under 3 hours. However, a 5 hour marathon is 11:45 pace, and if you assume training would be a little slower (maybe 12minutes/mile) that would be only 15 miles in 3 hours. Most people I know who have never run 18 or more in practice have dropped out or had real problems finishing; in fact many who have run only 20 have problems with the last 2-3 and have much better luck with long runs of 22-24 in preparation for 26.2 I don't normally like small studies or just anecdotal evidence, but I know for myself, I can't finish a race well, if the distance I'm trying to race is more than 20% longer than my longest training runs. My husband (about 4 hour marathoner)has found the same, and only getting in long runs of 18 caused severe "bonking" at 22. Making the longest runs longer by even 2-3 miles seems to make a huge difference in performance, even if those extra 2-3 miles go over the 3 hour time. I've heard the rationale that you avoid glycogen depletion, dehydration problems, general stress on the body, pounding, etc. if you avoid runs over 3 hours, but if that's what going to happen in your marathon, and you will be out 5 hours or so, seems you should learn how/if your body can handle that, not hold your long run to 15 miles and then have an extra 11.2 to go in the race.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 06:36 AM
I've seen Nobby use the phrase "go through the wall smoothly" several times now, and I suspect that has something to do with 5 hr marathoners holding long runs to 3 hrs or less. Within it is the assumption that you will eventually be running on the other side of the wall, or in other words...you will not be able to push it back to the 5 hr point, so why go to the point of extreme fatigue (in training) in vain?
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 07:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
I've seen Nobby use the phrase "go through the wall smoothly" several times now, and I suspect that has something to do with 5 hr marathoners holding long runs to 3 hrs or less. Within it is the assumption that you will eventually be running on the other side of the wall, or in other words...you will not be able to push it back to the 5 hr point, so why go to the point of extreme fatigue (in training) in vain?
Tigger
While that may sound good, it's not been my experience or the experience of anyone else I know. For those that I know who do run in the 4-5 hour range, whether marathoners or ultramarathoners, those 3+ hour runs are not in vain at all, but are essential to teach the body how to deal with glycogen depletion, are essential for learning what works and what doesn't from the point of view of supplementation and to deal with the pounding for those long hours on the road, etc. Yes, it requires longer recovery time, so you might be doing those 3+ hour runs every other week or even every third week, but it is possible to learn to avoid that "bonk" even when running 5 hours, IF you have practice with those 3+ or 4+ hour long runs. It just doesn't make to me both from experience and from the viewpoint of physiology (yes, I know who listens to anyone who knows physiology  ) to do no more than 3 hours in training - and I've even heard some say no more than 2 hours - then expect your body to be ready to handle 5 hours in a race. So I would like to know how much experience those who suggest it have in training someone successfully to complete a 5 hour marathon (and that means to finish without those horrible staggering to the finish walking/limping the last few miles "finishes") using no more than 3 hour runs in training. I know it doesn't work for my husband or myself or anyone else that I know, and it doesn't make intuitive sense to me, but yet, I keep seeing that advice, albeit it comes from people for whom a 3 hour run is well over 20 miles. I'm not trying to be argumentative, it's just that the advice to keep long runs to no more than 3 hours is so contrary to my own experience and that of others I know, which is that getting at least as close as possible to time that will be spent, if not the total distance, certainly seems to be vital to an anywhere near positive experience in the marathon itself, so I would like to know how many 5 hour marathoners have really had success using only 3 hour training runs.
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 08:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by maryt:
While that may sound good, it's not been my experience or the experience of anyone else I know. For those that I know who do run in the 4-5 hour range, whether marathoners or ultramarathoners, those 3+ hour runs are not in vain at all, but are essential to teach the body how to deal with glycogen depletion, are essential for learning what works and what doesn't from the point of view of supplementation and to deal with the pounding for those long hours on the road, etc. Yes, it requires longer recovery time, so you might be doing those 3+ hour runs every other week or even every third week, but it is possible to learn to avoid that "bonk" even when running 5 hours, IF you have practice with those 3+ or 4+ hour long runs. It just doesn't make to me both from experience and from the viewpoint of physiology (yes, I know who listens to anyone who knows physiology ) to do no more than 3 hours in training - and I've even heard some say no more than 2 hours - then expect your body to be ready to handle 5 hours in a race. [/QUOTE] I agree with Mary. Actually I recall Renato Canova saying something similar on letsrun, that running long runs for time isn't a good idea for the marathon because the distance is 26 miles for everyone regardless of time, and you need to be prepared to run 26 miles whether it takes a little over 2 hours or a little over 5 hours. My experience has been the same. In 2002, shortly after I had taken up running again after a 7 year break from ages 25-32, I ran a 40:36 10km and a week later a 3:10 marathon off of about 30-40 miles a week ( I might have peaked at 45 but that was the most ), but I did run a couple of 22 milers in training and several 18-20 miler runs. Despite the low mileage, my marathon time was just about what you'd expect based on my 10k. Last year I was up to 60-70 mpw and ran a 35:37 10k and then 3 weeks later a 3:07 marathon. Both races were on the same courses in similar condition to what I ran in '02. Last year, though I only ran one 20 miler and 3 30k runs in the marathon buildup. I even ran a 1:59 30km race ( 2:47 marathon pace ) 8 weeks out from the marathon and had no trouble with the distance but once I got over 30k in the marathon I bonked dramatically. Similar thing this year, too, although I did get up to 22 miles once in training and the conditions at Boston may have had a lot to do with it. I ran a 1:21 half in March and faded to a 3:08 in Boston. The lack of long runs is the only difference I can pinpoint as to why my marathon times are so poor relative to my other races, despite running about double the mileage I ran in 2002.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 08:52 AM
Sounds like I openned up a can of worm...? ;o)I said 3 hours mainly because of the fatigue factor--it's a lot of pounding! If we try to apply a certain rule, say 22 mile run for the marathon (26), would someone training for a 50-mile race train up to 42 miles; and 50 miles for a 100km runner? How about a 24-hour run? They certainly can, and they might, but I would be a bit more conservative. I guess we all go back to the original topic and the original title of this thread. The truth about mileage is that there's no truth to it. Psychology plays a big part in training a human being. It's probably more benefitial to apply physiologically incorrect training method if one truly believes in it than try to do something correct but not so sure about. I'm not saying going beyond 3 hours is right or wrong; but when it comes down to it, it's what YOU think works best for you. I personally wouldn't have 4 weeks between the final long run till the actual marathon, but when my wife ran her first marathon, she took 4 weeks simply because she didn't think she could recover in less time. It seems the previous poster "knows" that 3 hours is not enough for her and her husband. Well, by all mean, the hell with what I say! Seriously. I helped one runner who did 5:05 and 3 hours was fine with her (and she didn't even walk!). I'm advising one 4:20 guy and we'll see if does alright this fall. The more I help "slower" runners, the more it may reveal that I'm wrong. Well, then I'll correct my thinking and move on. But I just feel, particularly slower runners because they tend to land harder on their feet, it's awful lot of pounding they'd have to take before the actual marathon. That's all. Someone else mentioned something about "time limitation of 3-hours"??? Once again, it is by NO mean limitation at all. Halberg train up to 30 miles as a 5000m runner (I sure hope it took him more than 3 hours!). Seko would go 50 miles at 7-minute pace. I know of a Japanese woman who was a sub 2:30 marathon runner in the early 90s who went extreme of LSD (Long SLOW Distance) and used to train up to 6 hours on weekend (not every weekend!). Come to think of it, back to what's actually written in that RT article, the author kept saying this "break away from conventional thinking..." Actually, that's exactly what Lydiard did, isn't it? People thought running 20 miles a week is plenty. He went out and tried 250 miles a week and figured it was too much. He "settled" with 100; still quite a bit in those days. It worked. Koide talks a lot about that. "People thought Zatopek trained a lot. Today even a woman trains more..." But somehow when people with a small heart talk about "break away from traditional thinking", it goes backward. "Why train 100 miles a week when you can get away with 60? Or why not 40?" Koide is looking at, "Why not 200?" So basically, yeah, the hell with what I said about 3-hours "rule". Why not 4-hours? Or even 5-hours? Who knows, you might have a break-through and run 3:30! Seriously!!! And then we might know some "truth" to mileage.
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 09:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
Sounds like I openned up a can of worm...? ;o)I said 3 hours mainly because of the fatigue factor--it's a lot of pounding! If we try to apply a certain rule, say 22 mile run for the marathon (26), would someone training for a 50-mile race train up to 42 miles; and 50 miles for a 100km runner? How about a 24-hour run? They certainly can, and they might, but I would be a bit more conservative.
I think a lot of the crowd (not all) in the 4 1/2 hour and upwards marathon times approach training as more endurance events than races, taking a lot of breaks in training runs, refueling, etc. Most traditional plans leverage that long run as the key part of training and the whole thing is designed to get you through that distance standing upright. Still different from running a lot of miles and doing longish runs regularly (multiple times a week) particularly for those that purely run as opposed to run/walk/rest/whatever. Few people put the marathon within their limits, it's almost always at or beyond their limits of conditioning. I think the best runners are the ones that run so much it becomes as natural as walking.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 09:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Brian McN:
...if someone comes to me for advice I'd like to be able to tell them why going beyond the three hour mark would not be beneficial for them.
Just to clarify; I wouldn't say it's "not beneficial". I'd go "cautiously" if anyone would go beyond 3 hours (because of the fatigue and pounding factor). Don't get me wrong; I've gone up to 3:40 and I was running at 7-minute pace! I've gone up to 30 miles (one shot, not a week!) and I wasn't even training for a marathon. I know people would hate me for saying this and this really sounds egotistic and arrogant; but if you're running 4 hours every other week or every 3 weeks and barely running the marathon in 5 hours (and IF your goal is actually to improve upon your marathon performance instead of simply surviving it), I'd re-analyze your program. My wife ran 3:54 in her first marathon on 25MPW training (or thereabout). She started "jogging" after college; she loves to run and just goes out and runs whenever. She constantly beats people who train more than double of what she runs. "If I train like them," she claims, "I'd expect 3:15." She goes up 3 hours once for her marathon preparation. I did the same thing with the first-timer last year and she did 3:40. I'm doing the same thing with this Mexican guy and we'll find out this fall. He ran 54 minutes 10k previously. He just did 1:44 for half. He goes out for 2-hours on weekend. He's a big guy and had some foot problems so I'm a bit concerned... I'm curious to see what Tinman thinks. I believe you have experience coaching ultra guys??? My little experience with the ultra guys is when I was in NZ in the 80s; I went out for a 3-hour run with this ultra runner who just finished a 24-hour NZ championships a few months earlier. "We usually train up to 3-hours," he said. "We don't go much beyond that." I guess that's my "prejudice"... I'm also curious with Canova's comment though... I see his point but I also know, with my limited knowledge of the man, where he was talking about 2:07 guy vs. 2:12 guy... I wonder if he actually meant someone who is a 5:05 runner, or 3:05 for that matter. Actually this brings me back to one other comment which actually Kim answered. A long run. There's a specific purpose for a long runs. Lydiard said, and he referes to German reserach, that; if you exercise a certain muscle group for a long period of time continuously, particularly 2 hours or more, you'll develop capillary beds around that muscle group very quickly. You'd need that capillary beds aorund the working muscles. So it does pay to have those 2-hour long runs, or at least come close to 2-hours. If it's taxing, make it every other week. It would be probably better to do 2-hour run and 1-hour run alternatively (over the weekend, that is) than 1:30 every weekend.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 10:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
My wife ran 3:54 in her first marathon on 25MPW training (or thereabout).
I'm glad to see you dispel the myth threat pervades around here that low mileage training is for people who "just want to finish".
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 11:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
I'm also curious with Canova's comment though... I see his point but I also know, with my limited knowledge of the man, where he was talking about 2:07 guy vs. 2:12 guy... I wonder if he actually meant someone who is a 5:05 runner, or 3:05 for that matter.
I believe his comment was regarding people of varied abilities and not just the elites that he coaches. However, as far as I know, he has very little if any experience in actually coaching average runners. So maybe he's wrong. Maybe some people in the the 4-5 hour category can run a max of 3 hours in training and still cruise through the last few miles of their marathons. Personally, out of about 10 marathons, the only one where I ran anywhere close to an equivalent performance compared to my times in shorter events was the time I did the most and furthest long runs in training, and Maryt's comments rang true to me. But who knows, I don't pretend to have the marathon figured out just yet. :o)
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 01:51 PM
Thanks Nobby,It is interesting how when you run slower you do take more of a beating. Sometimes I will do a fast 20 mile progression run and feel no ill effects from it whereas when I run slower for 20 I will feel the pounding for days after. Both runs serve a different purpose for me and both are important in my schedule.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 02:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nobby:
[b]My wife ran 3:54 in her first marathon on 25MPW training (or thereabout).
I'm glad to see you dispel the myth threat pervades around here that low mileage training is for people who "just want to finish".[/B][/QUOTE] I wasn't quite sure of the tone whether you were being sarcastic or serious...;o) Her goal for the first marathon was to finish; then if possible break 4 hours. I'd say she trained "the Lydiard Way" based on what she wanted to do and her situation and environment. She would run 1:45~3:00 on weekend and ran 2~4 miles a couple of times during the week. I think she did get up to about 18 miles??? She has since run 3:47 on basically the same pattern; but she actually improved her 5~8k times more. Is she "genetically gifted"? I don't know, but if she was, I guess she should be able to run more mileage??? ;o) She doesn't have much desire to get down to 3:30 or faster for the marathon; nor does she have any desire to train 6 days a week. How do you play "desire" with "talent"? The point is; as she always refers to, if you are currently training 40, 50, 60 miles a week; yet still hanging around 4:00~5:00 range, maybe you want to take a look at the program. Unless of course some people have no desire to improve their performance anyways... That's perfectly fine too. Coaching is an art form; it's not a number game. You need to know that as well but that's only a half of it. Nakamura used to say that coaching an athlete is like spinning a thread wheel (or whatever else you may call it). You may get very very thin; but as long as it's not cut, it's okay. But if it gets too thin and you put too much pressure, it'll cut. Once it's cut, it's cut. 10000 X 1 is still 10000. But 100000000 X 0 is 0. Motivation and how you get athletes pumped up and excited about it is really a key to the whole thing. I think I digressed...
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 02:39 PM
Firstly, I want to say to you guys who run Marathons in 5 hrs. I admire you. How you can stay on your feet that long I don't know !!!!
Next : I would like to hit this from another angle.I don't want to get into the 2hr V 3hr run discussion as each has its merit.
However, I am a "Long run" advocate as many of you will have noticed from the various threads.
BUT One thing I have noticed with US running and it is happening here too. Is this fascination with running Marathons and only marathons.
My own background (as most other kiwis from the 50s,60s,70s, and 80s,) is all sorts of racing from Cross Country to track.
I feel that the mixture of racing various distances contributes to marathons.
I came from the Bill Baillie school of Lydiard. Bill had placed in every NZ Champs from 800m to the marathon.
I have run a Provincial Champs over 800m in March and run a Marathon in April without a problem.
The one and only Jack Foster loved Cross Country and only ran marathons because he noted he was "good at them".I have a relative who decided she would run a marathon she trained really well and cranked out a 3:30. Good stuff. Came back the next year and ran 3:30. Came back a 3rd year and ran 3;30. Oh Yes! Did I mention she came back a 4th year and ran 3:30.
From year one she did not vary her training at all. Each week of the year mirrored the previous years Training.
I tried so hard to get her very her training and to race some other distances. Particularly 5 and 10 k's which were in abundance at the time..
She would not ("They hurt too much !!"). Finally in her 4th year she did some Womens fun runs over 10k. But by that stage she had lost interest and was getting niggling injuries. How many of you are in the Marathon only boat ???
It may pay to look at some other areas as well. Cheers
------------------
Run easy, Run long
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 03:07 PM
Kim,Compared to other race distances I prefer the Marathon. When I run a 5k and have a bad day I can recover and run well the next week. I love putting it on the line with the Marathon. The recovery is long and there is no coming back next week. When you hit one really well there is no bigger thrill for me because of what is at stake.
That being said I've got myself involved in other things like mountain running and this year an ultra trail run. I like when the challenge is big.
Yes, for me those 5k's hurt so much more. I'd way rather run at a high aerobic pace for a couple of hours than put myself into O2 debt for a few minutes. I love how you can relax and actually enjoy the first half of the race in the Marathon
I know what you mean though about people in the US with the Marathon. I'm not sure where it all started. Marathon runners are getting slower. I think because people are content to take it on as a challenge just to finish and the masses here are not really serious about running. They do the Marathon to feel good about themselves and to get back into shape. I think it is great what they do and I really don't think it takes away from the sport the way some feel it does. There are others who train to be the best they can be at the distance and others that fall somewhere in between.
There really is only a small minority of people willing to train to their potential.
Thank you for your insight on Foster's training. He was another amazing runner that got it together later in life than others like Campbell. I love hearing the personal accounts, keep them coming. Man, it must be late in NZ.
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 03:17 PM
That didn't sound right I meant to say that Foster ran well later in life like John Campbell also did.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 03:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
I wasn't quite sure of the tone whether you were being sarcastic or serious...;o)
No I was serious. I ran 3:56 aged 44 on less than 27 mpw 8 months after I started running and followed that with a 3:48 7 weeks later. Both were within a minute of my target and on each occasion I ran negative splits. I realize that I need to build a solid base to improve and suspect that I could run 3:20 with optimal training. Thanks for all your input Nobby. I've actually copied a lot of it in to a word document for future reference.
------------------
Me
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 03:47 PM
Perhaps kinda sorta getting back on track... Just got a track & field magazine from Japan. Was reading it over coffee and couldn't help but chip in a bit (aren't you guys lucky! With me, you can get some off-the-wall idea from Far East without understanding the chicken scribble--I said, that; you didn't--and some old timer stories from Down Under from Kim!!!).There's an interview with Okutani, who finished, what, 4th in 2:08 something at last year's Fukuoka and now training on his way to Osaka. He is 32 years old (I think), had some ups and downs in his career. He revealed some of his training there. He would have a couple of weeks of what they call training camps (running for a corporate team) and his daily training would be: 20km in the morning in 100 minutes; 30km in 150 minutes mid-day; 24km in 120 minutes in the evening... Everyday, he would run 60km +/- for a week or so (though not to exceed 1200~1300km a month). He said in 2003, he did nothing but jogging for 3 months and then moved on to speed training for a month (seen some similar training pattern somewhere?) and ran 10000m PR. "I just don't have the talent other runners have," he says. "The only way I can get ahead is to train harder and smarter." He continues, "With so many running 2:05 and 2:06 in the rest of the world, people are focusing speed. But I think it's wrong. You need the base to let the best speed that you've got come alive." Incidentally, I heard the same comment from John Walker. I would love to show that RT article to Japanese runners and coaches. They would probably think, "Days of Shorter and Rodgers are gone. We will not be beaten by American runners for a while..." Even great Seko thought he was genetically NOT talented and the only way to compete up against the rest of the world is to train harder (basically, more). And he did. [This message has been edited by Nobby (edited May-02-2007).]
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 04:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by maryt:
so I would like to know how many 5 hour marathoners have really had success using only 3 hour training runs.
I do not consider a 5 hr marathon to be a success.
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted May-02-2007 05:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
I do not consider a 5 hr marathon to be a success.
Then don't run one...
IP: Logged |
 |
