posted May-07-2007 12:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
That article also contained the words " lactic threshold myth."

If it's a myth, then why are so many great runners training at threshold?

---

Because it's a myth they believe in?

IP: Logged

posted May-07-2007 12:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runfastcoach:
If I had a 27:38 10k runner in my stable who ran just 2:14 in the marathon, I'd be embarrassed. Bad training and pacing causes poor racing!

Word has it Ritz is doing more mileage than ever before (something like 130+ per week), so that probably will correct mistakes made before. And, he is getting Nike therapy, so that will help him.

Note: It won't be sea-level training in Eugene that takes away the injuries. Maybe Ritz thinks it was altitude that caused him the injuries, but that's fishing in the dark. More likely, it has been training errors - like running too fast on a daily basis that caused the problems. I have no doubt, Ritz is Ritz's problem - meaning he is like a wild stallion who runs on emotion and can't be controlled. Talented but tough to tame!

The one thing good about Ritz upping his mileage is the simple fact that he'll have to slow down to do it. And, that will possibly help him get rid of those structural breakdowns he's had before. If he tries to run 130-140 miles per week fast, he'll be out with an injury again. It won't take long for him to figure out that he'll have to slow down!

And, one more thing, Brad, like Nic Bideau, has only copied training ideas from other coaches. Sure, most coaches do that, but for anyone to think Brad or Nic is revolutionary is simply wrong. Both have very talented runners who they got lucky to acquire.

Ritz, Torres, Hartman and the like were fast distance runners before Brad dealt with them. Same goes for the athletes Bideau has acquired - heck, Mottram ran 4:04 in the mile off his triathlon training - his first track race, ever.

Both of those coaches have contacted me for training information. They sure aren't doing anything that a coach like Wetmore, Lannana, Schumacher or McDonnell couldn't do if they had similar talented runners show up at their doorstep. Bideau uses almost exclusively Alan Storey's training method (the coach of Paula Radcliffe) and Hudson uses Renata Canova's method.

Tinman

---

Excellent.

Some coaches don't believe in altitude training. Is altitude a necessity?

IP: Logged

posted May-07-2007 01:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredurie:
That article also contained the words " lactic threshold myth."

If it's a myth, then why are so many great runners training at threshold?

---

It's just a matter of terminology. No matter what they're calling it these days, it's an effective intensity at which to train.

IP: Logged

posted May-07-2007 02:21 PM               

IP: Logged

posted May-07-2007 02:33 PM               

I have had this discussion with my students in the last few days about "Lifestyle and trainability" as we have an English kid in one of my classes. He noted that when he came out for his first PE class he saw all the Kiwi kids in Bare feet. My first assignment was 'Jog for 10 minutes" He noted that the kiwi kids "Just did it ". He did as well, but noted the ease at which the kids did so and also the fact that they were in bare feet. he had never done that in his life > he is 16 years old.
Lifestyle is really important and those foundation years are really important.
Sadly. even here in NZ we are becomimg more of a sedentary society (Xbox rules !!!) and only last year the Government Legislated "compulsory PE" for Elementary School kids (It is already Compulsory in High School)

------------------
Run easy, Run long

IP: Logged

posted May-07-2007 02:35 PM               

I have had this discussion with my students in the last few days about "Lifestyle and trainability" as we have an English kid in one of my classes. He noted that when he came out for his first PE class he saw all the Kiwi kids in Bare feet. My first assignment was 'Jog for 10 minutes" He noted that the kiwi kids "Just did it ". He did as well, but noted the ease at which the kids did so and also the fact that they were in bare feet. he had never done that in his life > he is 16 years old.
Lifestyle is really important and those foundation years are really important.
Sadly. even here in NZ we are becomimg more of a sedentary society (Xbox rules !!!) and only last year the Government Legislated "compulsory PE" for Elementary School kids (It is already Compulsory in High School)

------------------
Run easy, Run long

IP: Logged

posted May-07-2007 05:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Mary:

That's a load of crap. You improved from not being able to complete a lap around the track to running 5 hours!? If that's not improvement, I don't know what is... Heck, I've never run that long before!

---

My statement was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek. Yes, I progressed a very long way, and that was really my point. Since it took me way way longer than most of the people I trained with, and I had to build up way more gradually, I'm wondering if a short term study might have come to the conclusion that I was in the "untrainable" group because of how long it took to respond or because I wouldn't have responded at all to a program that tried to build up mileage or distance more quickly. Or to put it another way, I also wonder if maybe the "untrainable" people might be people like myself, who take a long time to recover but really can be trained, IF the training is very gradually increased over a much longer period of time than is required for the more obviously "trainable" folks.

So, there might be some of us who have a lot harder time and make progress more slowly, but just because we aren't endowed with whatever it is that makes it as easy as it appears to be for others to progress, it's still possible to stick with it regardless, not give up even if progress is painstaking slow - and improve nevertheless.

[This message has been edited by maryt (edited May-07-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-07-2007 09:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by maryt:
quote:So, there might be some of us who have a lot harder time and make progress more slowly...

---

maryt,

There has been quite a bit of research on trainability - enough to say that there is a broad range in response to training. Some respond a lot, some much less. Some respond fast, some quite a bit slower. People have individual talents and ability to adapt to training. In case you are interested in the research I reviewed it in a 3 part series titled How Much Can You Improve

In light of these facts I suggest that one training program does not fit all; that one training program doesn't even come close to fitting all. I suggest that the range of optimal training load is likely to be very broad because the range of response to training is quite broad. It just doesn't make sense that someone who responds poorly or slowly to training (i.e. poor trainability) would benefit from the same training load as someone who responds quickly and a lot to training.

------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com

IP: Logged

posted May-07-2007 10:35 PM               

Do I think it is necessary to reach the world class level? Probably not, but once again, it depends upon the person. For Jim Ryun, training at altitude made him run faster at sea level. For another next elite guy, it may not have worked at all. That's according to Jack Daniels, who did a lot of the first research in America on elite runners training at altitude. I trust Jack on this one. He is an expert on altitude training!

I've lived at both sea level, medium altitude (elevation), and high altitude. Medium altitude was the best training situation for me. It was difficult for me at medium elevation, but tolerable. High altitude (I lived at about 8,000 feet and trained on trails going higher than that) was great for my blood chemistry ( I had a 16.8 ng/dl for hemoglobin as a result, which is quite high) but it was horrible for me in terms of being able to run fast at sea level. I simply lost all my ability to run a fast sustained pace.

I believe that an aspring runner should try moderate altitude to see it does help him or her. If there is no change in performance at sea level, despite wise training at altitude, then don't stay at altitude. Some runners, by the way, if they could afford it, would be wise to alternate time at sea level and time at altitude. I think 3-4 weeks of altidue, alternated with 6-8 weeks of sea-level training is perfect.

Regards,

Tinman

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 02:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
In light of these facts I suggest that one training program does not fit all; that one training program doesn't even come close to fitting all. I suggest that the range of optimal training load is likely to be very broad because the range of response to training is quite broad. It just doesn't make sense that someone who responds poorly or slowly to training (i.e. poor trainability) would benefit from the same training load as someone who responds quickly and a lot to training.

---

You are drawing a conclusion that isn't supported by the observations, just your own bias. If somebody responds poorly/slowly then maybe they just have to be more patient in increasing the stimulus whether that be overall mileage volume, speedwork, hills, etc.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't try these things or have some set limit they will never train above. If that were so, then most new runners would stop after running their first 400 meters as they find themselves out of breath, about to keel over, so obviously their maximum training load is 1x400m...

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 06:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
Let's say you work up to where you can do fifteen mile runs at even a 9:00 pace. I don't mean as a once in a lifetime workout that leaves you shuffling for days afterward, but as something you can do weekly and still have a normal run in the next day or two. That takes two and a half hours. Now you're running your marathon. You run your normal 9:00 pace for the first fifteen miles and squeeze another three miles at that pace out of yourself what with the excitement of the race and all. So you're at 18 miles in 2:57 and the bottom falls out. If you just walk to the finish at four miles per hour you'll be under five hours and if you manage to walk for five minutes and run for one the rest of the way you'll likely be comfortably under five hours.
Ok, you'd rather train on that one semi-weekly four to five hour run programs anyway. That's no problem. I just want to get it into the public domain that such an approach is NOT conducive to someone's best performance though it obviously will allow them to finish.

---

OK, You have GOT to be kidding. Are you really saying you think it's preferable for slower people like myself to train to start out fast for the first 15, then push it to 18, and when their legs give out, walk the last 8??? And you think that would result in finishing comfortably under 5 hours? Are you out of your mind!?! Start fast for the first 15, push yourself to 18, where your legs will give out and you have to walk - just so you can avoid ever running over 2 1/2 hours in training??? You think that's a good idea, and would advise someone to keep to a 7 day training cycle and not go to a 14 day cycle with alternating medium long runs with longer runs (over 2 1/2 hours) that would enable one to learn to run 22 mile runs in training so they could finish the whole marathon without bonking?

One, it doesn't address those really unpleasant surprises when you haven't trained to be running as long a time as you will be out on the course. Like the fact some of us need extra electrolytes for those extra hours. Not knowing that, because you have limited yourself to your maximum 2 1/2 hours can land you in a med tent or hospital.

Have you ever seen people who need to walk when the bottom falls out? For several years we were volunteers at mile 24 of our local marathon. The people who are walking aren't walking 15 minutes miles - not counting the Galloway followers who do run walk from the start - that's a whole different story. When "the bottom falls out" as you put it, your legs cramp, and you can't walk a 15 minute mile, it's more like a staggering a 20+ minute mile in pain the whole way. At least that's what happens to me when I try to go more than 10-20% farther than I've run before. That's what happened to my husband when he didn't get his 20+ training runs in and just kept to 18 as his longest run - in fact, his pretty much the training regimen you described. Went from being a 4 hour marathoner to much slower that one, when the bottom fell at at 21, and while he finished considerably under 5 hours, comfortably doesn't come close to describing his finish.

So, you bet your life I would advise people to use the training programs like those devised by Higdon, and do semi-weekly four to five hour runs if that's what it takes to get to 20+ miles, rather than arbitrarily stop at 2 1/2 hours every week, then die at 15-18 and walk the rest of the way! For that matter, if you are OK with that much walking, much better to go with a Galloway program and walk a little each mile from the start. One of my friends turneed to that method to qualify for Boston, and she doesn't limit her long runs to 2 1/2 hours for sure.

An added advantage of doing the long runs every other week, rather than evey week, is not only can you get up to those 20+ mile runs even if they do take over 3 hours, but you can also put in some short races the "off" weeks. I think Pfitzinger advises some races while marathon training in his programs, rather than just doing weekly long runs every single week. The alternate weeks for longest runs allows you to get in some racing practice the "off" week, and some of my fastest 10Ks of the season have been during marathon buildup periods.

[This message has been edited by maryt (edited May-08-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 08:49 AM               

In Japan, we really can't afford, in most part, to do high altitude training. There are a few spots now that try to do it but just simply not high enough to have any impact. The only place equivalent to Mexico City or Boulder, etc. would be in the middle of Mt. Fuji, I believe, and it's a 2km stretch and the runner would have to run up and down and up and down... But many of you would know many of them come to Boulder or New Mexico (Alb...what? What the heck kind of spelling is it? Certainly not foreigner-friendly...!) or China (Kun-min, is it?). In fact, quite a few go there. Interestingly, most of them are women. Majority of them are women.

Koide has a house in Boulder and he stays there with his runners for 3 months at a time. When you go to his house there, you'll see a whole bunch of Japanese videos/DVD. It's a long time to be away from home--let alone foreign country. When I spoke with coach Sakaguchi who has 5 sub-2:10 marathon runners on his team about altitude, he said the biggest problem is home-sick. His team is a men's team and most of them have family. He feels 1 month is not long enough to gain substantial altitude benefit; so instead his team would go to Nelson, NZ (very hilly) for a month and run 3 times a day, 60 minutes in the morning, 90 minutes mid-day and 60 minutes in the evening.

We are dealing with a human being with feelings. The best training program in the world and the best training facility in the world is not going to do any good if the athlete doesn't feel good about it. Kitajima, a breastroke gold medalist, trains in Arizona (I got brain dead...that city where Greg McMillan and Jack Daniels are...) but he had the hardest time in the first time he went there simply because he was homesick--his training went well but he couldn't eat! He was a young boy of 17 or 18 then and since been adjusted.

And as for science, there certainly seems to be the right height as well. Dick Quax, one of the early pioneer of altitude training, told me that he came and trained in Boulder and set the world record. So next year he went up to Vail and ran like crap.

Lydiard used to say high altitude training is over-rated. I really don't think he had enough exposure to high altitude; Koide swears by it (and swears high altitude tent doesn't work). But Arthur's point was; if you are marathon-trained, you can achieve just as good of aerotic capacity as going up. Maybe not quite but to him, it was one of those things that people are seeking a short cut. Without fully marathon condition themselves, they think they can get away with running 100 miles a week, by going up. Arthur tolerated that kind of attitude. Regardless of where you live, you still gotta do the running. Wonder what he would have said about the idea of increasing your blood oxygen carrying capacity by sleeping in a tent...???

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 08:53 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
The truth about higher mileage is that it enables one to run faster. Today I ran a goal HM in 1:57:23, achieving a PR of almost 2 min 30 sec over my previous HM PR back in 2002. Significant differences...

1) Mileage up about 15% on avg over the past 18 months.
2) Weight about the same as the last PR, but down about 8% over the past 6 months.
3) Other than one 5k race, nothing was faster than threshold pace.
4) Lots of hills, including two long runs (27 km) on a 4k hill with about 1300 ft of elevation change.
5) Generally, long runs in the 2 hr range, with max at 3 hrs for the 27 km hill runs. Mid week runs were up to 1:45 or so. Recovery runs were 35 min or less at a very slow pace. Sometimes 4/1 run/walk. (Good heavens! Did I actually admit that?) Threshold runs were 20 min to 45 min at around 85% of MHR, rising to 90% towards the end of the longer runs.

Qualitatively....I felt like I could go forever, but didn't seem to have high gear. I expected that, due to the lack of VO2 work, but I had never experienced it before. Legs just would not turn over fast enough to get into high gear.

For the next race I think I will add some rep sessions in the final month, or perhaps three or so 5k races. That should get me another minute or two off the new PR.

---

Hey tigger, nice job in the race. And your daughter snagged first in her a/g, that's purdy good running.

Yes, you need some racing to get that leg speed up. I've found that speedwork helps a lot, but there's no substitute for some well-timed races.

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 10:03 AM               

[This message has been edited by rengle (edited May-08-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 12:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
The Law of Diminishing Returns comes into play in pretty much anything we do and running is no exception. Increase your long run from an hour to an hour and a half and you'll make huge improvements in fitness. Increase it from an hour and a half to two hours and you'll improve even more, but not as much as you did after the first increase. Go to two and half hours and you may improve some more, but the improvement will be even less and this will go on until the improvements will stop. At that stage, it's time to work on something else.

---

Thanks, folks...

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 01:52 PM               

I wouldn't try to ramp up the pace for the whole run. I've done that and it's a killer after a while. What I'd do is work the shorter end of your long runs. Let go of the three hour runs for a while, do two hour runs. They should naturally be at a faster pace than your three hour runs would be. Once you're settled in with a faster (most of the time, there are always ups and downs), you could extend them to two and a half.
You could also pick up the pace for the last half hour or so, but that isn't really picking up your overall pace.

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 02:21 PM               

One line that I read that sort of bothered me; I'm, by no mean, "No pain, no gain" kind of a guy; but I look at athletics or running a marathon or whatever the endevour you choose to do in life as a challenge. Sometimes the harder it is, the more rewarding the outcome would be. My girl and I just did some drills on track yesterday. It was, just when we were working out, pouring rain and some of the exercises were so tough that we just couldn't bring our legs up (has any of you tried Lydiard's "striding"?). My butts are so sore today I could hardly sit on a toilet seat! But we were laughing, soaking wet. I don't see that as pain; yet, you need to go through some barrier. Running a marathon, to me, is NOT something you do comfortably. One of my favorite lines in the movies is from "Leagues of Their Own". In it, Tom Hanks says something like; "It's supposed to be hard. If it's not hard, everybody's doing it." I thnk marathoning is becoming that. We praise anybody who "finish" is a winner and all those classes are teaching people to "finish it comfortably". Running for 5 hours itself IS a challenge, yes. But where do we go from there? You want to stay there; fine. But to me life is not staying where you are and remain there. It's comfortable to stay in a small town and stay there; but I jumped out and went to Australia and New Zealand and USA. It opened up horizen and I learnt a lot. People like to be comfortable; they want to stay where they are. And that's why we have so many "mileage junkies". It's easy to go, pardon me for saying this, 2 hours or 3 hours or even 4 hours if you simply keep it slow. Running fast hurts more. But if you want to run faster, there's no way around it. There's only so much you improve by doing the same thing over and over and over.

If all those marathon programs out there continue to produce the same old 5-hour marathon, I'd put my foot in the mouth and say that there's something wrong with that program. It is, for one, not balanced. Many "novice" people have come to me and help them run their marathon. Many of them follow Higdon's program. Usually I tell them to cut it by 30% (in general, not the duration of the long runs). Even my wife says "If I follow this (I'm talking about the beginner's program), I'd expect 3:30!" Most of whom I've helped, for one, don't have luxury of spending 4 hours every other weekend plus other medium long runs during the week just to "finish the damn thing in 5 hours." I have family and work and have to use my time efficiently. That was one of the reasons why we did one hill session instead of simply long runs.

To be fair, I don't know anything about you, Mary, your back ground; how many marathon's you've run; how many years you've been running, etc. But seriously, I'd hate to say this but, say, if you've been running many years and have run many marathons and been doing speed work and other shorter races and all your marathons be 5-hours; then I'd say there's something wrong with your program. I don't care how popular whatever the program you're following, be it Gallowys or Higdon's or Fultz's, it's not the right one for you. "Speed work" is to make you run faster. If that's not happening, you're doing it wrongly. In general, just by running a lot should make you run faster (as you get fitter). If that's not happening, you're doing something wrong. Just because many people follow it, doesn't make it the right program. I'd say this for the Lydiard's program also. If you don't understand the principles of the program and just following it blindly, and if you're not getting results, it is not the right program.

Again, a problem is, once you write something or publish something, or particularly this day and age, if you put something up in the internet; then you'll become an instant expert. American people love schedules. They don't have to think; they just copy it and follow them. So someone comes along and put a decent looking schedule up on the website, and do a good job promoting themselves; then everybody is going to follow it. Doesn't mean it's good. "But I've finish the marathon," you might say. I'd say, "What progress have you made?" Human body is meant to adapt. This "lack of talent" stuff is the easiest way out; because now science proves why you don't improve. Now you have something else to blame (mother nature) for your lack of improvement. I don't care how slow the person is; I'd rather coach someone who would defy "the rule". So if someone tells you that you suck because you're slow and you will never going to be fast. I'd say the hell with it and we'll get out in the rain and do some drills or run 2 hours through the mud or do endless repeats in the snow storm (well, it was only 5 times...). So if someone with PhD comes along and tells you that you suck; you just go in the corner and be satisfied with where you are? I'd say f%&k that! Go out and prove them wrong. There are plenty of things science can never explain out there. Why not be one of them? What was that Bobbie Kennedy said? "They see things as they are; I see things and say 'Why not?'" Something like that? I love that saying but I don't know the exact line! :-(

[This message has been edited by Nobby (edited May-08-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 02:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:
I suspect I'm at the "time to work on something else" stage, if not overdue for it. My normal weekend long run is 2 to 3 hours. Should I ramp up the pace for the entire run? Continue to start slow but do a fast finish over the last 30-60 minutes? Do it as a pace run every other weekend, or every third weekend, or some such?

Thanks, folks...

---

It all depends on what you've been doing and what you haven't done. I believe in the principles of Lydiardism. It tells you, after you've done conditioning, to go out to do some hills. If you haven't done your "homework", before you start running faster, you might want to consider inserting some hills exercises or run some hilly courses. Otherwise, chances are, you'd run the faster section too fast and get discourage or get injured.

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 02:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Everybody's goal is different. If your goal is to simply survive a marathon regardless of the time, there are many different ways to achieve that. I suspect many training groups, Galloway's and Fultz's and Higdon's included, are geared more toward people who just decided to run one and want to finish one.

One line that I read that sort of bothered me; I'm, by no mean, "No pain, no gain" kind of a guy; but I look at athletics or running a marathon or whatever the endevour you choose to do in life as a challenge. Sometimes the harder it is, the more rewarding the outcome would be. My girl and I just did some drills on track yesterday. It was, just when we were working out, pouring rain and some of the exercises were so tough that we just couldn't bring our legs up (has any of you tried Lydiard's "striding"?). My butts are so sore today I could hardly sit on a toilet seat! But we were laughing, soaking wet. I don't see that as pain; yet, you need to go through some barrier. Running a marathon, to me, is NOT something you do comfortably. One of my favorite lines in the movies is from "Leagues of Their Own". In it, Tom Hanks says something like; "It's supposed to be hard. If it's not hard, everybody's doing it." I thnk marathoning is becoming that. We praise anybody who "finish" is a winner and all those classes are teaching people to "finish it comfortably". Running for 5 hours itself IS a challenge, yes. But where do we go from there? You want to stay there; fine. But to me life is not staying where you are and remain there. It's comfortable to stay in a small town and stay there; but I jumped out and went to Australia and New Zealand and USA. It opened up horizen and I learnt a lot. People like to be comfortable; they want to stay where they are. And that's why we have so many "mileage junkies". It's easy to go, pardon me for saying this, 2 hours or 3 hours or even 4 hours if you simply keep it slow. Running fast hurts more. But if you want to run faster, there's no way around it. There's only so much you improve by doing the same thing over and over and over.

If all those marathon programs out there continue to produce the same old 5-hour marathon, I'd put my foot in the mouth and say that there's something wrong with that program. It is, for one, not balanced. Many "novice" people have come to me and help them run their marathon. Many of them follow Higdon's program. Usually I tell them to cut it by 30% (in general, not the duration of the long runs). Even my wife says "If I follow this (I'm talking about the beginner's program), I'd expect 3:30!" Most of whom I've helped, for one, don't have luxury of spending 4 hours every other weekend plus other medium long runs during the week just to "finish the damn thing in 5 hours." I have family and work and have to use my time efficiently. That was one of the reasons why we did one hill session instead of simply long runs.

To be fair, I don't know anything about you, Mary, your back ground; how many marathon's you've run; how many years you've been running, etc. But seriously, I'd hate to say this but, say, if you've been running many years and have run many marathons and been doing speed work and other shorter races and all your marathons be 5-hours; then I'd say there's something wrong with your program. I don't care how popular whatever the program you're following, be it Gallowys or Higdon's or Fultz's, it's not the right one for you. "Speed work" is to make you run faster. If that's not happening, you're doing it wrongly. In general, just by running a lot should make you run faster (as you get fitter). If that's not happening, you're doing something wrong. Just because many people follow it, doesn't make it the right program. I'd say this for the Lydiard's program also. If you don't understand the principles of the program and just following it blindly, and if you're not getting results, it is not the right program.

Again, a problem is, once you write something or publish something, or particularly this day and age, if you put something up in the internet; then you'll become an instant expert. American people love schedules. They don't have to think; they just copy it and follow them. So someone comes along and put a decent looking schedule up on the website, and do a good job promoting themselves; then everybody is going to follow it. Doesn't mean it's good. "But I've finish the marathon," you might say. I'd say, "What progress have you made?" Human body is meant to adapt. This "lack of talent" stuff is the easiest way out; because now science proves why you don't improve. Now you have something else to blame (mother nature) for your lack of improvement. I don't care how slow the person is; I'd rather coach someone who would defy "the rule". So if someone tells you that you suck because you're slow and you will never going to be fast. I'd say the hell with it and we'll get out in the rain and do some drills or run 2 hours through the mud or do endless repeats in the snow storm (well, it was only 5 times...). So if someone with PhD comes along and tells you that you suck; you just go in the corner and be satisfied with where you are? I'd say f%&k that! Go out and prove them wrong. There are plenty of things science can never explain out there. Why not be one of them? What was that Bobbie Kennedy said? "They see things as they are; I see things and say 'Why not?'" Something like that? I love that saying but I don't know the exact line! :-(

[This message has been edited by Nobby (edited May-08-2007).]

---

Nobby, you articulated that wonderfully, in a truthful yet respectful way. And you quoted Tom Hanks in a running forum and it wasn't a quote from Forrest Gump!

Thanks for all your insight. I've really enjoyed reading this thread!!!

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 04:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Everybody's goal is different. If your goal is to simply survive a marathon regardless of the time, there are many different ways to achieve that. I suspect many training groups, Galloway's and Fultz's and Higdon's included, are geared more toward people who just decided to run one and want to finish one.

One line that I read that sort of bothered me; I'm, by no mean, "No pain, no gain" kind of a guy; but I look at athletics or running a marathon or whatever the endevour you choose to do in life as a challenge. Sometimes the harder it is, the more rewarding the outcome would be. My girl and I just did some drills on track yesterday. It was, just when we were working out, pouring rain and some of the exercises were so tough that we just couldn't bring our legs up (has any of you tried Lydiard's "striding"?). My butts are so sore today I could hardly sit on a toilet seat! But we were laughing, soaking wet. I don't see that as pain; yet, you need to go through some barrier. Running a marathon, to me, is NOT something you do comfortably. One of my favorite lines in the movies is from "Leagues of Their Own". In it, Tom Hanks says something like; "It's supposed to be hard. If it's not hard, everybody's doing it." I thnk marathoning is becoming that. We praise anybody who "finish" is a winner and all those classes are teaching people to "finish it comfortably". Running for 5 hours itself IS a challenge, yes. But where do we go from there? You want to stay there; fine. But to me life is not staying where you are and remain there. It's comfortable to stay in a small town and stay there; but I jumped out and went to Australia and New Zealand and USA. It opened up horizen and I learnt a lot. People like to be comfortable; they want to stay where they are. And that's why we have so many "mileage junkies". It's easy to go, pardon me for saying this, 2 hours or 3 hours or even 4 hours if you simply keep it slow. Running fast hurts more. But if you want to run faster, there's no way around it. There's only so much you improve by doing the same thing over and over and over.

If all those marathon programs out there continue to produce the same old 5-hour marathon, I'd put my foot in the mouth and say that there's something wrong with that program. It is, for one, not balanced. Many "novice" people have come to me and help them run their marathon. Many of them follow Higdon's program. Usually I tell them to cut it by 30% (in general, not the duration of the long runs). Even my wife says "If I follow this (I'm talking about the beginner's program), I'd expect 3:30!" Most of whom I've helped, for one, don't have luxury of spending 4 hours every other weekend plus other medium long runs during the week just to "finish the damn thing in 5 hours." I have family and work and have to use my time efficiently. That was one of the reasons why we did one hill session instead of simply long runs.

To be fair, I don't know anything about you, Mary, your back ground; how many marathon's you've run; how many years you've been running, etc. But seriously, I'd hate to say this but, say, if you've been running many years and have run many marathons and been doing speed work and other shorter races and all your marathons be 5-hours; then I'd say there's something wrong with your program. I don't care how popular whatever the program you're following, be it Gallowys or Higdon's or Fultz's, it's not the right one for you. "Speed work" is to make you run faster. If that's not happening, you're doing it wrongly. In general, just by running a lot should make you run faster (as you get fitter). If that's not happening, you're doing something wrong. Just because many people follow it, doesn't make it the right program. I'd say this for the Lydiard's program also. If you don't understand the principles of the program and just following it blindly, and if you're not getting results, it is not the right program.

Again, a problem is, once you write something or publish something, or particularly this day and age, if you put something up in the internet; then you'll become an instant expert. American people love schedules. They don't have to think; they just copy it and follow them. So someone comes along and put a decent looking schedule up on the website, and do a good job promoting themselves; then everybody is going to follow it. Doesn't mean it's good. "But I've finish the marathon," you might say. I'd say, "What progress have you made?" Human body is meant to adapt. This "lack of talent" stuff is the easiest way out; because now science proves why you don't improve. Now you have something else to blame (mother nature) for your lack of improvement. I don't care how slow the person is; I'd rather coach someone who would defy "the rule". So if someone tells you that you suck because you're slow and you will never going to be fast. I'd say the hell with it and we'll get out in the rain and do some drills or run 2 hours through the mud or do endless repeats in the snow storm (well, it was only 5 times...). So if someone with PhD comes along and tells you that you suck; you just go in the corner and be satisfied with where you are? I'd say f%&k that! Go out and prove them wrong. There are plenty of things science can never explain out there. Why not be one of them? What was that Bobbie Kennedy said? "They see things as they are; I see things and say 'Why not?'" Something like that? I love that saying but I don't know the exact line! :-(

[This message has been edited by Nobby (edited May-08-2007).]

---

Hear, Hear Nobby.

Well said.

It is interesting that even though I have not met Nobby in person (We have communicated extensively) we have come from a similar background of thinking about this whole deal of "Training and Coaching". Yes ! Call it Lydiardism if you like.
I too have limited time and what I look for is "How can we get this athlete going faster". I don't care what their basic ability is as long as they want to run.
I get a huge kick out of watching a runner set personal bests.

I will repeat what I said before. Anyone can improve immensly if they train "properly' or as Tinman says "Optimumly' (Spelling !!!!!)

I am not interested in the "one off's". I have better things to do with my time than get an athlete to run a Marathon just so they can say they did it and then walk away from the sport.

In the last few days I have been contacted by a Coach who is dealing with an athlete who is "struggling' with whether he wants to run or not (This is a National class athlete and place getter).. I know this young man well and have run many miles with him BUT I find that he is very inconsistent and quite often does not turn up for training when a date/time has been set.
The Coach said "Can you have a word with him !"
I am not going to bother. I have a number of athletes beating down my door 'wanting to run and improve'.
This is one thing I learned from Arthur. "Don't waste your time on Dreamers !!"

I hope this does not sound too harsh !!!!!!!!!

Cheers : Kim

------------------
Run easy, Run long

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 04:57 PM            

If the long run is sapping a lot of resources in terms of % of mileage/time or time to recover, it makes sense to me to shift some of the effort to the rest of the week in hopes of making the long run not as hard. If you're X weeks out and feel the need to get the 20's in, it's possible to shift that energy back to the long run. It's possible that focusing so much effort on the long run prevents one from adequately preparing for the long run itself.

Sorry for the musing, it's an interesting question...

Greg

[This message has been edited by gregw (edited May-08-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 05:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Everybody's goal is different. If your goal is to simply survive a marathon regardless of the time, there are many different ways to achieve that. I suspect many training groups, Galloway's and Fultz's and Higdon's included, are geared more toward people who just decided to run one and want to finish one.

One line that I read that sort of bothered me; I'm, by no mean, "No pain, no gain" kind of a guy; but I look at athletics or running a marathon or whatever the endevour you choose to do in life as a challenge. Sometimes the harder it is, the more rewarding the outcome would be. My girl and I just did some drills on track yesterday. It was, just when we were working out, pouring rain and some of the exercises were so tough that we just couldn't bring our legs up (has any of you tried Lydiard's "striding"?). My butts are so sore today I could hardly sit on a toilet seat! But we were laughing, soaking wet. I don't see that as pain; yet, you need to go through some barrier. Running a marathon, to me, is NOT something you do comfortably. One of my favorite lines in the movies is from "Leagues of Their Own". In it, Tom Hanks says something like; "It's supposed to be hard. If it's not hard, everybody's doing it." I thnk marathoning is becoming that. We praise anybody who "finish" is a winner and all those classes are teaching people to "finish it comfortably". Running for 5 hours itself IS a challenge, yes. But where do we go from there? You want to stay there; fine. But to me life is not staying where you are and remain there. It's comfortable to stay in a small town and stay there; but I jumped out and went to Australia and New Zealand and USA. It opened up horizen and I learnt a lot. People like to be comfortable; they want to stay where they are. And that's why we have so many "mileage junkies". It's easy to go, pardon me for saying this, 2 hours or 3 hours or even 4 hours if you simply keep it slow. Running fast hurts more. But if you want to run faster, there's no way around it. There's only so much you improve by doing the same thing over and over and over.

If all those marathon programs out there continue to produce the same old 5-hour marathon, I'd put my foot in the mouth and say that there's something wrong with that program. It is, for one, not balanced. Many "novice" people have come to me and help them run their marathon. Many of them follow Higdon's program. Usually I tell them to cut it by 30% (in general, not the duration of the long runs). Even my wife says "If I follow this (I'm talking about the beginner's program), I'd expect 3:30!" Most of whom I've helped, for one, don't have luxury of spending 4 hours every other weekend plus other medium long runs during the week just to "finish the damn thing in 5 hours." I have family and work and have to use my time efficiently. That was one of the reasons why we did one hill session instead of simply long runs.

To be fair, I don't know anything about you, Mary, your back ground; how many marathon's you've run; how many years you've been running, etc. But seriously, I'd hate to say this but, say, if you've been running many years and have run many marathons and been doing speed work and other shorter races and all your marathons be 5-hours; then I'd say there's something wrong with your program. I don't care how popular whatever the program you're following, be it Gallowys or Higdon's or Fultz's, it's not the right one for you. "Speed work" is to make you run faster. If that's not happening, you're doing it wrongly. In general, just by running a lot should make you run faster (as you get fitter). If that's not happening, you're doing something wrong. Just because many people follow it, doesn't make it the right program. I'd say this for the Lydiard's program also. If you don't understand the principles of the program and just following it blindly, and if you're not getting results, it is not the right program.

Again, a problem is, once you write something or publish something, or particularly this day and age, if you put something up in the internet; then you'll become an instant expert. American people love schedules. They don't have to think; they just copy it and follow them. So someone comes along and put a decent looking schedule up on the website, and do a good job promoting themselves; then everybody is going to follow it. Doesn't mean it's good. "But I've finish the marathon," you might say. I'd say, "What progress have you made?" Human body is meant to adapt. This "lack of talent" stuff is the easiest way out; because now science proves why you don't improve. Now you have something else to blame (mother nature) for your lack of improvement. I don't care how slow the person is; I'd rather coach someone who would defy "the rule". So if someone tells you that you suck because you're slow and you will never going to be fast. I'd say the hell with it and we'll get out in the rain and do some drills or run 2 hours through the mud or do endless repeats in the snow storm (well, it was only 5 times...). So if someone with PhD comes along and tells you that you suck; you just go in the corner and be satisfied with where you are? I'd say f%&k that! Go out and prove them wrong. There are plenty of things science can never explain out there. Why not be one of them? What was that Bobbie Kennedy said? "They see things as they are; I see things and say 'Why not?'" Something like that? I love that saying but I don't know the exact line! :-(

[This message has been edited by Nobby (edited May-08-2007).]

---

Hear, Hear Nobby.

Well said.

It is interesting that even though I have not met Nobby in person (We have communicated extensively) we have come from a similar background of thinking about this whole deal of "Training and Coaching". Yes ! Call it Lydiardism if you like.
I too have limited time and what I look for is "How can we get this athlete going faster". I don't care what their basic ability is as long as they want to run.
I get a huge kick out of watching a runner set personal bests.

I will repeat what I said before. Anyone can improve immensly if they train "properly' or as Tinman says "Optimumly' (Spelling !!!!!)

I am not interested in the "one off's". I have better things to do with my time than get an athlete to run a Marathon just so they can say they did it and then walk away from the sport.

In the last few days I have been contacted by a Coach who is dealing with an athlete who is "struggling' with whether he wants to run or not (This is a National class athlete and place getter).. I know this young man well and have run many miles with him BUT I find that he is very inconsistent and quite often does not turn up for training when a date/time has been set.
The Coach said "Can you have a word with him !"
I am not going to bother. I have a number of athletes beating down my door 'wanting to run and improve'.
This is one thing I learned from Arthur. "Don't waste your time on Dreamers !!"

I hope this does not sound too harsh !!!!!!!!!

Cheers : Kim

------------------
Run easy, Run long

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 05:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregw:
As a former 5-hour marathon (4:49 Oct 05) who just improved to 3:24 last Sunday, I thought I'd put my two cents in. Based on nothing in particular, I think of the long run and what you do during the rest of the week as complimenting each other. I think of using the two of them to bootstrap each other until you can do a significant chunk of the race distance (20+ miles) at a reasonable pace (something like MP + 60-90 second) in reasonable comfort. The first training plan I did just kept me in shape for the next long run survival test (I peaked with 40 mpw, 20 of which was the long run). Next I increased the volume to 60 mpw but kept everything easy. After I did this, 20 miles wasn't a survival test anymore and I was faster just from running more. Next I added some intensity with races, tempo runs, and some occasional intervals (although I'm still not fond of these), and I was able to do the 20-mile long runs even faster than before (a little over 3 hours, which as it turns out was MP + 80 secs), but with about the same effort.

If the long run is sapping a lot of resources in terms of % of mileage/time or time to recover, it makes sense to me to shift some of the effort to the rest of the week in hopes of making the long run not as hard. If you're X weeks out and feel the need to get the 20's in, it's possible to shift that energy back to the long run. It's possible that focusing so much effort on the long run prevents one from adequately preparing for the long run itself.

Sorry for the musing, it's an interesting question...

Greg

[This message has been edited by gregw (edited May-08-2007).]

---

Greg,

Thanks for putting this up. It illustrates what some of us are saying perfectly.

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 05:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kim Stevenson:
It is interesting that even though I have not met Nobby in person (We have communicated extensively) we have come from a similar background of thinking about this whole deal of "Training and Coaching". Yes ! Call it Lydiardism if you like.

---

It is interesting, yes, I have not yet met Kim in person, but what's very interesting, checking out particularly this thread, reading what Kim has to say and/or what Rengle has to say... Yes, all three of us are Lydiard disciples and it's amazing how similar we think! I have to say that the Old Man has done a good job "teaching" us. It really shows that our principles match all along the way of "Lydiardism".

Kim; what we are trying to do with Lydiard Foundation is not just passing along the same old schedule. Any paper can do that. But we are also trying to pass on the Sprint of Arthur Lydiard. He would have not bought into all the crap that's going around nowadays.

IP: Logged

posted May-08-2007 07:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
MaryT,
Though you will never believe this, if you do 2 to 2 1/2 hour runs regularly and you do enough running between the 2 to 2 1/2 hour runs, your pace will get faster as you get fitter, you will have sufficient endurance to run full marathons and the bottom will not fall out if you pace yourself properly.).

---

I ran my first marathon back in the 80's. My own experience back then was that although my 10 K times improved from 12 minute pace to 8 minute pace over 3-4 years with 2 hours runs every week, whenever I tried to increase any of the distance of my races, I always had problems unless I practiced the distance in training , or at least 90% of it. That goes for trying to run a half marathon when my longest run was only 10 miles - even though I had run a 10 mile run every week for several years - and same thing trying to run a 25 K when my longest run was only 13. (Edited to add not just a 10 mile run, of course, there were another 35-40 miles per week thrown in, of a variety of workouts.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
If you can run 15 miles or so comfortably at 9:00 pace, you should be able to get well past 20 miles at, say, 10:00 pace, or maybe 10:30 pace without the bottom falling out and you'll be under five hours.

---

As for me, again, been there, done that, as I reported before which you are either disbelieving or want to ignore. When I had worked up to 15 miles comfortably, I still I had severe problems with cramping, nausea, etc. when I tried going from a couple of comfortable runs at 15 straight to 18. Had to stop at 17. Same trying from 17 to 20. I haven't run a whole lot of marathons, first in 1983, then a 15 year layoff, and another 3 in 1998-2000 - same result each time - needed to build up gradually. So going straight from 15 to 26.2 would have been a recipe for a DNF and likely a trip to med tent or hospital as well. Been there, done that, too, and don't want to repeat it - that's another reason why I would no longer ever attempt any race if I hadn't run at least 80% of the distance beforehand.

Most marathoners I know have found, like my husband, and myself, that their times improve when they run longer long runs, and are worse whem they don't get 20+ mile runs in training. I did improve my times, by the way, but that's beside the point. I'm not so concerned as much with what method someone tries for their second or third marathon or for my own training at this point - my last marathon in 2000 was likely my last marathon. What concerns me is the advice to run no more than 2 hours or even 3 hours in training for a first timer who might be expected to finish in 4-5 hours or even 3 hours, for that matter. Advising someone who will be out there over 4 hours to run a marathon with just running 15 miles in training is not only unreasonable; I think more than that, it's dangerous. You don't know how someone will tolerate not only the stress, but how one's body will handle the dehydration, electrolyte problems, etc. having run so much less than will be run out on the course; if someone has run only 2 to 2 1/2 hours and then will be running for 4 hours or more and never gone through that period of glycogen depletion, the electrolyte problems that usually show up after 3-4 hours and learned IF the body will tolerate them, and if not, taught the body how to handle those stresses by building up gradually.

A gradual buildup to the time at least if not the distance, allows one to know what the experience will be, learn what can be tolerated and what can not not, and learn how to deal with the stresses gradually. Having the longest long runs evey other week, if necessary, allows even slower runners to build up gradually. Maybe some can handle going from 2 hours to 4 hours without a gradual buildup or from 15 miles to 26.2, but some will not, and that's taking an unnecessary risk, in my opinion, as well as being likely to result in a slower overall time than getting those long runs in.

[This message has been edited by maryt (edited May-08-2007).]

IP: Logged