| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
JimR
Cool Runner |
 posted May-14-2007 09:35 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
MaryT asks us both for training advice.
JimR to maryt: "I believe high mileage is best."
R99 to maryt: "I believe some will perform optimally from high mileage and some will perform optimally from much less mileage."
And to address this point, I'd be asking her what her goals are (this is first and foremost with anyone) and what parameters she has to train within and then we'd start to work within that. She may not be interested in what would be optimum (and what's optimum today may not and probably won't be optimum tomorrow) , she may be interested in simply making the most of what she has available to her. Most runners fall within this category, doing what the can with what they have, so truly 'optimum' training is likely out-of-scope. [This message has been edited by JimR (edited May-14-2007).]
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 10:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Our predictions were of no consequence because maryt varied her training over time to figure out what was optimal for her.
Richard: I'd have to go with Jim's last message on this one. As far as I'm concerned, all due respect, I don't think MaryT reached anywhere near conclusion of her "optimum" training load; or "optimum" training program for that matter. Most of us never fulfill our true potential because way too many things get in the way; family, work, social life, or this so-called "belief' on, or lack of, in-born talent. In a way, I'm fianlly finding out my "optimum" training pattern now. Of course, it's a bit too late for my old beaten up body...
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 10:40 PM
Nobby,It was just a very simple example, meant to illustrate the difference between predicting optimal training and how that relates to someone actually taking the time over several years to discover their own individual optimal training load. It was not meant to be even close to complete training advice for maryt or anyone else. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted May-14-2007 10:53 PM
I find this talk of "Optimal" training interesting. Mainly because what is Optimal for me is not Optimal for someone else.
The whole deal is very "individual' and this is where the "Art" of Coaching comes in.
As you can imagine, Some of us feel that Arthur Lydiard was the "Master Artist".
I too love the challenge of finding what suits what athlete. Sometimes it has taken very little time. Other times it has taken more than a year or 2.I mentioned earlier about one of my athletes succeeding with a substantial percentage less mileage than a club mate in norder to get a similar result. It took a year to find what suited that athlete If you met one of my young athetes and asked them what mileage do they run a week they would look at you and say they would not have a clue.
However, if you asked them how many days a week do they run and how their week is constructed they could answer you very easily.
But they would also say that the week depended on how a race may have gone or how a time trial was run or even how tired they are in that particular week.
They may say they need more "easier running" for longer periods or they may say they need more "work on a hilly course.' I have to admit that mostly I have to keep the "reins fairly tight" in order to stop them racing their training. Old story : "Horses for courses"
------------------
Run easy, Run long
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 04:18 AM
Richard:Gotcha. I got suckered in. Language barrier, you know? ;o) Kim: Interesting comment about "weekly mileage". I was reading an interview with Soh brothers (in hopes to find out more about their run around Mt. Egmond--which by the way you could see as Mt. Fuji in the movie, "the Last Samurai") and they said some of the "joggers" might actually run more than them in terms of mileage. Someone way earlier mentioned something about "it's what you do with those mileage that makes the difference". I think way too many people are so hooked with this weekly mileage business. Lydiard has laid out roughly how many miles his runners would run in each phase (in "Run to the Top") but as you move along, mileage becomes less and less relevant. I was out on the track with my girl last night (we had to start working out at 8:00PM!). We were at it for over almost an hour and a half especially because I wanted her to do extra downhill striding because she's responding to this type of workout so well and pikcing up her leg-speed quickly (it is quite depressing to see how much she gains on me in a short span of 50m!). Of course, doing high knee drills, lunges, skipping, and Arthur's infamous "stride-outs", we have NO idea how far we ran; and it doesn't matter at all! There have been many e-mail inquiries, addressing how much mileage drop there should be from, say, conditioning to hill training and track training (Lydiard). It's not something you shoot for; it's something just happens. Of course, as you move onto track schedule, the more easy jogging you can do, the better; which might bump up your mileage a bit. My girl's work schedule was crazy today and that's why we had to do the drills so late. But I told her if her schedule was too hectic and too stressful, it's okay to just skip it instead of trying to make up some other time. But, I said, on Thursday, we'll be doing 800m time trial no matter what. That's the week's "point workout". Her "mileage" of that day would probably be about 3.5~4 miles. But so what?
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 06:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
Richard:I'd have to go with Jim's last message on this one. As far as I'm concerned, all due respect, I don't think MaryT reached anywhere near conclusion of her "optimum" training load; or "optimum" training program for that matter. Most of us never fulfill our true potential because way too many things get in the way; family, work, social life, or this so-called "belief' on, or lack of, in-born talent. In a way, I'm fianlly finding out my "optimum" training pattern now. Of course, it's a bit too late for my old beaten up body...
Curious as to why you would say that? Because I couldn't handle the mileage some can, doesn't mean I didn't reach my optimum training load, just that the my optimum highest mileage is lower than some other runners can tolerate. Actually, I would say I came as close to true optimum as anyone could with the training regimens of the day when I was in prime back in the 70s. My main problem was belief in the training maxims of the day - don't ever miss a day, more mileage is better, etc. regardless of inborn talent, and I think that's what held me back - overtraining, rather than the reverse. If you weren't improving, you always tried adding more, rather than backing off to allow for recovery. It's rather funny in that when life did interfere with the time I could spend training and I started taking courses at night for my master's degree and found that I just couldn't get in all the training I wanted, that's when my times were fastest. Those 2 forced days of rest allowed my body to recover better, and my times got faster. When the night courses were over, and I went back to higher mileage weeks again, figuring my times would surely get even better yet, times went in the other direction. That's one of the ways I finally found out lower mileage worked better for me. It's probably not surprising that some of the older runners from the past (Galloway, Higdon, Rodgers, etc) are now more understanding of the fact that optimum training loads vary considerably depending on the individual, now that that they need more recovery time and can only handle half the mileage themselves or less compared to what they used to handle when they were younger. Edited to say I probably didn't reach my optimum performance, because by the time I figured out the main thing holding me back was overtraining for the workload my body could handle, which was not anywhere near the same workload many of my comtempories could, and thus not allowing sufficient recovery time, I was already past my prime years physically speaking. If I could train myself with that same body now, I would keep the mileage around 45 miles per week, add a couple of total days off from running for recovey, and probably increase the length of the longest runs. Unfortunately, stuck with an almost 60-year old body, so can't try that exact experiment now, but still try to stick with the same principles. [This message has been edited by maryt (edited May-15-2007).]
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 07:55 AM
That's a good point someone made about being obsessed with getting a certain number of miles in per week. There have been times where I have been like that. My coach tells me he can not possibly tell how I am feeling day to day so I have to make some decisions out there based on feel.
Two days ago I was going to do 15. I bagged it around 8 because I was feeling unusually beat up. In the past I might have pushed through that because I messed my 100 mile week up. I had a hill workout yesterday and I killed it. I probably would have slogged through it had I did the full 15 the day before. I'm running the 15 later today because I feel back to normal.
I think the optimal training load thing does apply to people individually. What I disagree with is how this directly relates to talent. I'm improving off of the same mileage that someone like Mark Carroll runs. While I can not even run within one minute per mile of his race times I don't think I should reduce my volume because he is a faster runner then me. I don't see the connection there. That was how I understand this debate started. That somehow elite runners have the talent to run far and average runners don't.
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 08:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Brian McN:
That's a good point someone made about being obsessed with getting a certain number of miles in per week.
I don't pay much attention to my weekly mileage except as a metric that might help me identify trends later on. I only really pay attention to workouts. There's no such thing as an 'optimum load', certainly not as a number. But there is optimal training. So someone decides their optimum load is some product of mileage and intensity, and that's valid for all of what...1 week? The next week, it'll probably be a different number. Forget load, just deal with the sessions.
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 09:47 AM
I do agree that there is no point in setting some sort of rigid mileage goal for yourself and then running that amount no matter what. If you're wasted at 8 miles but continue on to 15 because stopping that run would mean not getting your 100 miles that week you've likely made a mistake.
But if you look at macro trends, you'll see that US runners from probably the mid 60s to mid 80s began logging huge amounts of mileage and US distance running was better than it had ever been relative to the rest of the world. By the 90s we were in a phase where people dismissed the value of overall big volumes and the US was far less competitive relative to the rest of the world than we'd been in the preceding twenty years. Now we've gotten back to a period when our top people are doing noticably higher volume than had been done a decade previously and we're having the best results we've had for many years.
That's not just coincidence. Tha Africans and Japanese have been doing high volume for all of this time and they've produced the best distance runners. So no, you shouldn't obsess about getting to a particular number of miles or hours within a particular time frame. But you also shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking, "Oh, I got in a real long run on Sunday and I'll do a speed session on Wednesday, so I can just jog a few miles on the other days." Not if you are interested in getting as good as you can be. And while you shouldn't necessarily try to run 100-150 mile weeks because the Japanese or Africans do that, you also should use that sort of volume as a reference point as to what people can do so that you don't run 50 mpw and think that you're overtraining.
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 09:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by maryt:
It's rather funny in that when life did interfere with the time I could spend training and I started taking courses at night for my master's degree and found that I just couldn't get in all the training I wanted, that's when my times were fastest. Those 2 forced days of rest allowed my body to recover better, and my times got faster. When the night courses were over, and I went back to higher mileage weeks again, figuring my times would surely get even better yet, times went in the other direction. That's one of the ways I finally found out lower mileage worked better for me.
Did you ever check if your best times coincided with dropping mileage after periods of increase?
IP: Logged |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 11:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JimR:
Did you ever check if your best times coincided with dropping mileage after periods of increase?
Well, last year I averaged 77mpw overall, including time off. This year I've hit that twice and probably averaged in the 40s overall. I can't say I've been hitting similar works as after my mileage had been down for awhile I just couldn't do the longer ones anymore. I'm now doing similar workouts, however, to what I did much of last year but am 3-4min slower over a HM and probably 1:30 slower over 5K. It doesn't matter how much intensity I do right now, I just am not in the same league without the big base supporting my workouts.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 01:45 PM
Mary:I fully expected to be criticized by my comment. I apologize if I offended you; I really do. And, by saying what I'm going to say, I'd expect other people jumping and criticize as well. It's not that tough for a healthy indivdual to get up to 20 miles or so. I don't really think it's that difficult to run a marathon if your goal is simply to finish. People get where they are based on their expectation. If they set their expectation low, that's where they'll be and they'll be completely satisfied with it. I hate to say but I don't think you reached your optimum potential for running 5k or 10k or even a half marathon at 8 minutes mile pace; or a 5-hour marathon. If you feel that way, it is simply because you are satisfied with it. You aim low, you'll stay low. You aim high and you may even get there; you may not. But you may get so much higher than you ever dreamed of. I tried to be somewhat sensitive by saying I'm one of those who figured out too late and never reached my optimum level. I'm one of those people who wonder "What if...?" Ron Daws, I believe, said that a healthy male should be able to run a sub-2:30 marathon IF he trains right. I'm too much of a chicken to go that far; but I believe human potential is so much higher than we think we know. In regards to the training load, I would have to agree with Rengle. I think people are too conservative nowadays. We think about the minimum amount we can improve from the get-go. We worry way too much about recovery and rest. It is very important, sure. But too many people actually start from there. I think Rengle mentioned something about Kenyans??? I really don't think Kenyan kid who runs to school, however far it may be (it's funny, I always thought, "How the heck would a 12-year-old Kenyan kid know how many kilometers from his house to school is...???"), on Wednesday stops and thinks, "Well, I'd better have a rest day..." Again, I believe in human adaptation. You start out low and within your limitation and gradually apply more pressure, you'd improve so much further. You brought up names like Galloway or Rodgrs... Of course, you know those guys were running 150~200 miles a week at their prime! I don't think they'd be even better off if they considered more recovery at their prime. Yes, some may require more recovery than others--like Kenny Moore did. But you will never find out how much you can actually handle without actually getting up there and stick with it for a while. I think I mentioned about this Japanese drummer group earllier. They were in the US in the late 80s~early 90s and their goal was to run "around" (not "across)) the US. They had a huge semi to carry along their drums; they would run anywhere from 20~30 miles a day; at the end of the day, someone would drve the driver back to where they started and he would complete the day's run so every one of them would actually run around the US. They ran for the heck of it; they didn't care much for "performance". So if they got injured, they kept on running! I got to know them and they told me that, even though they were injured, if they kept on running, after a while, it healed itself! Of course, I would never prescribe such a treatment to anybody but it shows how much human body can adapt to stress. If you keep pampering it, it gets weaker and weaker (remember the old saying, "Use it, or lose it"?). I believe the same thing is happening with our feet and today's so-called high-tech "protective" shoes. I thought I mentioned here about the sprint drills I've been doing with my girl. This has been the third week now. Last week, my butt was so sore I had a heck of a time sitting on the toilet seat! Going up and down the stairs was a torture! Yesterday, we did it for almost 1:30 (including warm-up and cool-down) and I have no problem today except for a bit tightness in my left hamstring from downhill striding. Even my old body, having NOT done this type of workout for 20 years, it CAN adapt to it and (hopefully) get stronger. Once again, I don't look down on people running a 5-hour marathon at all. My wife doesn't really care too much for trying 3:00 marathon. I don't think any less of her for that. She wanted to be qualified for Boston last year and she did; and she's content. In fact, I gave her a royal treatment for that (well, Rengle, you know how I did that!). But I KNOW she could do much better IF she wanted to. I put her program together for her but I would NOT consider that optimum training at all. It is "optimum" training for her under the circumstance ("I don't want to run everyday..."); but not an oprimum program at all.
IP: Logged |
StealthRunner
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 05:18 PM
Ok, Nobby, I’m going to bite on this one.Someone started a new thread, directed at you, called “Base Building”. Kim Stevenson posted a schedule on it. I assume when he states to run “within yourself” he means at a comfortable pace. What I would like to know is, where does hill bounding and running drills fit into a running schedule, and for how long in terms of weeks? Like you, I had started to work on bounding a few weeks ago. Very sore buttocks! I guess I found out were I was weak. I’m doing much better, plus I feel it has really helped my running along with high knee and butt-kick drills. I’ve been doing the hill bounding once a week after a good warm-up of several miles and a few drills. I also throw in a few drills when warming-up before each run. Am I on the right track? Cathy
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 08:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
Mary:I fully expected to be criticized by my comment. I apologize if I offended you; I really do. And, by saying what I'm going to say, I'd expect other people jumping and criticize as well. It's not that tough for a healthy indivdual to get up to 20 miles or so. I don't really think it's that difficult to run a marathon if your goal is simply to finish. People get where they are based on their expectation. If they set their expectation low, that's where they'll be and they'll be completely satisfied with it. I hate to say but I don't think you reached your optimum potential for running 5k or 10k or even a half marathon at 8 minutes mile pace; or a 5-hour marathon. If you feel that way, it is simply because you are satisfied with it. You aim low, you'll stay low. You aim high and you may even get there; you may not. But you may get so much higher than you ever dreamed of. I tried to be somewhat sensitive by saying I'm one of those who figured out too late and never reached my optimum level. I'm one of those people who wonder "What if...?" Ron Daws, I believe, said that a healthy male should be able to run a sub-2:30 marathon IF he trains right. I'm too much of a chicken to go that far; but I believe human potential is so much higher than we think we know. In regards to the training load, I would have to agree with Rengle. I think people are too conservative nowadays. We think about the minimum amount we can improve from the get-go. We worry way too much about recovery and rest. It is very important, sure. But too many people actually start from there. I think Rengle mentioned something about Kenyans??? I really don't think Kenyan kid who runs to school, however far it may be (it's funny, I always thought, "How the heck would a 12-year-old Kenyan kid know how many kilometers from his house to school is...???"), on Wednesday stops and thinks, "Well, I'd better have a rest day..." Again, I believe in human adaptation. You start out low and within your limitation and gradually apply more pressure, you'd improve so much further. You brought up names like Galloway or Rodgrs... Of course, you know those guys were running 150~200 miles a week at their prime! I don't think they'd be even better off if they considered more recovery at their prime. Yes, some may require more recovery than others--like Kenny Moore did. But you will never find out how much you can actually handle without actually getting up there and stick with it for a while. I think I mentioned about this Japanese drummer group earllier. They were in the US in the late 80s~early 90s and their goal was to run "around" (not "across)) the US. They had a huge semi to carry along their drums; they would run anywhere from 20~30 miles a day; at the end of the day, someone would drve the driver back to where they started and he would complete the day's run so every one of them would actually run around the US. They ran for the heck of it; they didn't care much for "performance". So if they got injured, they kept on running! I got to know them and they told me that, even though they were injured, if they kept on running, after a while, it healed itself! Of course, I would never prescribe such a treatment to anybody but it shows how much human body can adapt to stress. If you keep pampering it, it gets weaker and weaker (remember the old saying, "Use it, or lose it"?). I believe the same thing is happening with our feet and today's so-called high-tech "protective" shoes. I thought I mentioned here about the sprint drills I've been doing with my girl. This has been the third week now. Last week, my butt was so sore I had a heck of a time sitting on the toilet seat! Going up and down the stairs was a torture! Yesterday, we did it for almost 1:30 (including warm-up and cool-down) and I have no problem today except for a bit tightness in my left hamstring from downhill striding. Even my old body, having NOT done this type of workout for 20 years, it CAN adapt to it and (hopefully) get stronger. Once again, I don't look down on people running a 5-hour marathon at all. My wife doesn't really care too much for trying 3:00 marathon. I don't think any less of her for that. She wanted to be qualified for Boston last year and she did; and she's content. In fact, I gave her a royal treatment for that (well, Rengle, you know how I did that!). But I KNOW she could do much better IF she wanted to. I put her program together for her but I would NOT consider that optimum training at all. It is "optimum" training for her under the circumstance ("I don't want to run everyday..."); but not an oprimum program at all.
Your post is pretty much in line with I expected you to say, and yes, it IS offensive. The fact that I trained with coaches for years, trained with a running club, was most certainly NOT satisfied with maintaining a certain pace but tried every training regimen suggested to improve for a period of 5+ years!!!! before I found what really helped most was to add in a couple of rest days - you just don't want to hear it. I expected to be able to run 26.2 miles at an 8:00 pace (my BQ time) if only I could find the right training plan, add more mileage, more speedwork, etc., but I could not consistently run that pace for even a 5 mile race UNTIL I added in those unplanned rest days when I was taking courses and just couldn't get the runs in. But you don't want to hear that. No... if someone doesn't come up to your expection of what you think someone should be able to do, well then it must be because they weren't trying very hard, they set their expections too low, they didn't give the hard training enough time etc. etc, rather than admit that not all people can run as fast or as far as you would like to think. Yes, such an attitude IS offensive and arrogant as well! One of the factors that seems to set most elite runners apart is the fact that they recover much quicker from hard workouts than non-elite runners. Some runners, even elite runners like Kenny Moore, as you mentioned yourself, need a lot more recovery than others. Why is it so hard for you to understand that some nonelite runners need even more recovery to reach their full potential and that their full potential might be an 8 minute mile pace or even a 9 minute mile pace, rather than something faster? In the past, most people who took up running had some kind of a talent for it, were fast enough to make high school track teams, for example, and those who didn't and found they had trouble keeping up whether in the races or in training just quit. I think that's why many coaches and runners have an unrealistic view of what the majority of people can do. I was an exception, because I was stubborn, and worked every day to improve despite how long it took. Now times have changed, you have a group getting into running that is more representative of the whole population, you see a much wider range of runner, and you should realize that for many who are slow, it's not that they are all satisfied wtih being slow , or don't want to put in the work to improve, some of them may very well have less potential than you think. You say start out low, gradually apply pressure and improve. So what would say to a runner who started out not being able to run 1/4 mile, worked up to a mile in 12 minutes after a going to the track and trying every day for a month, took another 2 months to get up to 2 miles, gradually built up over a period of several years to an 8:30 minute 10k pace and 50 mile weeks, plateaued there for several more years (note- years, not months) despite trying increasing mileage, a variety of track workouts, tempo runs etc. and started to get slower rather than faster. Would you advise more of the same? Keep increasing mileage and difficulty of track workouts, run through injuries despite getting slower and slower and slower ? Sounds like that's what you would do. Been there, done that, and it was a complete failure, and yes I did give it time if you call a few years time, and yes I did train when my legs hurt, later even ran with a ruptured disc, among all those other stupid things everyone did back then. Does that sound like someone who pampered her body? Hardly.
Yes, your attitude IS offensive. When I increased my mileage again very gradually, to see if I could improve even more after improving with the added rest days - times got slower, just like on higher mileage previously, and didn't improve again until adding back in the rest days. Seems like a no-brainer to me to stick with training that works! I mentioned Bill Rodgers and Hal Higdon and Jeff Galloway, not because of how much the did in their prime, but because now that they are older and past their prime, and need more recovery themselves, they are a lot closer to, and I believe have much more appreciation of the needs of the broader range of runners out there today, and are much more cognizant of the need for recovery. I believe the training programs of Hal Higdon, and the training that Bill Rodgers used in his mid-50s (before he broke his leg) with a maximum mileage less than half of what he ran in his 30s, are more likely to be successful in getting a broader range of runners to reach their potential than the training plans used in the past with more than twice the mileage. In fact if I ever were to to train to run a marathon again, I would use something like Hal Higdon's senior plan - much more likely to have me reach my potential today.
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 08:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:
Well, last year I averaged 77mpw overall, including time off. This year I've hit that twice and probably averaged in the 40s overall. I can't say I've been hitting similar works as after my mileage had been down for awhile I just couldn't do the longer ones anymore. I'm now doing similar workouts, however, to what I did much of last year but am 3-4min slower over a HM and probably 1:30 slower over 5K. It doesn't matter how much intensity I do right now, I just am not in the same league without the big base supporting my workouts.
It's hard for the average runner to set up a periodized schedule of sorts, most just wanna run x days a week and do the occasional marathon and stuff like that. The closest thing to it I've seen in standard programs is Pfitzinger's, but they're still only marathon prep programs. Actually, marathon programs are probably the only real volume increases most runners see, and they're quite happy to abandon those volumes once the race goes by. I set most of my PR's in other distances during and piggy backing onto marathon training.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 09:21 PM
maryt,That is an amazing post. Unfortunately, I believe it will fall mostly on deaf ears. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 09:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by JimR:
Did you ever check if your best times coincided with dropping mileage after periods of increase?
Didn't seem to help just dropping down even 30% or so until I added in the 2 rest days.What really seemed to make a difference was dropping total milege just 10% down to 40-45, adding in a couple of rest days, but then making the long runs longer. As I said, by the time I really figured out what worked best for me, I was already getting past my prime, so I don't know for sure how fast I might have been if I had paid more attention to recovery sooner. When I got those long runs up to 15 miles or so every other week, the extra mileage in the long run seemed to help more than extra miles total for improvement in the shorter races. The main reason I started running in the first place was that I took a train to the summit of Mt. Washington - only 6000 feet, and had trouble getting out of breath just walking around and had to sit on the bench with the 60-somethings - not normal for a 21 year old, so I think I must have lower than normal aerobic capacity. Still, I've seen a lot of runners over the past 35 years, and while many of them really take to it and improve rapidly, others just have a really hard time and progress very slowly and never get very fast on an absolute basis even though they do improve if they stick with it, so I guess I'm not totally alone.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 09:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
maryt,That is an amazing post. Unfortunately, I believe it will fall mostly on deaf ears.
Well Richard, she clearly disproves your claim that low responders exist. If ever there was someone who struggled to run, she is it, and even SHE managed to consistently run 50 mile weeks. What say you??
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 10:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
Well Richard, she clearly disproves your claim that low responders exist. If ever there was someone who struggled to run, she is it, and even SHE managed to consistently run 50 mile weeks. What say you??
tigger, Do you really believe the question of whether low responders do or do not exist can be definitively answered based on data from just one person? If so, then following the same logic, we can prove other things from just one person. For example, using the same logic she clearly proves that 45 mpw is optimal for everyone. What say you? ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted May-15-2007 11:04 PM
MaryT,
We get it. You're hopelessly untalented and get worse when you train. You're abnormal. You're the kid who can't hit a baseball and gets worse when he takes batting practice every day. You're the 95 pound weakling who gets weaker when he lifts weights four times a week. You're the high school student who does worse when you study for exams. Ok, don't run more than once or twice a week. Don't have any expecations of ever getting better by doing more or pushing yourself. But also, don't get into discussions about how to get faster because you're so untalented that the principles that make everyone else better make you worse.
IP: Logged |
runfastcoach
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 01:26 AM
rengle -Wow, that was blunt! But, I must say, you painted a good picture! Bravo!
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 05:24 AM
Wow ! Now I have heard it all !!
Not sure what to say but I can say I have worked with many athletes who were not elite by any means.
You only have to go down to any Harrier or Joggers club on a Saturday afternoon here in NZ and you will find heaps of them.
But I have yet to meet one who did not want to improve in some manner and sought out ways to do that.
I know no one who did not improve in some way and I am talking 40 plus consistent years in the Sport.For some reason when I read Maryt's thread I thought of an old guy I knew and was also reminded of him recently whilst reading Kenny Moore's "Bowerman and the Men of Oregon"
That old guy was Andy Steedman.
Bowerman mentions that Andy had to wait for him during a run and he had 3 coronaries. That shocked Bowerman. At the time Andy was 73.
I met Andy 6 years later when I joined Lynndale club.I was 18 years old at the time.
Andy would always run with the "Slow pack". Even that was a great 'feat' for a 'nearly' 80 year old.
One of the "old hands" told me that Andy just had one pace (slow) but he could run it for a couple of hours. I remember the club having a Race one Saturday. I had been 'out on the town' the night before and was not in any condition to race but I duly lined up.
I ran as badly as you can imagine but what really shocked me was when someone pulled up alongside me and said "Get going son, Andy is not that far away and closing fast !!!" Yes ! I got home before Andy but I can recall the grin on his face as he finished.
He taught a lot of guys some lessons in his "jogging" career. Least of all me. Of course he was slow but he would never have made 80 if he did not run. Improvement for Andy was "Quality of life". If I learned anything from Andy it was "Who gives a D*** about running fast", it is the shear enjoyment of getting out for a run. Which also brings me back to Arthur Lydiard. He too got a huge "Buzz" from just getting people out there regardless of talent, as much as he did from "Gold Medallists".
The legacy he left to me in that vein was clearly demonstrated today.
I had to facilitate a Mountain Biking "Assessment" for my students in our Forest. I got my wife to drop me at the Mountain bike entry and then I ran in to meet the Kids.
After the Assessment the kids said "How are you getting home?" ( They were riding).
I said "I'll run home". They said "But you live miles away !"
"Not a problem'" I replied.
Ten miles of Forest roads/tracks and suburban streets and I was home.
Could I have done that without years of running behind me.
I doubt it. The idea of running a race now does not appeal at all. But retaining the ability to run wherever/whenever I want is very much a priority. Just what is improvement ?? Cheers : Kim
------------------
Run easy, Run long
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 05:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
MaryT,
We get it. You're hopelessly untalented and get worse when you train. You're abnormal. You're the kid who can't hit a baseball and gets worse when he takes batting practice every day. You're the 95 pound weakling who gets weaker when he lifts weights four times a week. You're the high school student who does worse when you study for exams. Ok, don't run more than once or twice a week. Don't have any expecations of ever getting better by doing more or pushing yourself. But also, don't get into discussions about how to get faster because you're so untalented that the principles that make everyone else better make you worse.
OK Now that's just uncalled for. What an arrogant and insulting post. I don't care who you are; you should be ashamed of yourself. I worked up from not being able to run even one quarter mile, then to running one mile at a 12 pace, to being able to run 10Ks consistently at an 8 pace by working at it for several years with a running club and with coaches. I ran every day for years, even tried two-a -days for a while, but found that I got faster still by dropping back from 50 miles per week and 7 days training to 45 miles per week and 5 days training. My fastest times came after running for 8 years AFTER I added in a couple of rest days. Does that sound like I didn't train? Does that sound like I didn't push myself? Did I ever say don't run more than once or twice per week?? The principles are the same for everyone, but that doesn't mean the training plans should be identical. There used to be a poster who had a signature that said optimal stress plus optimal rest equals optimal performance. You need to stress your body, then allow it time to recover and makes those changes that lead to improvement. Some people can recover and improve on 140 mile weeks like Bill Rodgers in his 20s and 30s. Some people need less mileage to allow for more reocvery like Bill Rodgers who ran no more than 60-70 miles per week when he was going for age group records in his mid 50s. Some runners do better on even less and need rest days thrown in, lke myself and a lot of my friends from the same time period who are now approaching their 60s. It doesn't mean people who get better results when they run 5 days rather than 7 or 45 miles per week rather than 50+ don't push themselves or have expectations of getting better. Rather it might mean instead that they have found the optimal level of stress and rest that works best for them. So, rather than blindly following a training plan that isn't resulting in improvement, isn't it better to try one that gives you better results? Seems to me that's what one should do, even if it means cutting back slightly on mileage, running a longest long run every other week rather than every week and adding in a rest day or two. As I said, I really like Hal Higdon's plans - it's not like I'm making up my own training program entirely out of thin air.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 07:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
tigger,Do you really believe the question of whether low responders do or do not exist can be definitively answered based on data from just one person? If so, then following the same logic, we can prove other things from just one person. For example, using the same logic she clearly proves that 45 mpw is optimal for everyone. What say you?
OK, you win. I agree that studies of limited numbers of subjects prove nothing. Say! Do any of the studies you've mentioned in the past have large enough groups to be significant? Still....this is specific to running and you have to admit that maryt described someone extremely unusual in terms of improvement ability. But it was someone who went from merely yards per day to regularly running 50 miles per week. (Let me also add that I think 50 miles per week is pretty impressive for a weekend warrier. I have never averaged that much for more than a few weeks, and so I know how hard it is to maintain.) If that isn't improvement I don't know what is. And even at 50 miles per week, do you think she could have increased her distance just a little bit more....say another 50 yards per week? So if you accept this outlier as real, and you accept what Kim is saying (and Nobby and rengle) about 40 years of observing all types of runners, are you prepared to change your opinion on low responders?
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-16-2007 07:39 AM
Wow, rengle. That is one of the more insulting things I've read on this forum.------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
 |
