posted May-17-2007 11:57 AM               

Average mileage is such a misleading concept. Last year I averaged 77 mpw but during two long stretches I was rarely below 90 and usually over 100. Saying 77 would misrepresent the workload under serious training.

I've never had much use for advice from people whose sales depend upon it. They are no longer unbiased; Galloway and Higdon need to appeal to their audience in order to get the purchase made. The same has applied to many online coaches in my experience.

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 12:10 PM            

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.

---

You are wasting your time talking to Mary. She will argue with you for- ever.

If people don't want to reach their potential, who gives a crap?

By the way, her lifetime mile PR is 7:13.

I could do a 155 mile week 30 seconds a mile faster than that.

Brian Sell could do 150 with 100 of them at sub 6 ( according to one
of the Hansons).

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 12:22 PM            

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 12:23 PM            

Steve Jones ran Toronto in 2:10 around 37 years of age and Lopes ran well
at 38.

Any stories?

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 12:29 PM            

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 01:25 PM               

I do get quite a few inquiries in the past 5 years or so after getting the infamous label of "the man who killed Arthur Lydiard"! I've received several messages from young kids, 17, 18, 19... They are all worried about their "talent". I see science being helpful in some ways; but more often than not, it creates this myth or, worse yet, an imaginary monster in the closet. They are almost "beaten" before they even begin their journey. No wonder, while Kenyan runners don't even care anything, thinking they can win or set the world record every time they line up (if you know any Kenayn runner in person, you'll know what I'm talking about!) while our young runners are scared to death if all the training they WILL put in in the next 5 years will be waste of time. So this is what I wrote to this young boy. I just slapped it together at Dunn Bro Coffee shop so there might be some mis-information here and there but oh, well...:

"Define "talent". Seriously, I get sick of people worrying about this "talent" deal which NO ONE can clearly define. If you say "talent = how well you run in young age, say, 15"; then I'll challenge and ask "How many middle school mile champion go on to become an Olympian?" You'd be lucky if you can name 2! Seriously, what is talent? If Dave Martin tells you that you don't have talent, would you just give it up? I told you about Murray Halberg, coming back from literally death bed to become an Olympic champion; Anne Audain, who was nicknaked as the "winningest" road runner in the world in the early 80s, had a foot deformity that had to be corrected surgically. At the age 10 (or whatever she was), the doctor told her parents that she'd be lucky if she could walk normally. If you never heard of the name, Ron Daws, you should google search or look for a book called "The Self-Made Olympian". He was something like 4:40 miler in high school and probably the slowest runner on the team at U of MN. He went on to become an Olympic marathon runner for the US in 1968. Naoko Takahashi barely made it to one final when she was in college (and let me tell you, college athletics is not that great in Japan because good high school runners go straight to corporate teams) and she became an Olympic champion and the first woman to break 2:20 for the marathon. Yuko Arimori, a double Olympic medalist in the marathon in 92 and 96, was so slow that NO corporate team wanted her. Koide actually took her as a team manager! What is talent? Is it being fast? Or is it something that you can go the distance when you are young? Paul Gumper (I think was his name) ran something like 2:18 marathon when he was a junior (18). I don't think he EVER made ANY national team. Have you heard of Tom Hunt? Great high school miler from CA. Became an okay road runner but the same, never made the US national team for anything. How about persistency, dog-like stubbornness, never to give in? Is it "talent"? Arimori had that. John Robinson was 15 when he joined Arthur's group. Arthur said he was completely devoid of any athletic talent. He was the slowest runner he ever coached. But he loved to run. He kept on running and won NZ national marathon championships when he was 38 in about 2:18 and went on to win the first master's (over 40) marathon championships in just over 2:20. How do you measure "talent"? With a stopwatch? With a stick? With a treadmill and Douglas bag? You tell me. If I tell you that there's no hope for someone who's run slower than 5:20 for the mile when he was in high school; then would you pack it up and stop training because it's going to be a waste of time? I'd call it "talent" if you defy it and say, "Screw you!" and get out and prove me wrong. If there's been NO such example, then get out and be the first one to do so. Do you think Bannister just sat on his butt and whine in May, 1954, simply because "No one has ever broken 4 minutes for the mile before me"? Well, there would have been NO record being broken if all of us feel that way, would there? Don't waste your time worrying if you can or can't make it. Only YOU can tell us that...20 years from now!"

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 01:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
Heck, nobody needs to train to finish a marathon. Just sign up and scratch and claw your way to the finish line. There, you finished!

---

I did that when I was young and stupid. I had never run, except for basketball. Signed up, bought the shoes a couple days beforehand, ran/walked to 18 at a 3:30 pace before the knee said "enough." Even then I was able to limp the next 8 miles and cross in less than 5 hours. You're right, any nonsedentary geek with patience and a tolerance for pain can do it and STILL beat people.

It's so much nicer to hit 21 and kick it in the last 5 miles.

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 01:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
......
It's so much nicer to hit 21 and kick it in the last 5 miles.

---

This is the next goal. I want a kick. It will come.

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 02:40 PM               

Anne Audain was "nicknaked?" I'm not sure what that is but it sounds good.
Fredurie,
If you can get Hill's biography it will be worth any effort and money you spend. In 1975 or 76 he changed jobs. He'd always gotten most of his training in by running to work and back. When he went to work for himself, out of his house, he stopped doing that and typically reduced his mileage to a 3 mile run in the AM and six to nine in the PM. Tha dropped his miles to something in the 80-90 range when he was serious. He always kept in the rest periods of usually about 30-40 mpw. He doesn't mention it in the books, but he was making a reasonable amount of money from marathons in those years. He'd pick two or three that he would do for the payday and another couple or so for performance.
His yearly miles dropped to less than 4,000. He'd usually been just under 5,000 before that. He got a 2:12 in that later period and several sub 2:20s.
The Higdon stuff is coming.

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 02:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
I just thought I'd share this with everyone on this message board who made this thread so...ah, colorful! ;o)

I do get quite a few inquiries in the past 5 years or so after getting the infamous label of "the man who killed Arthur Lydiard"! I've received several messages from young kids, 17, 18, 19... They are all worried about their "talent". I see science being helpful in some ways; but more often than not, it creates this myth or, worse yet, an imaginary monster in the closet. They are almost "beaten" before they even begin their journey. No wonder, while Kenyan runners don't even care anything, thinking they can win or set the world record every time they line up (if you know any Kenayn runner in person, you'll know what I'm talking about!) while our young runners are scared to death if all the training they WILL put in in the next 5 years will be waste of time. So this is what I wrote to this young boy. I just slapped it together at Dunn Bro Coffee shop so there might be some mis-information here and there but oh, well...:

"Define "talent". Seriously, I get sick of people worrying about this "talent" deal which NO ONE can clearly define. If you say "talent = how well you run in young age, say, 15"; then I'll challenge and ask "How many middle school mile champion go on to become an Olympian?" You'd be lucky if you can name 2! Seriously, what is talent? If Dave Martin tells you that you don't have talent, would you just give it up? I told you about Murray Halberg, coming back from literally death bed to become an Olympic champion; Anne Audain, who was nicknaked as the "winningest" road runner in the world in the early 80s, had a foot deformity that had to be corrected surgically. At the age 10 (or whatever she was), the doctor told her parents that she'd be lucky if she could walk normally. If you never heard of the name, Ron Daws, you should google search or look for a book called "The Self-Made Olympian". He was something like 4:40 miler in high school and probably the slowest runner on the team at U of MN. He went on to become an Olympic marathon runner for the US in 1968. Naoko Takahashi barely made it to one final when she was in college (and let me tell you, college athletics is not that great in Japan because good high school runners go straight to corporate teams) and she became an Olympic champion and the first woman to break 2:20 for the marathon. Yuko Arimori, a double Olympic medalist in the marathon in 92 and 96, was so slow that NO corporate team wanted her. Koide actually took her as a team manager! What is talent? Is it being fast? Or is it something that you can go the distance when you are young? Paul Gumper (I think was his name) ran something like 2:18 marathon when he was a junior (18). I don't think he EVER made ANY national team. Have you heard of Tom Hunt? Great high school miler from CA. Became an okay road runner but the same, never made the US national team for anything. How about persistency, dog-like stubbornness, never to give in? Is it "talent"? Arimori had that. John Robinson was 15 when he joined Arthur's group. Arthur said he was completely devoid of any athletic talent. He was the slowest runner he ever coached. But he loved to run. He kept on running and won NZ national marathon championships when he was 38 in about 2:18 and went on to win the first master's (over 40) marathon championships in just over 2:20. How do you measure "talent"? With a stopwatch? With a stick? With a treadmill and Douglas bag? You tell me. If I tell you that there's no hope for someone who's run slower than 5:20 for the mile when he was in high school; then would you pack it up and stop training because it's going to be a waste of time? I'd call it "talent" if you defy it and say, "Screw you!" and get out and prove me wrong. If there's been NO such example, then get out and be the first one to do so. Do you think Bannister just sat on his butt and whine in May, 1954, simply because "No one has ever broken 4 minutes for the mile before me"? Well, there would have been NO record being broken if all of us feel that way, would there? Don't waste your time worrying if you can or can't make it. Only YOU can tell us that...20 years from now!"

---

This discussion is quite 'unique' but I wondered looking at the various arguments about 'who said what and how'.
Nobby and I are 'unique' in this argument. I see a huge "cultural" difference in what is happening here, and I am speaking from a New Zealnders perspective not a Japanese one.
Yes ! I am of European decent and speak English, BUT I find my RUNNING background comes from a different perspective and value system to an American one (Same with many other "values").
The reason that Nobby and I agree on so much is that he came out here and parked himself for a long period of time to study anything and everything that was Lydiard. He picked up the "culture". Rengle too comes into the same boat. We have run together on Roads that Arthur reckoned were the best training area in the world.
Where do I think the cultural difference is.
Many Americans "LOVE" schedules and statistics.
As has been said here Arthur did not want to write schedules for his books but he did because he had to. To sell the books.
Where do most of the books sell. The USA !!.
I have seen many situations on this thread (and the Letsrun thread) where I see people say 'If you X amount of work at Y Heart rate, at Z time for A distance , then this will happen"
That sort of thing does not even compute with this Kiwi.

Do I understand the current US culture of running. by the look of it No !.
But I did attend oollege in the US so have some background knowledge as to where this thing came from. Which brings me to another 'culture' difference.
The first day that weather was bad at my college and we were preparing for a run I said what are we doing to the Coach. He said Warmup, and we are doing fast work in the Gym corridors (They were very long !!).
I could not believe my ears. These guys had never run in the wind and rain. I said 'No way, I am off and out. I will do the work outside" Some Teamates came with me and we enjoyed ourselves. Never again did that Team run "Inside"
The same happened when it snowed, But by this time the others realised what was going on so they too joined me.
Then came "Sunday runs". WOW ! For 2 years no one ran with me in case they were struck down by a lightning bolt from heaven !!. It took that amount of time to 'cure' that culture (and with the blessing of an old "Hellfire and Brimstone" Preacher !!)

Nobby is passionate about what we are doing and all I ask is that you read carefully what he is saying and think about it before firing off another answer in haste. I know of no one who can explain Arthur as well as him.

Cheers : Kim

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

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 03:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
This is the next goal. I want a kick. It will come.

---

It will. If it's any help, I think it came from doing progression long runs -- in my case uphill. My long runs were generally between 2-1/2 to just over 3 hours (I know you like those very long runs) and I tried to run the last 5 miles at MP - 10%.

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 04:51 PM            

quote:

---

There was a time that Hill had to have surgery on a knee so swollen that it took an hour of warming up to get it to bend. Hill ran on the morning of the operation, of course. The day after, without telling his doctors, he dragged his heavily bandaged leg out for a one mile shuffle. Three weeks later a doctor doubted that he would ever run on that knee again, "but I was already up to three miles a day," Hill said. "I just hadn't told him."

---

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 04:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
It can't be 7:13. That is barely above walking. Someone who claims to have put in long runs in the 5 hour range just could not go that slowly on race day, could they?

---

Um, a 7:13 mile is a little faster than walking.

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 05:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
It will. If it's any help, I think it came from doing progression long runs -- in my case uphill. My long runs were generally between 2-1/2 to just over 3 hours (I know you like those very long runs) and I tried to run the last 5 miles at MP - 10%.

---

Thank you. This I can try.

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 05:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by TommyL:
Um, a 7:13 mile is a little faster than walking.

---

LOL Thanks for catching that. For some reason I had read 7:13 as marathon time. 7:13 for a mile time isn't awful, but it's not very competitive, unless you are up there in age groups. LOL If that's all I am capable of in a few years, I would be ok with that. Now a days, you would not finish last with that time.

------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
My User Profile
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 07:42 PM               

But the schedules are being unduly criticized here because they are not geared to make you run to your ultimate potential. They are supposed to take you from untrained or some other starting point to somebody who can finish the marathon or finish it faster than the last time they ran one. In fact, I would be willing to bet that I could write a marathon training schedule and see the majority of people improve on their marathon, simply because the schedule forces the runner to train consistently with a buildup in volume and/or intensity. Would they have run the fastest they could have with a different program or coach, probably yes, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they improved their performance.

While I agree with Nobby that it is useless to worry about "talent" or your potential, there is still a fuzzy line between realistic and unrealistic expectations. I got bashed on coolrunning last year when I said my goal was to BQ (3:15 for me), but I was happy to train on volume with one long run and one longer MP run each week (about 65-70 mpw, long run 18-23, midweek run of 15 with 13 at MP). I still remember the response of (paraphrased here) "If that's all you are aiming for, then I hope you are happy being a jogger." I don't think I ran faster than 21:30 for 5k last year, and I am not a beginner (adult-onset runner for 7 years), so I find it VERY unlikely that I will ever run a marathon in 2:30, 2:40, or probably even 2:50. It makes zero sense to me to try and train to run a 2:45 marathon when it makes more sense to get a little better and try for 3:05-3:10 for my next marathon. Right now I see sub-3h marathon as an eventual possibility. If I get there, then I will re-set my sights even higher, but right now there is no point counting my chickens before they've hatched, though I'll keep working to collect the eggs as it were...

The upshot being the vast majority of us are probably of modest or average "talent". And for sure almost none of us are running for a living. So it is important for a "hobbyjogger" like me to enjoy my running right now, and hopefully I am laying down the foundation to do better the next time and in the future as well. But the only expectations I want to fulfill are mine and mine alone. If I find myself trying to fulfill OTHER people's expectations, then that will be time for me to hang up my running shoes.

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 07:55 PM               

I understand what you are saying about Americans. There are a few of us that stray from the norm here. You have to look hard to find us because we also don't hang around inside. Just a couple of weeks ago I was lucky enough to meet and run with Bob Hodge running up some mountain here in the Northeast U.S.
After reading Nobby's post it made me think that most runners do not have the personality to be able to train to their potential. I would rather have drive and determination than "talent" it's worth more.

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 08:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by milkbaby:
I think there is an interesting point that hasn't been brought up as far as the training schedules of Higdon, Galloway, whoever. Most people would agree they are cookie cutter, and even Hal and Jeff would probably agree.

But the schedules are being unduly criticized here because they are not geared to make you run to your ultimate potential. They are supposed to take you from untrained or some other starting point to somebody who can finish the marathon or finish it faster than the last time they ran one. In fact, I would be willing to bet that I could write a marathon training schedule and see the majority of people improve on their marathon, simply because the schedule forces the runner to train consistently with a buildup in volume and/or intensity. Would they have run the fastest they could have with a different program or coach, probably yes, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they improved their performance.

While I agree with Nobby that it is useless to worry about "talent" or your potential, there is still a fuzzy line between realistic and unrealistic expectations. I got bashed on coolrunning last year when I said my goal was to BQ (3:15 for me), but I was happy to train on volume with one long run and one longer MP run each week (about 65-70 mpw, long run 18-23, midweek run of 15 with 13 at MP). I still remember the response of (paraphrased here) "If that's all you are aiming for, then I hope you are happy being a jogger." I don't think I ran faster than 21:30 for 5k last year, and I am not a beginner (adult-onset runner for 7 years), so I find it VERY unlikely that I will ever run a marathon in 2:30, 2:40, or probably even 2:50. It makes zero sense to me to try and train to run a 2:45 marathon when it makes more sense to get a little better and try for 3:05-3:10 for my next marathon. Right now I see sub-3h marathon as an eventual possibility. If I get there, then I will re-set my sights even higher, but right now there is no point counting my chickens before they've hatched, though I'll keep working to collect the eggs as it were...

The upshot being the vast majority of us are probably of modest or average "talent". And for sure almost none of us are running for a living. So it is important for a "hobbyjogger" like me to enjoy my running right now, and hopefully I am laying down the foundation to do better the next time and in the future as well. But the only expectations I want to fulfill are mine and mine alone. If I find myself trying to fulfill OTHER people's expectations, then that will be time for me to hang up my running shoes.

---

You might not be knocking Kenyans aside to finish, but I'd say BQ or close and 65 mpw is a lot more than a "hobbyjogger."

IP: Logged

posted May-17-2007 08:55 PM               

IP: Logged

posted May-18-2007 01:37 AM               

Growing up in Wisconsin and northern Illinois, I considered 32 degrees Farenheight (0 degrees centrigrade) to be balmy in the winter - not remotely cold. Often, my team mates and I raced in that sort of temperature without gloves, hates, or shirts underneath of your singlets.

We trained in severely cold weather and never thought anything of it. I recall running 5 x 1 mile repeats in the cemetery across from our univeristy on late January day at 4 pm when I could barely see. There was ice on every corner and we often fell down. It was 6 degree Farenheit and the wind was a good 20-25 mph. I ran 11 miles in that workout aned considered it, "just another workout."

Ask anyone from our region about their training and you don't normally here them complain that it was 15 degrees Farenheit or in the summer it was 94 degrees anbd 88% humidity. We just ran!

A friend of mine and I talked last winter about running in the cold weather and how it makes " a runner tougher." That's our regional and cultural mentality. I said to Joe, "Peter Snell talked about running in the rain when others were resting, and he (Peter) was gaining yet another few tenths of a second on his competition." That's how our culture in Wisconsin was too. No different!

It's the kind of culture the runners like Dick Beardsley, Rod Dehaven, Bob Kempanen, Tim Hacker, Steve Lacey, and the list goes on and on, grew up in. It's no wonder they were tough competitors!

Take care,

Tinman

IP: Logged

posted May-18-2007 06:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
It can't be 7:13. That is barely above walking. Someone who claims to have put in long runs in the 5 hour range just could not go that slowly on race day, could they?

---

Some people jus don't have much inherent speed. Fred's post is a great example of people who have no understanding whatsoever of people's differeing abilites and just jump to the conclusion if someone isn't fast, they must not be trying and don't know anything about improving. Someone who can't run even a quarter mile, moves up to 12 minutes for a mile after a month of trying every day, moves up to 10 minutes, but only after a year of training day, then 9, then 8, then after a few years and 45+ miles weeks only finally gets to 7:13, shows a HUGE improvement with training and sticking to it, but since it's not going from a 7 minute mile to a 4 minute mile, rather than thinkng what a huge improvement, the attitude of many like fredurie is well, all these elite runners can run so much faster, she must not have been training. I never trained specifically for the mile - more for the 10K distance, and ifn fact never ran a mile in a race ,just in time trials during track workouts, but the 7:13 mile time isn't that far off from what would be expected for someone who ran 8 pace for a 10K

[This message has been edited by maryt (edited May-18-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-18-2007 07:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
Hal Higdon, from Joe Henderson's "Road Racer's and Their Training:"

---

Thanks for posting that!

Very interesting with all that beach mileage. I've got to wonder why even the advanced schedules he now promotes are so restricted.

IP: Logged

posted May-18-2007 07:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
MaryT,

More bluntness from me, but this time it's about Hal Higdon. I ithink that he is qualified to offer good advice but I don't think he does it. He tells people what they want to hear so they"ll buy his program.

Hal Higdon has created a product that he hopes you'll buy and that's what he's selling. It's aimed at a particular market and it's a good program in the sense that it serves the market for which it's intended. It's a far, far cry from what Higdon did to make himself a 2:23 marathoner and first American at Boston in 1964. If anyone wants to see what Higdon really did so they can compare it with what he now tells people to do I can put a sample of a week of his training here.

[This message has been edited by rengle (edited May-17-2007).]

---

Remember, my objection to what you and nobby have written about training programs wasn't about training programs for runners expecting to run a marathon in 2:23. The objection was to the advice that even 5 hour newbie marathoners don't need to go more than 2 1/2 to 3 hours in training regardless of the distance they will cover in that time - I think Higdon and other who have loads of experience in training newbies and slower runners and advise going 20 miles or more in training for preparation for a marathon have a whole lot better idea on how to train those runners. They DO serve the market for which they are intended, and I think they know it better and can prepare those runners better to a first marathon than coaches who specialize in training elite runners.

quote:

---

Originally posted by milkbaby:
I think there is an interesting point that hasn't been brought up as far as the training schedules of Higdon, Galloway, whoever. Most people would agree they are cookie cutter, and even Hal and Jeff would probably agree.

But the schedules are being unduly criticized here because they are not geared to make you run to your ultimate potential. They are supposed to take you from untrained or some other starting point to somebody who can finish the marathon or finish it faster than the last time they ran one. .

---

Once runners have completed a marathon or two, they will know whether they are someone like me who really needs to work up very gradually, has problems with electrolytes, etc. etc. or not. If that's not a problem, next time, try another program that has more "meat" to it, that pushes you more, has more emphasis not just on endurance but on getting your speed up as well, etc. and maybe leave out some of those longer long runs in favor of total mileage or other workouts if you think you can handle a marathon without them.

But the first time out, when someone has no idea how they will handle the 26.2 mile distance, I really think it could be dangerous to limit a slow runner to an arbitrary training time that could be only 12 -15 miles, then expect them to be OK when they will be running 4-5 hours for the very first time ever in their first marathon. I think Higdon has it right for those runners for sure... As rengle said, that's his market.

IP: Logged

posted May-18-2007 07:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by maryt:
I think Higdon and other who have loads of experience in training newbies and slower runners and advise going 20 miles or more in training for preparation for a marathon have a whole lot better idea on how to train those runners. They DO serve the market for which they are intended, and I think they know it better and can prepare those runners better to a first marathon than coaches who specialize in training elite runners.

---

This is an interesting point that brings up a question for Nobby, rengle, & Kim. What is your level of experience working with 4+ hour marathoners, especially compared to working with 3 and faster marathoners?

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

IP: Logged

posted May-18-2007 08:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willamona:
Thank you. This I can try.

---

oops, i meant MP + 10%.

IP: Logged