posted May-22-2007 09:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Jimmy,

I'm not a coach so I can't give you an example of someone I personally worked with to find their optimal training load. But, all is not lost for you. I believe Maryt's experiences to be an example of finding optimal training load. Review what she has written about her career while keeping in mind the concept of optimal training load. In the elite category have a look at the analysis of Ron Hill's career performance/training in Lore of Running, 4th edition, pages 410-416. Noakes spends 7 pages in an indepth review of Hill's performances and training, giving a fine example of finding optimal training load. Finally, Pfitzinger promotes the same training load idea, so you might have a look at the article on his web site for his particular take on this topic.

---

I don't mean to bust your nads, Richard, but you stated:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:

The way I solve this issue in my training program....

---

Now, are you talking about your personal program, or one that you are putting out there for others to do?

I'm not interested in Mary T. (nothing personal, Mary, maybe if I met you, I'd be obsessed), Pfitzinger, Noakes. I'm interested in YOUR training program that you are touting.

If you could answer the question about how much speedwork is used when determining the upper limit and max weekly volume, that would be great.

Also, please explain how you go about figuring this upper limit in your program (as detailed as possible), including the above question.

Also, if you could answer the question about how much % of the weekly volume in your training program is speedwork and how much is easy/moderate running, that would be awesome.

Is there anyone following your program? If so, can you relate some anecdotal pelpoo to show how it is working?

I think my questions are in line with all the talk about the truth about mileage.

Depending on your answers, I might have some more questions.

Thanks.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 09:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
bigappliepie,

See tigger's post quoting Lydiard below yours for a fine example of the high mileage philosophy (or if you prefer we can call it the high training volume philosophy). See the responses to marty's posts for an example of how some high mileage proponents are reluctant to believe anyone could actual reach optimal training at relatively low mileages.

---

"I discovered years ago, through trial and error methods, that the best results in this respect were gained by running about 100 miles weekly at near my best aerobic efforts and that supplementary to this, by running at an easier effort as many miles as I possibly could."

"When I say that your aim should be to run a weekly schedule such as the following, I mean it only as a guide and that you should adjust it to suit your own daily program, fitness and age".

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 10:05 AM               

Again, I really don't enjoy dumping on MaryT, but her case is a classic example of why you are wrong and that it's you who just is reluctant to believe something that doesn't fit with the ideas you're pushing and why your inexperience with the sport disqualifies you from dispensing advise. She has not reached any sort of optimal training or performance level She's never broken five hours for the marathon. The fact that she came closer when she cut her mileage from 50 to 45 a week proves nothing. You can tweak any inadequate schedule and get better results but that doesn't mean you've got an "optimal" schedule, to use a word you like so well. In fact, a sinlge example doesn't even prove the tweaking worked as there could be many other factors that come into play.
How does someone like Nobby know that less talented runners need more mileage to get to their optimal performances? Because he, like me, has seen it happen time and time again. But examples like that are wasted on people like you and MaryT because once someone runs all those miles and benefits from them you guys immediately say that those people were really "talented." So essentially what you're doing is disqualifying any evidence that contradicts what you believe. I'll give you credit, that's a great way to convince yourself that you're right.
None of this means that the path to being a world class runner is simply to run more miles, maybe two or three times more miles than anyone else does. We all have a breaking point. We all have a point where we've done all we can do and will not improve anymore no matter how much we run or how we arrange the various components of our training.
But that point is NOT a five hour marathon for anyone who isn't really old or suffering from some sort of disability. It's NOT 45-50 miles a week. If you want to push that idea and have people take you seriously, at least people who sincerely want to run reasonably decent times, you need to come up with examples of people who have used your ideas and actually run reasonably decent times.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 10:16 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Correlation only tells us the possibility/chance/likelyhood that someone's performance will change with changes in mileage. And since the correlation isn't 1, by definition there will be exceptions. Exceptions don't negate the correlation, though.

---

Any other example beside MaryT, Dick?

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 10:21 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Brian,

There is an upper limit to how much any one of us can adapt. As you say, you won't know what that upper limit is until you first reach it and then exceed it. And only by training too much at some point will you ever figure out what your upper limit is.

But all of this doesn't change the fact that an upper limit does exist for each of us.

Training above your limit won't make you better, faster, or more fit. It does, however, increase your chances of slowing or stopping further improvements, overtraining, and injury.

---

If you excede your upper limit, then, logically, couldn't you conclude that it wasn't really your limit? Limits, by definition, are the points that you cannot go past.

Also, I don't think your Advil example is a good paralel if for no other reason than, regardless of what you or anyone is trying to prove, there are those that can benefit from huge mileage workloads. While I'm no doctor, nor do I play one on TV, I doubt that anyone could benefit from 20 Advils.

------------------
42

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 10:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
bigappliepie,

See tigger's post quoting Lydiard below yours for a fine example of the high mileage philosophy (or if you prefer we can call it the high training volume philosophy). See the responses to marty's posts for an example of how some high mileage proponents are reluctant to believe anyone could actual reach optimal training at relatively low mileages.

---

Richard, what was in your orange juice this morning? "Bigappliepie?" "Marty?" If you're going to adopt her as your posterchild, you could at least spell her name right. The devil is in the details, no?

In any event, in the absence of any other experience you seem to have adopted Maryt as your posterchild (attached yourself like a remora might be more apt). Not sure that's such a good idea. Most of the argument with Maryt revolved around her insistence that very slow runners -- especially beginners -- should spend at least one day ever other week slogging through a long run at least 20% of the distance they expect to run even if that meant spending 4-5 hours on the road and compromising the ability to run on the days around that superlong run. Based on my reading of their responses to Maryt, the "high mileage" advocates were nothing of the sort. They are "balance" advocates who believe that overemphasizing a single superlong run is counterproductive.
They predicated their replies on the assumption that they were not speaking to first-timers looking to survive a marathon without retching as much as they were speaking to runners who want to get faster. They recognized that Maryt's 8 min/mile 10k pace should have translated into something faster than a 5-hour marathon. There was an issue with endurance that might have been resolved with more balanced training. I've looked at Maryt's posts and it's really unclear what her training was like. There are indications that she actually overtrained in the 70s and 80s by going too far too fast too soon, but I'm not looking to open that can of worms again.

By simply pointing to the pages and pages of discussion on Maryt and saying "see the replies," you are again succumbing to your tendency to be vague and ambiguous. In lawsuits, companies often respond to direct questions by saying something like "See generally the documents we produced." That's not an answer. It's a dodge (usually, the company produces thousands or hundreds of thousands of documents).

I am still learning a lot about running, but I have a great deal of experience with language and people dodging questions. Again, I urge you not to sidestep a question with mish-mosh or blunderbuss responses.

I am not a Richard-hater. There are times you make a lot of sense and, as I've said before, sound a lot more like Lydiard than you want people to believe . . .

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 10:51 AM               

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 11:14 AM               

When I refer to my training program I am referring to the Power Running training recommendations posted to my web site and the general advice I give to those who ask me for advice.

Instead of giving a detailed answer to all of your questions I am instead going to suggest you read the power running training recommendations. I believe it will either answer your questions or give a good start on providing an answer to your questions.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 11:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Is there anyone following your program? If so, can you relate some anecdotal pelpoo to show how it is working?

---

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 11:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by martinjames:
Not that this has any meaning other than you need to be careful about what you say, but there can be advantages to taking high doses of Advil (ibuprofen). The good folks at Wikipedia tell us that "Under medical supervision, a maximum daily dose of 3200 mg may sometimes be used." That's 16/day.

---

martinjames,

I'm expecting the readers here to grasp the fundamental concept and principle. My comment of taking just 2 advil is an just a way of illustrating the concept of dose-response. Can some people take a higher dosage of advil? I'm sure there are. Are smaller dosages for some people, infants for example, suggested. I don't have a bottle in front of me, but I strongly suspect so.

The main points are a) dose-response is important and b) the same dosage is not right for everyone.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 11:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
bigappliepie,

See tigger's post quoting Lydiard below yours for a fine example of the high mileage philosophy (or if you prefer we can call it the high training volume philosophy). See the responses to marty's posts for an example of how some high mileage proponents are reluctant to believe anyone could actual reach optimal training at relatively low mileages.

---

Richard,

It's interesting that you seem so focused on t100 miles per week as the rallying post of the high volume proponents. It's already been pointed out, but worth re-pointing out that 8 to 10 hrs per week at 10 min per mile avg pace amounts to about 48 to 60 miles per week. Do you really think this is high mileage?

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 11:45 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
How does someone like Nobby know that less talented runners need more mileage to get to their optimal performances? Because he, like me, has seen it happen time and time again. But examples like that are wasted on people like you and MaryT because once someone runs all those miles and benefits from them you guys immediately say that those people were really "talented." So essentially what you're doing is disqualifying any evidence that contradicts what you believe. I'll give you credit, that's a great way to convince yourself that you're right.

---

rengle,

About 70% of marathoners in the US ran 4+ hours in 2006. About 48% ran slower than 4:30, according to marathonguide.com.

It seems to me that the fundamental point of discussion comes down to this: are there significant numbers of people who don't have the genetic talent to run sub-4? My belief is there are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:

If you want to push that idea and have people take you seriously, at least people who sincerely want to run reasonably decent times, you need to come up with examples of people who have used your ideas and actually run reasonably decent times.

---

Actually the research studies by the FIRST group provides good examples of what can be done on a program similar to what I recommend. In the first studies 70% of veteran marathoners set PRs or beat their most recent marathon time while running just 3 days per week and cross training 2 times per week.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 11:50 AM            

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 11:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrinertia:
If you excede your upper limit, then, logically, couldn't you conclude that it wasn't really your limit? Limits, by definition, are the points that you cannot go past.

---

mrinertia,

When I talk about upper limit I mean in terms of positive adaptations. Are you familiar with the term "overtraining"? It is the term we use to describe when someone has trained beyond their ability to adapt (in other words, they exceeded their upper limit of adaptation). Runners can train more than they can adapt to. Eventually, if they continue to train beyond their ability to adapt they become overtrained and/or injured.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 11:59 AM               

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 12:05 PM            

Wasn't the population studied by the FIRST researchers made up entireley of experienced runners?

If so, how is it at all applicable to novices? And why is it being marketed towards that demographic?

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 12:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
Richard,

It's interesting that you seem so focused on t100 miles per week as the rallying post of the high volume proponents. It's already been pointed out, but worth re-pointing out that 8 to 10 hrs per week at 10 min per mile avg pace amounts to about 48 to 60 miles per week. Do you really think this is high mileage?

---

I am absolutely willing to accept that some will reach optimal training volume at that level of mileage (48 to 60 in your example).

I'm unsure if most high mileage proponents will accept this level of weekly mileage though.

For example, the response to maryt's comments that she ran 45-50 and that 45 was best for her fits very close to the weekly mileage suggested above. But she met with significant resistance and disbelief by some, apparently high mileage proponents, that such a modest level of mileage could ever result in optimal performance.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 12:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by piobaireachd:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

Wasn't the population studied by the FIRST researchers made up entireley of experienced runners?

If so, how is it at all applicable to novices? And why is it being marketed towards that demographic?

---

piobaireachd,

I don't know if all the subjects were runners.

Quite a few of them were novice marathoners.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 12:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
piobaireachd,

I don't know if all the subjects were runners.

Quite a few of them were novice marathoners.

---

OK. I was mistaken.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 12:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
I am absolutely willing to accept that some will reach optimal training volume at that level of mileage (48 to 60 in your example).

I'm unsure if most high mileage proponents will accept this level of weekly mileage though.

For example, the response to maryt's comments that she ran 45-50 and that 45 was best for her fits very close to the weekly mileage suggested above. But she met with significant resistance and disbelief by some, apparently high mileage proponents, that such a modest level of mileage could ever result in optimal performance.

---

I don't recall anyone telling her to run more miles. I think she was being told to distribute them more appropriately, particularly her long run.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 12:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
mrinertia,

It is the term we use to describe when someone has trained beyond their ability to adapt

---

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 12:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:

I don't recall anyone telling her to run more miles. I think she was being told to distribute them more appropriately, particularly her long run.

---

Perhaps I am interpreting this wrong:

quote:

---

She has not reached any sort of optimal training or performance level She's never broken five hours for the marathon. The fact that she came closer when she cut her mileage from 50 to 45 a week proves nothing. You can tweak any inadequate schedule and get better results but that doesn't mean you've got an "optimal" schedule, to use a word you like so well.

---

rengle,

Will you clarify, please. Are you suggesting 45 mpw is about right for maryt and that all she needs do is distribute them differently?

tigger,

In the meantime, it appears you and I are in accord that some people will reach optimal training at modest weekly mileages.

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

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-22-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 12:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:

I don't recall anyone telling her to run more miles. I think she was being told to distribute them more appropriately, particularly her long run.

---

Yep, the debate wasn't over her mileage. The debate was around the necessity of running 4-5+ hour long runs, which most felt was counter-productive due to mini-taper and recovery necessary to execute it.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 12:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Brian,

This comment has really aroused my curiosity. On what evidence do you guys base this? How do you know less talented runners need the volume more?

---

Amazing. Well - it's practically the definition of "natural talent." Do I need proof to explain that the meaning of the word "is" is is? Some proofs are self-evident. Greater improvement with less effort is a basic layman's definition of "more talented." It may not be your definition. That, I cannot help.

Of course, we can argue around this and say that one's ability to handle a certain type and amount of mileage is a talent - and it is - but it is a less obvious talent that can only be proven or disproven by almost a lifetime worth of STRIVING for EXCELLENCE. Without giving it a try, you know nothing. I am my own evidence. So is anyone who works at it. You are your own evidence. If you have not put in 10+ years trying to do more, better, faster, longer - why should anyone listen? It falls on deaf ears. Lydiard ran. He put himself through the gauntlet. He trained others. It worked. And people listened. They continue to listen.

Perhaps you are a Lydiard adherent craftily seeking to push people into doing the real work by promoting clearly preposterous outlandish... man, I can't stay civil. I just can't figure it.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 12:47 PM            

IP: Logged