| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
obsessor
Cool Runner |
 posted May-22-2007 12:54 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
I think Nobby mentioned that Lydiard claimed his runners had to run 100 mpw because they had less talent.
I agree with that. I'm behind the times. I was responding to rich's ... insinuation ... that less talented people need less training, which I find to be ridiculous.
IP: Logged |
mrinertia
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 12:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
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. Do you mean that the upper limit is not a static point for an individual, but moves further and further out as he/she trains more and more? I thought the upper limit was the point in which nothing you do, no matter what, is going to move you past a point.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 12:59 PM
A 100 mile week is modest. Please don't refer to it as high mileage.And elite females don't run less than men if they want to break 2:20. 150 miles a week, 160 miles a week, 180 miles a week - high mileage
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 01:09 PM
mrinertia,You have an upper limit of how much training you can handle right now. Your upper limit today may or may not coincide with the level of training you can ultimately achieve. In other words, each of us starts with a certain amount of potential / genetic talent. But we don't start off as beginners already running at our ultimate potential. We have to train in order to realize our potential. At some point, through years of correct & diligent training you can get as close to your ultimate potential as is humanly possible - you are as fast as you are ever capable of getting, as fast as your personal genetic talent allows. So, your upper limit of how much you can do right now might not be your ultimate upper limit. When I talk about upper limit I'm talking about the maximum you will ever be able to attain, not necessarily how much you can do today (unless you are currently at your peak of lifetime performance). ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 01:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
tigger, In the meantime, it appears you and I are in accord that some people will reach optimal training at modest weekly mileages.
Good heavens! I don't consider 50 to 60 mpw to be modest weekly mileage! I think maryt said she managed around 50 for 3 years, and I said waaay back then that she had done pretty well under the circumstances. My own weekly mileage is less (Last year 45 mpw avg) and I run similar race times. My 5k PR is 8 min miles. But I DO run around 8 hours per week, which is a heck of a lot more than most of those 4:30 or slower marathoners you pointed out a couple of posts ago. When getting ready for a goal race I will bump it up to 11 or 12 hrs, but that's only for a few weeks per year and it's offset by lower weeks when I'm not planning to race. If you were able to analyze the training schedules of the 4:30 and slower marathoners I suspect a huge majority of them have not averaged 50 mpw for more than a couple of weeks in a row, if at all. Most marathon programs out there have very low mileage overall, and peaks in the 30's to 40's. That is not going to produce your best result.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 01:11 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'm definitely one of those with "significant resistance" and "disbelief" to MaryT's training and her performance but this is what I said (below). I thnk my wife ran about 25 miles a week for her first marathon in 3:54:
quote:
Originally posted by me on 20+ page:
I'm a little bit different, however, with Rengle in terms of training approach for the "marathon survivor". As I always mention my wife's exapmle, I think one can run a "decent" marathon, whatever decent means to the individual, off one long run a week with sporradic rest-of-the-week training. I know I can't do it that way; but I found out more females seem to be able to handle this approach than men. When my runner wanted to run Chicago marathon last year, which I wasn't too excited about, I put her a long run on weekend plus hill training mid-week. She kept active most of the rest of the week but I don't think she ran a lot. She was a complete novice and didn't run much for 10 years at all. The longest she ever ran before she came to me was 1:20. After 5 months, she ran her first marathon in 3:41 (I actually thought she could do 3:30 but that was too damn cold and windy). She did one 3-hour run, just like my wife did.
So any other example beside MaryT, Dick?
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 01:13 PM
http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/TrainingLogs/seko.htm
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 01:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
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.
I'd say so many marathoners run so slow, and I would say the average time is getting slower and slower, is because they don't get the training balance right and get suckered into some bull$hit like "you are untrainable" or "you run better with less training"; not because human race is getting less and less "talented".
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 01:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/TrainingLogs/seko.htm
Fred: I don't know why you all of a sudden posted this but I need to give you a little clarification here. I sent this to Hodgie-san and he posted it right up, which is fine. But here's something to note; and I actually discussed with coach Nakamura (Seko's coach); Seko's training at this time (1977) was still quite experimental. They haven't quite found the winning pattern yet. Nakamura, of course, developed the fundamental background of marathon training for almost all the future Japanese marathon runner, men AND women, to follow (based on the Lydiardism, I might add) but it really wasn't until 1978. Seko's 2:15 at Fukuoka was almost a fluke; but from that race on, they started seeing some pattern that worked. In Seko's most recent book, he posted his training for early years, peak years (1983) as well as his track preparation. In 1977, his training was still quite random.
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 02:27 PM
Sorry to hijack this thread for a moment ( but apparently not sorry enough not to do it :o) ) but since Kim and others who may know are checking in regularly, I wondered if they could post some information or point me in the direction on Jack Foster and his training. I sort of know the basics, he was an Olympian in 72 and 76, ran a 2:11 marathon master's WR and ran about 70-80 mpw, usually over hilly terrain, with limited interval work etc. I've tried to find Tale of the Ancient Marathoner but haven't had any luck. If anyone has anything more specific I would appreciate it very much.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 02:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
I'd say so many marathoners run so slow, and I would say the average time is getting slower and slower, is because they don't get the training balance right and get suckered into some bull$hit like "you are untrainable" or "you run better with less training"; not because human race is getting less and less "talented".
I disagree Nobby. I think there are so many books and so much media attention encouraging social runners or non-runners to try a marathon that you are simply getting more runners who have no intention of ever running a marathon again are training for the "once in a lifetime" experience. Half the field in the 2006 Disney World Marathon seemed to be stopping to get their photographs taken with Mickey Mouse. Only 1,422 out of 10,125 finishers broke 4 hours. Less than half the finishers managed to break 5 hours.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 02:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DanMoriarity:
Sorry to hijack this thread for a moment ( but apparently not sorry enough not to do it  ) ) but since Kim and others who may know are checking in regularly, I wondered if they could post some information or point me in the direction on Jack Foster and his training. I sort of know the basics, he was an Olympian in 72 and 76, ran a 2:11 marathon master's WR and ran about 70-80 mpw, usually over hilly terrain, with limited interval work etc. I've tried to find Tale of the Ancient Marathoner but haven't had any luck. If anyone has anything more specific I would appreciate it very much.
According to Foster he never trained. He just ran. See the section under "Pleasant Work". http://tinyurl.com/28vmzh
IP: Logged |
loopy
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 02:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DanMoriarity:
Sorry to hijack this thread for a moment...I've tried to find Tale of the Ancient Marathoner but haven't had any luck.
Sorry to hijack a hijack, but have you tried getting it through the library? Worldcat lists 39 libraries holding this book. If there is not one close to you, you can ask your local library to Inter-Library Loan it for you. Hope that helps!
IP: Logged |
mrinertia
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 02:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
mrinertia,You have an upper limit of how much training you can handle right now. Your upper limit today may or may not coincide with the level of training you can ultimately achieve. In other words, each of us starts with a certain amount of potential / genetic talent. But we don't start off as beginners already running at our ultimate potential. We have to train in order to realize our potential. At some point, through years of correct & diligent training you can get as close to your ultimate potential as is humanly possible - you are as fast as you are ever capable of getting, as fast as your personal genetic talent allows. So, your upper limit of how much you can do right now might not be your ultimate upper limit. When I talk about upper limit I'm talking about the maximum you will ever be able to attain, not necessarily how much you can do today (unless you are currently at your peak of lifetime performance).
So how do you know whe your upper limit has been reached?
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 03:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
A 100 mile week is modest. Please don't refer to it as high mileage.
Its high for an average runner.The average weekly mileage by posters on the Boomer's and Beyond forum for March was 32 miles.
[This message has been edited by bigapplepie (edited May-22-2007).]
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 03:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DanMoriarity:
Sorry to hijack this thread for a moment ( but apparently not sorry enough not to do it ) ) but since Kim and others who may know are checking in regularly, I wondered if they could post some information or point me in the direction on Jack Foster and his training. I sort of know the basics, he was an Olympian in 72 and 76, ran a 2:11 marathon master's WR and ran about 70-80 mpw, usually over hilly terrain, with limited interval work etc. I've tried to find Tale of the Ancient Marathoner but haven't had any luck. If anyone has anything more specific I would appreciate it very much.
Sunday: 2-hour at 6-minute pace
Monday: 6 miles or 1 hour bike ride
Tuesday: 12 miles cross country
Wednesday: 3~5 X 1000m on horse track
Thursday: 12 miles cross country
Friday: Rest or bike ride or easy run
Saturday: Race or fastish gallop
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 03:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
I disagree Nobby. I think there are so many books and so much media attention encouraging social runners or non-runners to try a marathon that you are simply getting more runners who have no intention of ever running a marathon again are training for the "once in a lifetime" experience.Half the field in the 2006 Disney World Marathon seemed to be stopping to get their photographs taken with Mickey Mouse. Only 1,422 out of 10,125 finishers broke 4 hours. Less than half the finishers managed to break 5 hours.
Well! That's one "disagreement" I would readily welcome! So that proves even more so that it's got nothing to do with this "talent" crap but instead it's Micky Mouse and Cinderella! [This message has been edited by Nobby (edited May-22-2007).]
IP: Logged |
thereshegoes
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 03:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
mrinertia,You have an upper limit of how much training you can handle right now. Your upper limit today may or may not coincide with the level of training you can ultimately achieve. In other words, each of us starts with a certain amount of potential / genetic talent. But we don't start off as beginners already running at our ultimate potential. We have to train in order to realize our potential. At some point, through years of correct & diligent training you can get as close to your ultimate potential as is humanly possible - you are as fast as you are ever capable of getting, as fast as your personal genetic talent allows. So, your upper limit of how much you can do right now might not be your ultimate upper limit. When I talk about upper limit I'm talking about the maximum you will ever be able to attain, not necessarily how much you can do today (unless you are currently at your peak of lifetime performance).
This sounds more Aristotelan metaphysics and less human biology. It's been quite amusing sitting back and watching you try to out-logic people who are actually making valid arguments based on empirical evidence, especially when you make points like the above. This, essentially says the limit is a moving target but it's not a moving target. As others have commented before, deep. What ARE you trying to accomplish anyway? What's your point in a nutshell?
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 03:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
I disagree Nobby. I think there are so many books and so much media attention encouraging social runners or non-runners to try a marathon that you are simply getting more runners who have no intention of ever running a marathon again are training for the "once in a lifetime" experience.Half the field in the 2006 Disney World Marathon seemed to be stopping to get their photographs taken with Mickey Mouse. Only 1,422 out of 10,125 finishers broke 4 hours. Less than half the finishers managed to break 5 hours.
So true. I'm sure that there are better stats out there, but in 2003, 23,884 people entered the Marine Corps Marathon. More than half, 12,550, were running for their first time. http://www.defendamerica.mil/profiles/oct2003/pr103103a.html. The New York City Marathon was about 40 percent first-timers back in 1999. In addition, the average age of the marathoner has increased to 40+. Charity and walking groups are proliferating. In Honolulu, known as a popular destinations for first-timers, nearly half the field (10,000 + runners) took longer than 6 hours. http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/3/3_1/rric-annual-marathon-repo-3.shtml
IP: Logged |
Cottonwood Trail
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 04:05 PM
Dan,Over at LetsRun, if you search jack Foster's traing, there is plenty of information. I think Kim posted a sample week similar to what nobby posted here. Ther's also several weeks leading up to a 20 mile WR and some great stories.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 04:13 PM
Nobby,Is there some good reason you are now calling me Dick? ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
flobaby
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 04:15 PM
quote:
See the section under "Pleasant Work".
Wow, thanks for posting this link. I can't believe he started at 32 and worked to maintain his "20-minute jogs". Hell, if that's not the most inspiring thing I've read ever.
IP: Logged |
flobaby
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 04:18 PM
Geez, I always wondered why there so many multiple postings on this board...[This message has been edited by flobaby (edited May-22-2007).]
IP: Logged |
flobaby
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 04:22 PM
...now I know.Sorry folks, go on about your business. [This message has been edited by flobaby (edited May-22-2007).]
IP: Logged |
Nordic Berserker
Cool Runner |
posted May-22-2007 04:32 PM
Richard, there is no evidence of an upper limit gene--a 30, 40, 70, 120 mpw gene. Pretty much anyone in reasonable health can train themselves to do 8,10, 12 hrs a week of aerobic workouts. quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
mrinertia,You have an upper limit of how much training you can handle right now. Your upper limit today may or may not coincide with the level of training you can ultimately achieve. In other words, each of us starts with a certain amount of potential / genetic talent. But we don't start off as beginners already running at our ultimate potential. We have to train in order to realize our potential. At some point, through years of correct & diligent training you can get as close to your ultimate potential as is humanly possible - you are as fast as you are ever capable of getting, as fast as your personal genetic talent allows. So, your upper limit of how much you can do right now might not be your ultimate upper limit. When I talk about upper limit I'm talking about the maximum you will ever be able to attain, not necessarily how much you can do today (unless you are currently at your peak of lifetime performance).
IP: Logged |
