posted May-22-2007 04:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrinertia:
So how do you know whe your upper limit has been reached?

---

Basically you have to track your performance and training over time. As you improve and adapt you continue to increase your training volume. Eventually, after several years of solid training and increases in training volume you will reach a training volume that results in a permanent decline in performance, rather than an increase in performance. At that point you have found the highest level of training that you are capable of adapting too.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 04:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigapplepie:
Its high for an average runner.

---

Fred's talking in absolutes, and in that way I'd say he's probably right.

It was sometime into running before I'd heard about hundred mile weeks and my first thought was 'holy crap, that's a lot!'. Of course, I also thought finishing a half marathon was an astounding feat, and now it's not even a Sunday run for me.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 04:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nordic Berserker:
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.

---

Nordic,

If there is no upper limit then any of us can build up to any level of mileage. 120 would just be getting started. We can all run 200 mpw per week if we want and run faster at 200mpw than at 120mpw.

If there is no upper limit then why don't elites run more than they do now? Why don't elites run 250-300 mpw? It would only take about 30-35 hours a week to do so.

The fact that they don't means there is some upper limit to rate & magnitude of adaptation and that training beyond that limit doesn't produce additional improvements.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 04:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Basically you have to track your performance and training over time. As you improve and adapt you continue to increase your training volume. Eventually, after several years of solid training and increases in training volume you will reach a training volume that results in a permanent decline in performance, rather than an increase in performance. At that point you have found the highest level of training that you are capable of adapting too.

---

Right, so according to you, how you train means nothing...just how much. Or from a different viewpoint, if your performance goes down, just look at how much running you did and that's past your limit so you should have scaled back.

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 05:13 PM            

Don't tell me. Its depends on the individual, right?

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 05:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigapplepie:
So you increase mileage to the point where you are overtrained then cut back. For how long? When can you start increasing the mileage again?

Don't tell me. Its depends on the individual, right?

---

How badly overtrained were you? Did you get injured too? How fast do you recover? Joan Samuleson recovered from knee surgery in something like 2-3 weeks. It took me 3 months after similar knee surgery before my knee was healed enough to allow me to return to running.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 05:21 PM               

I just read this from Richard's 'powerrunning training guide' (no Richard, I didn't hit your site, I just use google cache entries so I keep your hit count down)

Anyway, this is a bit of Richard's scientific garbage double-talk :

"This study correlated performance for several thousand runners competing in a 10 mile race....For the middle 1/3 of finishers, those who ran higher weekly mileage did not outperform those who ran more modest weekly mileages, but they didn't run any slower either."

Earlier on, he talked about this study:
"The researchers didn’t stop with just this analysis though. They continued their investigation by dividing the runners into 3 groups based on finishing time, divided as follows:

runners with a finishing time of 55 min. - 1:06 hr:min (fastest)

runners with a finishing time of 1:06 - 1:14 (middle)

runners with a finishing time of 1:14 - 1:25 (slowest)
"

You see, the researchers grouped runners into finishing times, so the 'middle' group Richard referred to in his analysis are runners all with the same finishing time...1:06 to 1:14. So there's a very good reason why the runners in this group with higher mileage didn't run faster than those with lower mileage...because they are, by selection, all runners with the same finishing times.

Yes Richard, it's remarkable and scientifically revealing how a bunch of runners with the same finishing times...had the same finishing times.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 05:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:

Right, so according to you, how you train means nothing...just how much. Or from a different viewpoint, if your performance goes down, just look at how much running you did and that's past your limit so you should have scaled back.

---

I recommend the use of training load and not mileage as the measurement tool. As you know, training load is a better measure of training than is weekly mileage. However, rather than risk confusing the issue (as martinjames keeps reminding me to not do) I was trying to keep things simple so as to get the main point across. I was not attempting to articulate a complete training methodology, just the main point about upper limits of adaptation.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 05:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Basically you have to track your performance and training over time. As you improve and adapt you continue to increase your training volume. Eventually, after several years of solid training and increases in training volume you will reach a training volume that results in a permanent decline in performance, rather than an increase in performance. At that point you have found the highest level of training that you are capable of adapting too.

---

Damn, after trying hard not to get sucked into this thread, even when it got good with people who really know what they are talking about, I can't take it any more. The biggest problem I have always had with Richard and all this talk of low-responders, average genetic talent, running faster by running less, etc. is that it is of absolutely no predictive value whatsoever. Even if you grant that Richard is right about everything (which is extraordinarily unlikely) it does not help a single runner to know how to train--you have to work it out for yourself by trying some low mileage, high mileage, varying intensity, etc.

The one thing I will say that Richard has right (and I think most everybody agrees) is that people's responses to training vary and that no one prescription will fit everybody. But such an observation is so obvious that making it is not particularly worthwhile.

Southern Man

------------------
We're on a road to nowhere. Come on along.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 05:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
However, rather than risk confusing the issue (as martinjames keeps reminding me to not do) I was trying to keep things simple so as to get the main point across.

---

ah, nah nah nah. What martin said was to avoid the riddles, he didn't say anything about keeping it simple.

My post above about stuff from your site is a classic example of how you like to spout meaningless nonsense as though it has some sort of relevence. Double talk and dribble.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 06:14 PM            

quote:

---

posted yesterday by somebody on another board :

What's your goal here, Richard? Is it to try to convince someone that you know more about running than everyone else? That is what it looks like. The only problem is that your theories resemble a school child's and your conclusions are unfounded.

You write a bunch of words that end up meaning nothing.

---

quote:

---

posted by Richard in response :

My goal is to contribute what I can to running physiology and training. And to contribute, to the best of my ability, what I can to the running community.

I welcome and encourage the contribution of those more knowledgeable than I. If my theories resemble a school child's and my conclusions are unfounded then I humbly request that those who are so knowledgeable on these topics they can easily recognize the problems in my theories & conclusions to contribute to the running community by clearly explaining the truth to us and citing the evidence in support of that truth. That way all of us can learn and improve from the most knowledgeable and learned among us.

---

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 06:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
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

---

Yes Guys I posted quite a bit on Jack over at Letsrun.
The schedule above is pretty much right but the distances (Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday) were really 'guestimates' based on what Jack did over the country side in terms of time.
I showed Rengle the land that Jack ran over and distances would be hard to calculate, plus the 'ruggedness' of the land.
An hour and a half on that country really tests you.
One of the toughest long runs I have ever done was with Jack and I was "shot to pieces ' afterwards.
Arthur Lydiard said Jack did not have to run 100 mies a week. He was doing the equivalent when he ran over that countryside.
The Wednesday workout could vary and he quite often ran mile reps on the same race course.
When Jack raced even in a club race he ran hard as hard as he could. I can recall him running a 49 min 10 miler to win a club Championship once. He did not need to run that hard to win but he did.
When he was preparing for a Marathon he would lift that Sunday run to nearer 3 hours.

As was said before ; Jack said he did not train. He went for a run everyday.

Great guy, awesome sense of humour. A legend !!

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 07:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Nordic,

If there is no upper limit then any of us can build up to any level of mileage. 120 would just be getting started. We can all run 200 mpw per week if we want and run faster at 200mpw than at 120mpw.

If there is no upper limit then why don't elites run more than they do now? Why don't elites run 250-300 mpw? It would only take about 30-35 hours a week to do so.

The fact that they don't means there is some upper limit to rate & magnitude of adaptation and that training beyond that limit doesn't produce additional improvements.

---

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 07:31 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
ah, nah nah nah. What martin said was to avoid the riddles, he didn't say anything about keeping it simple.

My post above about stuff from your site is a classic example of how you like to spout meaningless nonsense as though it has some sort of relevence. Double talk and dribble.

---

In his defense, I did both. I asked him to skip the riddles and use plain English. Sometimes Richard has a tendency to start using technical terms and jargon and, in the process, I can't figure out what the heck he's talking about. I find that the more plainly he speaks the easier it is to deal with his statements.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 07:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Basically you have to track your performance and training over time. As you improve and adapt you continue to increase your training volume. Eventually, after several years of solid training and increases in training volume you will reach a training volume that results in a permanent decline in performance, rather than an increase in performance. At that point you have found the highest level of training that you are capable of adapting too.

---

So if I need to find the highest possible training volume possible, how does your program fit in? Don't you recomend modest volume training?

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 08:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nordic Berserker:
You argue by obfuscating and changing the subject. That way you never lose, do you? I never said that there isn't an upper limit to the amount of training that one can do. Nevertheless you've been expounding on this untested genetic limit theorem for who knows how long now.

---

I apologize if I misunderstood your original point. When you said there was no gene for upper limit I took you meaning to be there was no upper limit. I don't know if there is a specific "gene" for upper limit. I do know that all of us have an upper limit and it's not the same for everyone. Research on genetic talent supports the idea that genetics is primarily responsible for differences in response to training.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 08:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrinertia:
So if I need to find the highest possible training volume possible, how does your program fit in? Don't you recomend modest volume training?

---

mrinertia,

I provide some suggested training volumes in my program, but they are only starting points. They are what I generally believe will be most effective for runners in a particular category. However, the most important thing is finding what is optimal or best for you. My #1 piece of advice is that you must find what works for you, which is why I designed my training program around you finding what works best for you.

So, while I provide some predictions and guidelines of what I think will work best, I fully expect and encourage each to truly find out what works best for them.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 08:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
"This study correlated performance for several thousand runners competing in a 10 mile race....For the middle 1/3 of finishers, those who ran higher weekly mileage [b]did not outperform those who ran more modest weekly mileages, but they didn't run any slower either."

Earlier on, he talked about this study:
"The researchers didn’t stop with just this analysis though. They continued their investigation by dividing the runners into 3 groups based on finishing time, divided as follows:

runners with a finishing time of 55 min. - 1:06 hr:min (fastest)

runners with a finishing time of 1:06 - 1:14 (middle)

runners with a finishing time of 1:14 - 1:25 (slowest)
"

You see, the researchers grouped runners into finishing times, so the 'middle' group Richard referred to in his analysis are runners all with the same finishing time...1:06 to 1:14. So there's a very good reason why the runners in this group with higher mileage didn't run faster than those with lower mileage...because they are, by selection, all runners with the same finishing times.

Yes Richard, it's remarkable and scientifically revealing how a bunch of runners with the same finishing times...had the same finishing times.[/B]

---

Jim,

How did the analysis work out for the other 2 groups?

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 09:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
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.

---

Yeah. Sure they did. Owen Anderson is always citing these bogus studies too. You could select your numbers for a study to prove anything you want. Again, you have to look at what people did over the long term. How many years did those "veterans" use that routine? Or was it something they did for a couple of months prior to their race.
I was not suggesting that MaryT simply needed to redistribute her miles. She needed more; many more and she may have needed to spend some time adapting to that higher load.
Finally, that large percentage of people over four hours is proof that people are more casual about their marathons now, not that they are "genetically" unable to run under four hours. I've seen way too many people who are old, had been unhealthy, are fat, etc who've run under four hours. It really is not that hard to do.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 10:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Jim,

How did the analysis work out for the other 2 groups?

---

Exactly the same result!

It's difficult to believe, but when they chose finishers who had times between 55 and 66 minutes...they all had finishing times between 55 and 66 minutes!

Not only that, but when they checked finishers between 1:14 and 1:24...every single one of those finishers had times between exactly 1:14 and 1:25!

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 10:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:

I was not suggesting that MaryT simply needed to redistribute her miles. She needed more; many more...

---

tigger,

Well, that answers the question.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 11:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Jimmy,

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.

---

Okay. You are going to make me read your website. I'll be back.

I'm back. So you have 4 levels of runners (from Powerrunning.com by Richard Gibbens):

Level 1: Level 1 runners are genetically blessed with speed. Their genetics allow them to run fast off of little to no training and to improve significantly with training. Level 1 runners finish in the top 25% of local races and the very fastest ones are good enough to compete internationally.

A level 1 runner runs a marathon between 2- 3 hrs

Training Volume recommendation: 8+ hrs (60+ mpw)
Recommended Frequency of Run Workouts Per Week: 6+x per week
******
Level 2: Level 2 runners are also genetically blessed with speed, but not as much as the Level 1 runners. Level 2 runners form the upper 25 - 50% of finishing places in races. The fastest Level 2 runners finish ahead of about 75% of the other runners in the race and even the slowest level 2 runner finishes just in front of 50% of the other race competitors. Level 2 runners benefit from increasing their training load to a fairly high level, but performance levels off at a lower training load than that of the Level 1 runners.

A level 2 runner runs a marathon between 3 - 4 hrs
Training Volume recommendation: 6 - 8 hrs (40-60 mpw)
Recommended Frequency of Run Workouts Per Week: 4-6 x per week
*********
Level 3: Level 3 runners have average to below average speed and make up the 50 - 75 percentile of finishers in races. The relatively low level of genetic talent prevent these runners from running very fast or from benefiting from increasing training load beyond a modest amount.

A level 3 runner runs a marathon between 4 - 5 hrs
Training Volume recommendation: 4.5 - 6 hrs (25-40 mpw)
Recommended Frequency of Run Workouts Per Week: 3-5 x per week

Level 4: Level 4 runners have below average speed and reach their genetic maximum at very modest training loads. Increasing training load beyond these very modest levels is likely to cause a noticeably poorer performance. Level 4 runners finish in the back 25% of races.

A level 4 runner runs a marathon between 5 - 6 hrs
Training Volume recommendation: 2.5 - 4.5 hrs (15-25 mpw)
Recommended Frequency of Run Workouts Per Week: 2-4 x per week
************
Measuring perceived effort:

Session RPE scale:
0 = rest
1 = really easy
2 = easy
3 = moderate
4 = sort of hard
5 = hard
6
7 = really hard
8
9 = really, really hard
10 = just like my hardest race (i.e. all out effort)

Table 1: Calculating daily & weekly training load
Day.....Duration (min) Intensity (RPE) Training Load
Mon.....45.......................4..............................180
Tue......65.......................8..............................520
Wed.....75.......................6..............................450
Thu......45.......................4..............................180
Fri........50.......................7..............................350
Sat.......35.......................3..............................105
Sun......125......................6..............................750
Total Weekly training Load ...............................2535

Long runs:
Power runs: 3-10 miles or 20min-1hour (RPE 5-6).
Intervals / Sprints: The usual
Easy runs: RPE 2
Hills: Speedwork in disguise. You can run hills as part of your Power Run or as part of your Interval / Sprint day.

**************************
The above is a basic synopsis of what I read. I can easily make a schedule out of what is above. I commend you on all the work you put into the program. I recommend you get it all on one page like this without all the studies and explanation (maybe you already have). Keep it simple.

************************
I don't see why someone couldn't make improvements with your program, it's conservative in volume, and has the usual intervals, long run, and tempo run. Though based on my experience, I think the level system you created could be limiting to some.

My first marathon, in Oct. 2004, I ran a 4:14, placing 498 of 920 overall (54%) and 127 of 207 in age division (61%)-- which at the time would make me a Level 3 runner in your program. A runner with no genetic talent, who should run 25-40 miles per week for volume.

After a year of working of working two base periods, building miles to Level 1 training: 60-70+ (less than 80) miles per week (8 hours plus). To add, I also ran 85%-90% of miles run at paces that kept my HR below 75% MHR. There were times I was running 12:00 miles, but eventually the paces dropped to 9:-10:00 at the same HR, by rarely working above it.

My second marathon, in May 2005, I ran VCM in 3:45 (hitting the wall at mile 23).

My third marathon, in November 2005, I ran Philly in 3:28 (BQ) (no wall, negative splits). I finished 969th of 5933 overall (16%) and 154 of 622 in age division (24%)

In one year, I went from being a level 3 runner with no genetic talent and average to below average speed to a Level 2 runner with some genetic talent and above average speed. I did this by training at level 1. I don't think I would have achieved the same thing on 24-40 miles per week.

After one more year of training at level 1, I brought the marathon time down to 3:22 at Philly. I finished 760th of 6119 (12%) overall and 62nd ! of 545 in my age division--top 11%!

I believe in my heart that I can get even better, and I will do it by running at your level 1 (mixed with aerobic base training) keeping most miles 75% MHR an below. Doing races and some tempo and speedwork at certain times during the marathon training.

Can I ever be an elite runner in my age division? Why not? It is going to take hard work, but if I let the idea of level 2 and level 3 get in my head, I'm done with the dream.

If I would have believed I was a level 3 marathoner, there is a good chance I would have stayed level three, or a slow level 2.

I believe you CAN push the body too far by not following good recovery principles. The two times I've been injured was not due to volume (I went all the way to 100 miles per week), but to not taking enough rest after a hard effort (race). The way I see it, if you're smart, you learn from the inevitable setbacks and move forward with spirit.

After reading your website, I think your program has the many great tried and true elements for making quicker distance runners, but I'm not sure it builds endurance enough (then again, I would never be considered a good judge of that by most as the way I build aerobic endurance is considered to be crackpot fringe poopoo by many, I don't care, it works for me). I think the only way you are ever going to sell your program to anyone is by
having dozens and dozens (one more) and dozens of people work it and to see the actual results in marathon times and other distances. You might find that it is an excellent program for 5k runners, or 15 k runners, whatever. Maybe it's good for marathoning, maybe not. You won't know until you have lots of personal coaching experience (you are being a coach with that website) and empirical and anecdotal evidence, successes and failures, and some respect for actually guiding people to reach their potential. Studies don't do it for me. I can't speak for anyone else. I find them boring. All the talk of studies makes your program seem tedious and boring, when at its heart it is about trying to get better, safely, and there is something there that could be fun to try.

That's it. I guess I answered my own questions. One good thing is that I can refer to this synopsis of your program when I need to. I'm also like a Borg, and will remember the program you put out, and take what I find fun, and give it a try sometime. Experiment.

Thanks, Richard. Good luck with your program. I urge you to go for it for real, be a coach, and a successful one to boot. Why not?

--Jimmy

@@@@
jog log

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited May-23-2007).]

[This message has been edited by jjwaverly42 (edited May-23-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-23-2007 12:05 AM            

...never mind the concept that 'hard work' isn't a talent, or controlling one's nerves in big races, but that's another totally different story......

"A less talented runner needs the volume more than anyone to develop physiologically or it just simply will not happen."

IP: Logged

posted May-23-2007 12:27 AM            

IP: Logged

posted May-23-2007 04:33 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by denton:
....Kim....didn't Foster add to some of his training with his biking.....i always liked the classic line from lydiard when asked to comment on foester's unlydiard like mileage......paraphrasing here of course, but something along the lines of 'have you see the hills he runs on?'.....i ran on on those &$%^E&$#&&*^&*( rotorua foret trails for 2hr 35 and i almost died)...they were nasty hilly.....

---

Denton,

You reckon the forest trails/Roads/hills were tough you should see the Farm land that Jack ran on !!!!!!!!!. Made the trails look like an Olympic level Track !!!
I can see them from my house. They are just metres away !!!!
Most of what he ran on were narrow sheep tracks and at this time of year (Winter) he ran in the Dark. He also had to negotiate fences. He wore a few of those in his time !!!!
But seriously. Jack's first love was always his Bike and he rode that often.Usually too and from work and very commonly on a Monday night after a hard Sunday run.
In his 50's he returned to to the Bike and was winning and placing in age group races.
An example : He and a buddy (Arthur Candy ..NZ Rep at 64 Olympics in 4k Pursuit) went 1, 2 in a NZ 50k Time trial Champs and were minutes faster than 30 year olds. They were both over 55 at the time.
But Jack could still run and only weeks before he was killed he had run 5 -8 km to one of the guys homes who he used to run with. Then ran home. I spoke to Colin (the guy involved) and said 'How did Jack look !" Colin said "As good as ever. Just flowing along as he always did"

As I said before : The man is a legend.

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

IP: Logged