| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
maryt
Cool Runner |
 posted May-23-2007 06:25 AM
  
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
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.
Come on rengle. You are totally out of touch with reality when you talk about the masses and how much and how fast they should run, so is nobby for that matter, although not to quite the same extent. You complain about people not training enough on the one hand, then would force an arbitrary time limit on long runs even if it meant someone would be running only 12-15 miles in preparation for running 26.2 You make assumptions that just because people are not as fast as you think they should be, they must not be giving their training enough time or training hard enough - whatever. If you had been involved with training programs the way it is now in the USA today that include a lot of people of all abilities who are trying to get into running, you would know that there is a tremendous difference in how different people improve even following the exact same schedule. We see it all the time even in our track series with children, coaches who train high school runners now that programs are inclusive of all abilities rather than trying to "make" the team, etc. The idea that is trying to be put out there today is that running and getting fit is for everyone - not just those who would have considered themselves capable of trying out for a track team or making a cross country team, and even those teams are more inclusive. You must have seen that even as kid - some children have more athletic ability than others right from the get go. The main difference is that today, those kids who were picked last on the playgouround for teams, those kids who wouldn't even go to the playground or consider trying out for teams, those kids who showed very little ability - many are now adults who want to get fit or run to raise money for a cause. It's not that they are just running slower because they are more casual about their training. You're now seeing people get involved in running who would never have even considered getting involved in running in the past. That's a good thing.As for me, if I had just spent more time getting used to the higher work load??? Come on rengle - how much time do consider giving it enough time?? More time than 4 years? Not months - years - and training with other runners and coaches? Not every one who does the same training will reach the same level or even the same degree of improvement. As for myself, you could look at improvement of a 12 minute pace to an 8 pace as the same percentage improvement as a 9 pace going to a 6 pace, and say in my case I improved tremendously; I have seen many other runners who didn't have anywhere that degree of improvement either in percentage improvement or in absolute terms; some never got faster than a 9-10 minute pace. Not everyone has the same potential and the optimum training for some is not the optimum training for others - that is just so obvious I can't understand why there are some such as yourself who have such difficulty getting it. Consider even the actual number of hours involved. Someone who is training at a 10 pace runs 50% more time than someone who is running the same mileage at a 7:30 pace, and if you take into account a slower runner might be slower because of some mechancal imbalances (such as a deformed spine in my case), inability to recover, rebuild and repair as efficiently as a faster runner, or differences in metabolism, etc., the slower runner could be working his or her body harder than the faster runner if they spend the same amount of time running, even if the pace is slower and the mileage is lower. When you've primarily worked with athletes, you get a biased unrealistic view of the masses. The people I know who were fast in their yout but are now coaching runners of all levels now have a more realistic view, because they seee how some of their hardest working runners just aren't as fast as some of those who don't put in nearly the same effort. Just as not everyone can be a brain surgeon, or a rocket or research scientist, no matter how long they study, not everyone can run 100 mile weeks or run a 4 hour marathon. Everyone has a different potential, but the basics are pretty simple - if you want to improve you need to stress your body then give it time to recover and rebuild to a higher level. You do need to give it time to adjust to a training level before moving up, no disagreement there. For some it may be only a couple of weeks, others may take longer, but basically that's the basics. Works for record holders and newbies regardless of talent. If you don't provide any stress, you'll never improve; if you apply too much stress you'll break down, and each person has their own optimum. [This message has been edited by maryt (edited May-23-2007).]
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 06:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
tigger,Well, that answers the question.
Well if maryt was really running 10k races in 50 min then she should have been able to run a marathon in less than 4 hrs if she trained properly. At least most of the race predictors would suggest it.
But rengle, I am curious and I have a question. How many running hours per week should someone who runs an average pace of 10 min per mile be doing to be close to their maximum output? I realize this is a difficult question to answer, so perhaps you could give a range or an approximation?
IP: Logged |
Brian McN
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 07:21 AM
I didn't realize I was a level 1 runner which means I can run fast with little or no training. I've been wasting my time.
IP: Logged |
fuzz
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 07:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
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%!<snip> 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.
Somewhere in this thread fredurie posted an apt quote: "The more I run the more talented I get."Richard, this illustrates why your untested training recommendations are not only unhelpful, but potentially detrimental. Anyone gullible enough to take your speculations at face value would conclude early on that they're genetically unsuited, when in reality all they need in order to improve dramatically is a decent training approach, a little time, and a lot of persistence. quote:
Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
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
Yes, Richard, either become a coach or stop playing one on the internets.
IP: Logged |
maryt
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 07:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
Well if maryt was really running 10k races in 50 min then she should have been able to run a marathon in less than 4 hrs if she trained properly. At least most of the race predictors would suggest it.
tigger
The predictors would ay 3:56. Unfortunately I had to stop for a med van first time out - guzzled down grapefruit juice  from a spectator thinking it was water back in the days when water stops were few and most people got their refreshments from spectators. Got really sick, vomiting, severe cramps, etc. and stopped at a med van to get some real water and once there they want to take BP, etc etc so the whole thing added about 30 minutes!My later marathons were run was I was over 50 and by that time, post-back surgery and 15+ years older, I wasn't able to run 50 minute 10Ks any longer - fastest was a little over a 9 pace.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 09:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by maryt:
You are totally out of touch with reality when you talk about the masses and how much and how fast they should run, so is nobby for that matter, although not to quite the same extent.
Thank you Mary! That made me feel much better! ;o)
IP: Logged |
DanMoriarity
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 09:42 AM
Thanks to everyone who provided info about Jack Foster. Very interesting stuff. I particularly like his attitude about the sport. It's amazing what he was able to accomplish after taking up the sport so late in life.
IP: Logged |
mrinertia
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 09:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Brian McN:
I didn't realize I was a level 1 runner which means I can run fast with little or no training. I've been wasting my time.
I'm a level 3 runner and fully expect to get to a level 1 runner. I can't wait till I am able to run fast with little or no training. Of course it's gonna take me a ton of training to get there...
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 10:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
But rengle, I am curious and I have a question. How many running hours per week should someone who runs an average pace of 10 min per mile be doing to be close to their maximum output? I realize this is a difficult question to answer, so perhaps you could give a range or an approximation?
tigger,
Again, some of the answer depends on what a person wants from the sport. My whole debate with Richard or MaryT is not about what people SHOULD do. People should enjoy the sport. But if you enjoy improving and getting close to your potential it does require some time committment and the more time you committ the better you'll get though you may never get as good as you really want to be.
That said, the time committment should be about the same regardless of how many minutes you need to run a mile. That's why Lydiard shifted his unit of measurement from mileage to time. He wanted slower runners doing the same training as his stars had done and knew that the 22 milers Magee could do in 2:15-22:20 were going to take some other folks 3-5 hours to do. So Magee would run 22 miles in that time and Joe Baggodonuts might run 16. Then on Monday Magee might run 10 miles in an hour and JB would run 7 in the same time.
What I'm saying is that the time committment is the same, or reasonably so regardless of pace. If you're asking is what I think a reasonable amount of time to spend in a day or week for slower runner is, my first answer is to ask who the runner is and what they want from the sport because if they only want to average, say 15-20 minutes a day I'd say that's what they should do. I just wouldn't want them having any illusions that they're training seriously.
With all of that as qualifiers, when I work with a beginner I usually try to get them to do an hour or so five times a week, two to two and a half hours once a week, and have a short day or a day off once a week. I may adjust that for season, climate, etc. There's a guy in Mexico that both Nobby and I have gotten involved with. Right now, I'm telling him to keep his long run to 90 minutes. It's going to be really hot and humid there soon and I don't want him wrecking himself with runs of two hours or more. He wants to run a marathon in December and come autumn I'll lengthen his long runs, maybe to as far as three hours depending on how he handles the two to two thirty runs. But for now I want him to get in some decent volume without the long runs, so I'm working toward that hour a day five times a week with an easy day and a "short" long run. If he's ambitious and is handling the schedule well, I might move a second run toward 90 minutes or have him do a second run on a couple of days.
All of that is sort of consistent with my general plan, but as I get to know him better I'll adapt the plan to his circumstances and tastes. At the start of all this he'll be doing about seven hours a week, which I think is a reasonable committment for a "serious" athlete who has to do something to pay the bills.
MaryT,
I've said several times that someone who is fairly old or has some sort of disability may not be able to run a four hour marathon or better. You've had back surgery and seem to be about my age or beyond, so you may fall into both categories.
But all of those years ago you evidently ran 4:25 or so in a race where you got sick. Certainly a sub 4:00 was within reach.
You mention that runnes today do marathons for fitness or to raise money for a charity. I know that. But if your goal is to finish a race no matter how slowly because you need to do that in order to fulfill your pledge quota you aren't running seriously for time or place. So your comment bears out mine about the decrease in seriousness among current marathoners.
And those kids who aren't very good at a sport but who get to play now where they wouldn't have thirty years ago get better at that sport when they spend more time working on it. I've coached many of them in both running and baseball. No, most of them don't become stars. But they become respectable, in all senses of the word.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 10:55 AM
I've learned a lot from Richard99in this thread.I was genetically a level 3 runner in my early 20s (hm PR 2:08) but I have mutated in to a level 2 runner in my mid 40s (hm PR 1:42). With training I could end up mutating in to a level 1 runner. My optimal training level, based on my experience, is currently 25-30 mpw but this will increase if I run more miles. Richard99 Here is an example of why people get emotive about the way you present your findings. quote:
In 1983 Robert Hikida and his associates at Ohio University pointed an electron microscope at the muscle fibers of marathon runners. Their findings were very surprising. In nearly all the samples, there was evidence of ruptured fibers and inflammation.
Why is it suprising that runners training for a marathon suffer from microtears and inflammation? You present it as if the scientists were astounded. I don't believe they were surprised. Training causes muscles to break down. Rest allows them to rebuild and grow. Elite athletes will push the limits of their training risking injury in the process. This is what separates them from the mid-packers. Also remember that the study was done in 1983 when there was a lot more ignorance bout the impact of high mileage especially among new runners.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 11:33 AM
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.
Jerry Lawson ran up to 250 miles per week. Lindgren ran even higher mileage at times.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 11:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
Jerry Lawson ran up to 250 miles per week.Lindgren ran even higher mileage at times.
Was it Lawson or Lindgren that regularly ran 33 miles to a park ranger station then turned around ran back? I think it was Lindgren. Asked whether he hydrated he said "only if the park ranger has some water to spare." You have to admit, these guys were freaks 
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 11:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
Was it Lawson or Lindgren that regularly ran 33 miles to a park ranger station then turned around ran back? I think it was Lindgren. Asked whether he hydrated he said "only if the park ranger has some water to spare."You have to admit, these guys were freaks
Running mileage isn't a matter of genetics. It's a matter of
willpower.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 12:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
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.
Nobby, There seemed to be a lot of speed in that program and I
wondered if it worked, or whether it set up the next stage of
his training. The elite Japanese female marathoners training in China
seemed to go from a lot of slow mileage to hammering 30k
or track repeats. How do they set it up to make the
transition? Mayeroff once said that Shibui had run so hard that she
could barely walk later in the day.
IP: Logged |
bigapplepie
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 12:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
Running mileage isn't a matter of genetics. It's a matter of
willpower.
With Lindgren it was more a case of obsessiveness. He used to wake up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom and put in a ten miler there and then.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 12:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
tigger,
Again, some of the answer depends on what a person wants from the sport. My whole debate with Richard or MaryT is not about what people SHOULD do. People should enjoy the sport. But if you enjoy improving and getting close to your potential it does require some time committment and the more time you committ the better you'll get though you may never get as good as you really want to be.
That said, the time committment should be about the same regardless of how many minutes you need to run a mile. That's why Lydiard shifted his unit of measurement from mileage to time. And those kids who aren't very good at a sport but who get to play now where they wouldn't have thirty years ago get better at that sport when they spend more time working on it. I've coached many of them in both running and baseball. No, most of them don't become stars. But they become respectable, in all senses of the word.
Thanks for your response, and you may have noticed the lengthy Lydiard quote I posted a page or two ago. Here is a significant piece..... "Monday; 1 hour, Tuesday; 1.5 hours, Wednesday; 1 hour, Thursday; 1.5 hours to 2 hours, Friday; 1 hour, Saturday; 2 hours or more, Sunday; 1 to 1.5 hours. This running should be done very easily and the miles covered of no real
account. The " time" spent training is the important part." This comes to about 9 to 10 hrs per week, with a long run of 2 hrs or a bit more. I take from your post that you believe this is sufficient running time to achieve the goals your athletes set and train for. I know a runner who ran 385 hours last year at roughly 10:45 average pace. Peak weeks were close to 12 hrs. He followed the schedule above for the most part, and currently races 5k distance in about 25 min, 10k distance in about 53 min, and HM distance in about 1:57. He wants to run a 3:45 marathon, which right now is a bit of a stretch. What advice would you give him to achieve his goal? The only thing HE thinks he can do is drop his weight 10%, which he could probably do. If others want to opine, please do. I also appreciate your mentioning coaching baseball. I coached baseball for 10 years and was always impressed with how well all kids improved from April to August because they practiced what they were taught. [This message has been edited by tigger (edited May-23-2007).]
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 12:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
With Lindgren it was more a case of obsessiveness. He used to wake up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom and put in a ten miler there and then.
Yeah, his dad use to beat him all the time and he was
messed up.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 12:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by maryt:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tigger:My later marathons were run was I was over 50 and by that time, post-back surgery and 15+ years older, I wasn't able to run 50 minute 10Ks any longer - fastest was a little over a 9 pace.
Still, you were faster than Richard (57 min. 10k) is today.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 12:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
With Lindgren it was more a case of obsessiveness. He used to wake up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom and put in a ten miler there and then.
Man, he should have lived closer to a bathroom. .
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 01:10 PM
tigger,
As leery as I am of quick, off the cuff answers, I'll have a go at your friend's situation.
I'd have him back off the amount of time he's running for a while. If he wants to run roughly eight and a half minute miles for a marathon I think he'd have a better shot at it if he was running faster in training.
I'm not advocating that he hammer his runs. Most of them should remain comfortable. But running for as many hours he does forces him to go pretty slowly. At some point he might do well to go back and run that sort of volume again. For now, I'd cut down to 10 hours or so a week and expect that his pace will naturally get faster with the reduced load.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 02:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
tigger,
As leery as I am of quick, off the cuff answers, I'll have a go at your friend's situation.
I'd have him back off the amount of time he's running for a while. If he wants to run roughly eight and a half minute miles for a marathon I think he'd have a better shot at it if he was running faster in training.
I'm not advocating that he hammer his runs. Most of them should remain comfortable. But running for as many hours he does forces him to go pretty slowly. At some point he might do well to go back and run that sort of volume again. For now, I'd cut down to 10 hours or so a week and expect that his pace will naturally get faster with the reduced load.
Thanks again. I will pass this on to him. Ten hours per week amounts to about 60 miles currently. If he develops a faster average pace he will run a bit further, but probably not more than 65 miles tops. Adding in a longer run when he starts marathon training (say another hour on top of the current 2 hr limit) will bring him up to 70 miles or so at peak training.
I think he also needs to lose the weight!
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 02:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
tigger,
As leery as I am of quick, off the cuff answers, I'll have a go at your friend's situation.
I'd have him back off the amount of time he's running for a while. If he wants to run roughly eight and a half minute miles for a marathon I think he'd have a better shot at it if he was running faster in training.
I'm not advocating that he hammer his runs. Most of them should remain comfortable. But running for as many hours he does forces him to go pretty slowly. At some point he might do well to go back and run that sort of volume again. For now, I'd cut down to 10 hours or so a week and expect that his pace will naturally get faster with the reduced load.
Thanks again. I will pass this on to him. Ten hours per week amounts to about 60 miles currently. If he develops a faster average pace he will run a bit further, but probably not more than 65 miles tops. Adding in a longer run when he starts marathon training (say another hour on top of the current 2 hr limit) will bring him up to 70 miles or so at peak training.
I think he also needs to lose the weight!
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 02:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
Thank you Mary! That made me feel much better! ;o)
Phew !!!!!!!! : Lucky I am in NZ then. We don't have masses here.
I will "sit out" this one.
But I will say this. Not everyone is a runner but that does not stop those who are'nt jumping on a bike,going to a swimming pool, getting into a rowing skiff or kayak. Every human being can undertake some sort of "Exercise".
Arthur's basic principles can and have and are been used in any of those sports as I have already mentioned.
But I do know that we have seen people improve hugely using basic principles when Running.
I am outa here !! I'll lurk occasionally Cheers : Kim
------------------
Run easy, Run long
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 02:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
Thank you Mary! That made me feel much better! ;o)
Phew !!!!!!!! : Lucky I am in NZ then. We don't have masses here.
I will "sit out" this one.
But I will say this. Not everyone is a runner but that does not stop those who are'nt jumping on a bike,going to a swimming pool, getting into a rowing skiff or kayak. Every human being can undertake some sort of "Exercise".
Arthur's basic principles can and have and are been used in any of those sports as I have already mentioned.
But I do know that we have seen people improve hugely using basic principles when Running.
I am outa here !! I'll lurk occasionally Cheers : Kim
------------------
Run easy, Run long
IP: Logged |
jjwaverly42
Cool Runner |
posted May-23-2007 02:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigapplepie:
I've learned a lot from Richard99in this thread.I was genetically a level 3 runner in my early 20s (hm PR 2:08) but I have mutated in to a level 2 runner in my mid 40s (hm PR 1:42). With training I could end up mutating in to a level 1 runner. My optimal training level, based on my experience, is currently 25-30 mpw but this will increase if I run more miles. [QUOTE][b]In 1983 Robert Hikida and his associates at Ohio University pointed an electron microscope at the muscle fibers of marathon runners. Their findings were very surprising. In nearly all the samples, there was evidence of ruptured fibers and inflammation.
Why is it suprising that runners training for a marathon suffer from microtears and inflammation? You present it as if the scientists were astounded. I don't believe they were surprised. Training causes muscles to break down. Rest allows them to rebuild and grow. Elite athletes will push the limits of their training risking injury in the process. This is what separates them from the mid-packers. Also remember that the study was done in 1983 when there was a lot more ignorance bout the impact of high mileage especially among new runners.[/B][/QUOTE]
Precisely my point in my novella post on the preceding page (good source material by the way) I was level 3 with no genetic talent. If I would have believed Richard's levels, then I would have started training for my next marathon on 20-40 miles per week. Instead, I trained at a volume that would be RIchard's level 1, and I am now a runner with some genetic talent (according to his level 2), and am getting closer to being a level 1. If I become level 1, then I am indeed mutating my genes through sheer will (according to the "levels").
The actual types of runs and even the mileage volumes and training loads
are all fine on his website, and might be a good program for someone at certain points in development, but the levels thing is arbitrary and self-limiting. The study you quoted is hilarious. Studies, studies, studies. Boring.
Anecdotes and success stories--inspiring. I want some of that from him.
Seems he doesn't want to share them (come on Richard, you must have a few!) --Jimmy Jog Log
zzzzzzz
IP: Logged |
 |
