posted May-23-2007 02:41 PM            

IP: Logged

posted May-23-2007 02:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
but the levels thing is arbitrary and self-limiting.

---

And a bit silly, such as recommending a maximum of 4 1/2 hours of weekly training for 5+ hour marathoners. I guess all they get to do is one run a week.

IP: Logged

posted May-23-2007 03:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
...I was level 3 with no genetic talent. ...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").

--Jimmy

---

Jimmy,

Are you kidding around or are you serious about your genetic level of talent and mutating your genes?

The reason I ask is because while performance clearly changes with training, there is no real evidence that the in-born level of talent changes with training. Training causes one to get better but it doesn't change your genetics.

The fact that someone starts off at a level 3 doesn't change or control the level of talent they possess. Fitness level changes, but not the genetic talent. The level of in-born talent determines how much effect training has. Those with significant levels of in-born talent respond well to training. Those with lesser levels of in-born talent, respond less well.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-23-2007 03:29 PM               

IP: Logged

posted May-23-2007 03:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
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.

---

While only rengle has chipped in about this, and I am not a coach, wouldn't it be good for him to stay at the lower volume (<10 hours/wk) and do some training for 3000m to 5k races to build some speed? Then when he returns to a marathon buildup, he will have some basic speed to build upon, kinda like the opposite of endurance base building I guess...

I would like to hear what Nobby or any of the other knowledgeable folks think because they have invaluble knowledge and experience. Wasn't there something about this when somebody mentioned R. Canova's methods?

IP: Logged

posted May-23-2007 03:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Jimmy,

Are you kidding around or are you serious about your genetic level of talent and mutating your genes?

The reason I ask is because while performance clearly changes with training, there is no real evidence that the in-born level of talent changes with training. Training causes one to get better but it doesn't change your genetics.

The fact that someone starts off at a level 3 doesn't change or control the level of talent they possess. Fitness level changes, but not the genetic talent. The level of in-born talent determines how much effect training has. Those with significant levels of in-born talent respond well to training. Those with lesser levels of in-born talent, respond less well.

---

But gene expression changes with training - I'm fuzzy on my cellular biology now, though. Anyway, in-born talent does not change, no, I'll agree with that.

But there are so many types of talent - some show little to no talent and have slow natural speed, but through many years of training, keep responding steadily and show great improvement. I don't worry about talent. I just train. I help people out, too, and I never worry about their talent. I worry about their motivation. That seems more important than talent. Give me the man or woman who is driven, and keep your talent. We have not talked about that. Training properly, and hard, and running many miles requires consistent long-term motivation, desire, willpower in the face of little to no prospect of ever achieving the pinacle of the desired goal.

Anyhow, my point is that the pinacle of one's potential cannot be determined by the rate at which one responds to training, although your model would assume so. Barring gross physical obstacles, this peak cannot be predicted. This is why we train. Simple.

IP: Logged

posted May-23-2007 03:59 PM               

Here's a bit more detailed response for your friend. Even if he doesn't want to shorten his miles, or time, he needs to do some work at his desired race pace.
One thing he could do is run some shorter races, preferably half marathons, 10kms, and if there were things in 10-30km range that would be ideal.
If not races, some time trials or runs at race pace. Maybe he could start with some 10km trials at a mid 8:00s pace and then work up to 10 miles, half marathons, 15 miles and so on.
If you want to stral some ideas from Ernst van Aaken, he could take a weekend and cover the entire distance at race pace. He could do four runs on six and a half miles in a weekend, or a thriteen and two six and a halves. Or maybe something like 5x3 miles at race pace with a 3-5 minute walk between each.
I don't think he needs to do much in the line of trackwork in order to run at an eight plus pace, but it never hurts to do some fastish relaxed strides or some hill running. Both will help his strides and form be more efficient.

IP: Logged

posted May-23-2007 04:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by obsessor:

Anyhow, my point is that the pinacle of one's potential cannot be determined by the rate at which one responds to training, although your model would assume so. Barring gross physical obstacles, this peak cannot be predicted. This is why we train. Simple.

---

obsessor,

I don't believe any individual's talent can be identified pre-training. I agree that only through training is the level of talent revealed.

I did not mean to give the impression that a slow rate of improvement is a clear indication of the level of talent they possess. I believe those with higher levels of talent tend to respond fairly rapidly to training, but this is not absolute and I would not use rate of response to predict someone's talent level.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-23-2007 04:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
tigger,

Here's a bit more detailed response for your friend. Even if he doesn't want to shorten his miles, or time, he needs to do some work at his desired race pace.
One thing he could do is run some shorter races, preferably half marathons, 10kms, and if there were things in 10-30km range that would be ideal.
If not races, some time trials or runs at race pace. Maybe he could start with some 10km trials at a mid 8:00s pace and then work up to 10 miles, half marathons, 15 miles and so on.
If you want to stral some ideas from Ernst van Aaken, he could take a weekend and cover the entire distance at race pace. He could do four runs on six and a half miles in a weekend, or a thriteen and two six and a halves. Or maybe something like 5x3 miles at race pace with a 3-5 minute walk between each.
I don't think he needs to do much in the line of trackwork in order to run at an eight plus pace, but it never hurts to do some fastish relaxed strides or some hill running. Both will help his strides and form be more efficient.

---

Thanks again for the help. He never does track work, as he says he is too old for that kind of stress. He recently ran a 5k, two 10k's and a HM, and is running a 15k this weekend. He also does a weekly threshold run, with 20 to 30 minutes at about 8:30, and the remaining 6 days are divided between 8 k and 18 k runs at a variety of paces. Most runs are very hilly, with hills of up to a kilometer at 10% average grade.

Here is his latest week of running, which is generally typical for most weeks. He says he ran the last 4.1 miles of the HM at 8:35 pace.

Minutes Pace/Mi

0:41:00 0:10:09
1:19:03 0:10:28
1:03:12 0:09:54
1:31:28 0:10:19
0:35:30 0:10:09
0:44:35 0:08:58
1:52:06 0:10:22

I think he feels it is too early to be running 8:35 for more than a few miles. This is his goal MP, but he feels he is not ready to tackle that until he loses the weight and is fully fit for hard running.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-23-2007 11:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by milkbaby:
While only rengle has chipped in about this, and I am not a coach, wouldn't it be good for him to stay at the lower volume (<10 hours/wk) and do some training for 3000m to 5k races to build some speed? Then when he returns to a marathon buildup, he will have some basic speed to build upon, kinda like the opposite of endurance base building I guess...

I would like to hear what Nobby or any of the other knowledgeable folks think because they have invaluble knowledge and experience.

---

First of all, I think Rengle is quite knowledgeable enough! ;o)

While we are both from Lydiard school, I think our focus MIGHT be slightly different. I think I emphasize speed slightly more and Rengle strength. Here's my take;

Most people think Lydiard as 100MPW (as did RT article) but it's the whole package. You work on your aerobic base; then work on other aspects most people DON'T talk about; strength, flexibility, anaerobic development and speed... Let's way this year you are, just for the argument sake pick some bogus number, 23:15-5k runner, or slightly slower than 7:30-mile pace. You work on the whole cycle and, by the time you get to coordination period, hopefully you're around 23:45 or something like that. You want to break 23 minutes and get down to something like 22:30. You run some races here and there and you get it down to 22:20. Now you're no longer 23:15-5k runner any more (duh!); you're a 22:20-5k runner. This means, next time around when you go through the next cycle, you should be able to the whole program BETTER. So by the time you come around sharpening period, you should be around 22:40; now you'll get it down to 22:00. Now your 8-minute-mile training pace feels easier. Now, sometimes your training times may or may not come down as paper-calculation; but as you get fitter and better at whole training program, you should be handling the workouts BETTER. That's training progression.

Now, if you "decide" to just stay where you are; you may run 100MPW but your performace may or may not improve as you might expect. This happes a lot. Even if you are running hills, if you are not doing it correctly, you may not get proper benefit as you should. Same with so-called "speed training". You can be doing all the right ingredients wrongly and you are NOT going to get benefit as you should.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
He never does track work, as he says he is too old for that kind of stress. He recently ran a 5k, two 10k's and a HM, and is running a 15k this weekend. He also does a weekly threshold run, with 20 to 30 minutes at about 8:30, and the remaining 6 days are divided between 8 k and 18 k runs at a variety of paces. Most runs are very hilly, with hills of up to a kilometer at 10% average grade.

Here is his latest week of running, which is generally typical for most weeks. He says he ran the last 4.1 miles of the HM at 8:35 pace.

I think he feels it is too early to be running 8:35 for more than a few miles. This is his goal MP, but he feels he is not ready to tackle that until he loses the weight and is fully fit for hard running.

---

Now without knowing enough about this friend of Tigger, there are few things that had come to my mind. I once was one of those pepole who could run at 6-minute-pace well but that was pretty much it. I could run a 5-mile or a 10k race at about 5:50~55 pace, run a half marathon at 6, and ran the first 20 miles of the marathon at 6:00~10! I never trained myself to run any faster but I sure was fit! If you CHOOSE to go faster, you do need to work on faster pace. Simply running shorter races, like how I was at that time, may not help much at all--it's the same old story of Yasso 800m repeat. When would it become just simple running and when would it become "speed" training? For some people, it may never be. Then just because they claim that go on to the track and do Yasso 800, may not have much meaning to their fitness level at all. Now your friend claims that he's not ready to run 8:35, yet he ran last 4 miles of the half at 8:35 pace; runnning 20~30 minutes of tempo run at 8:30 pace; so I guess I'm not quite getting the whle picture here. Depends also on when he wants to run the marathon; but I'd say do some more structured, disciplined tempo runs. Even once in two weeks or so, go on to the track and pace himself to run 8:20 pace. He can start out slower if he wants but if he's been doing 20~30 minutes of 8:30 pace, he should be able to handle it easily. Start out with 8 laps (about 2 miles); that's about 128 seconds per lap. Keep that pace as closely as possible. Then as he moves forward, he should either increase the distance and/or speed up the pace. In the end, he should be able to handle 3 miles, or 5k, of 7:50 pace or something like that (if he wants to run 8:30 pace for the marathon). Again, without knowing the whole picture, my feeling is that it is possible for him to get it down to sub-4 with distance work alone; however, it seems like he's been doing all those distance work already. So my feeling is, as Rengle suggested, he's probably been doing too much of the same thing.

Now, I don't simply conclude that, if you can run faster at shorter distance, your marathon times will improve. That's too simple. However, your base fitness doesn't always only means your aerobic base. That also includes your ability to run strongly and fast at certain duration of time. ALL those things are "conditioning". As Lydiard used to ALWAYS say, "Everything is important." Hope this answers Milkbaby's question as well. I don't know what Canova says about marathon training (I have read some of his stuff and quite imporessed with it); but I'm sure improving your overall "speed", not necessarily sprinting speed though it certainly helps as well, can definitely help improve your endurance and your marathon performance as well.

Now, once again, if he resists going on to the track to do that type of workout; that's fine too. There are many people who wants to do something but don't necessarily want to do the work. They can either find the alternative; or stay where they are. That's their choice. Now speaking of the alternative; again, without knowing much about what kind of "hill training" he's been doing, by introducing "correct" form of hill training, your times will come down quite dramatically. Lydiard liked to talk about his friend who started running when he was something like 62. He would jog 6 miles everyday, going around the park and get to nearby school track. Then he would go up and down the stadium steps. At the time, he was 71 years old and he was improving his 10k time every year. It's never too late; it's never too old (hey, that's not what I told my girl about my own speed!!!?)

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 01:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Jimmy,

Are you kidding around or are you serious about your genetic level of talent and mutating your genes?

The reason I ask is because while performance clearly changes with training, there is no real evidence that the in-born level of talent changes with training. Training causes one to get better but it doesn't change your genetics.

The fact that someone starts off at a level 3 doesn't change or control the level of talent they possess. Fitness level changes, but not the genetic talent. The level of in-born talent determines how much effect training has. Those with significant levels of in-born talent respond well to training. Those with lesser levels of in-born talent, respond less well.

---

You're missing the whole point, my friend. The point is that if I went to your page with my 4:14 marathon time 2 years ago, I would have fit into your level 3 category. Hypothetically, I might have believed your definition and trained at your level 3 recommendations. I never went to your website, and I never did that. Instead, I figured I just needed more aerobic work and more volume. The training levels at which I ran in reality would have fit into your Level 1 recommendations. By doing that, I became a memeber of your Level 2 with only 22 minutes left to work off to become a Level 1. All by training at what would fit into your Level 1.

According to your definitions, IF I would have gone to your website and believed them, I would have not considered myself as having no "talent."
Thus the statement about "I must have mutated my genes" , because in your LEVELS, I would have had to do so to do what I did. I can't have no genetic talent, then have it.

That is why your levels could be limiting to a believer in your philosophy of levels. It would have limited me.

I'm a guitar teacher, Richard, and I teach them to PLAY music with me from day one. I don't stick them into any "level" such as beginner, talent, no talent (there are some who believe musical ability is purely genetic). I just keep making them play, do, work, create, have fun.

If I were to pin a yellow sticker on them and call them
Level Partridgefamilyminusdavidcassidyandshirleyjones (the level for those with no genetic musical talent) and thus put them on the course for those who can only go so far, then I've done them a great disservice. I teach each of them that they are creatively unlimited, and the guitar is just a servant to their spirit--go for it.

The body is just a guitar with hair instead of strings, and a neck--well they both have necks---and holes---and nobs---but what I am saying is that my body is an instrument. This metaphor is going nowhere. Poof!

Anyway, the levels thing--limiting.

Gotta get some sleep, I have more mutating to do in the morning. It's slow, but I'm looking more like the actor who played Steve Prefontaine in Without Limits everyday.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 07:26 AM               

Thanks for the clarification on your meaning.

It is not my intention for someone to read the entire training guide and conclude that because they are in a particular level today that they are destined to be in that level from now on. I thought it was clear from the "predicting performance" section on the same page as the explanation for the levels that one can move up from one level to another. In that section I included this, "Can a runner move from a lower level to a higher level? Certainly. The levels are a method of classifying experienced runners, runners who have at least several years of training under their belts." Between that and the section "the single most important thing in running" I expect readers to walk away with the understanding that they must find their own optimal training load no matter what I or anyone predict that optimal to be. Perhaps I need to reinforce on page 1 the idea that the level someone is currently at can and will most likley change with training if that person is not yet at their peak of lifetime fitness.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 09:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nobby:
Now your friend claims that he's not ready to run 8:35, yet he ran last 4 miles of the half at 8:35 pace; runnning 20~30 minutes of tempo run at 8:30 pace; so I guess I'm not quite getting the whle picture here. Depends also on when he wants to run the marathon; but I'd say do some more structured, disciplined tempo runs. Even once in two weeks or so, go on to the track and pace himself to run 8:20 pace. He can start out slower if he wants but if he's been doing 20~30 minutes of 8:30 pace, he should be able to handle it easily. Start out with 8 laps (about 2 miles); that's about 128 seconds per lap. Keep that pace as closely as possible. Then as he moves forward, he should either increase the distance and/or speed up the pace. In the end, he should be able to handle 3 miles, or 5k, of 7:50 pace or something like that (if he wants to run 8:30 pace for the marathon). Again, without knowing the whole picture, my feeling is that it is possible for him to get it down to sub-4 with distance work alone; however, it seems like he's been doing all those distance work already. So my feeling is, as Rengle suggested, he's probably been doing too much of the same thing.

Now, I don't simply conclude that, if you can run faster at shorter distance, your marathon times will improve. That's too simple. However, your base fitness doesn't always only means your aerobic base. That also includes your ability to run strongly and fast at certain duration of time. ALL those things are "conditioning". As Lydiard used to ALWAYS say, "Everything is important." Hope this answers Milkbaby's question as well. I don't know what Canova says about marathon training (I have read some of his stuff and quite imporessed with it); but I'm sure improving your overall "speed", not necessarily sprinting speed though it certainly helps as well, can definitely help improve your endurance and your marathon performance as well.

Now, once again, if he resists going on to the track to do that type of workout; that's fine too. There are many people who wants to do something but don't necessarily want to do the work. They can either find the alternative; or stay where they are. That's their choice. Now speaking of the alternative; again, without knowing much about what kind of "hill training" he's been doing, by introducing "correct" form of hill training, your times will come down quite dramatically. Lydiard liked to talk about his friend who started running when he was something like 62. He would jog 6 miles everyday, going around the park and get to nearby school track. Then he would go up and down the stadium steps. At the time, he was 71 years old and he was improving his 10k time every year. It's never too late; it's never too old (hey, that's not what I told my girl about my own speed!!!?)

---

He was hoping to do the marathon this fall, but it will likely be put off until next spring or fall unless he loses those 20 lbs in a hurry. He feels he is not ready to run a marathon at 8:35, but is close to that level for a HM as long as it is flat. He says his last HM was only 20 seconds per mile off that pace, had a large hill in the middle, and felt "easy" overall.

He enjoys running on a track, and he has a great one (cushion surface) just over his back fence.

His hill running is not structured....just runs a very hilly road everyday. Hills are up to a kilometer long with perhaps 100 meters of elevation change. Routes are out and back, so he gets uphill and downhill workouts. He says for his HM he ran a 4 km long hill with about 1500 feet of elevation change, doing this several times to work on ankles and calves.

He feels he needs to get his HM time down about 8 or 9 minutes before trying a goal marathon. His next goal race is not yet defined but will probably be another HM in the fall.

So to summarize the observations and suggestions....his low end aerobic base running appears OK. Try to maintain around 10 hours per week of running. Start working on power and stamina. The way to do that is to run some longish race pace (goal race) type runs and to start to push the threshold pace above 8:30. True speedwork is probably not necessary, but pickups or striders would help keep form and turnover in line. Race frequently if possible, more short distance (5k, 10k) than long distance.

Sounds like a good project! Anything else?

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 09:44 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
He was hoping to do the marathon this fall, but it will likely be put off until next spring or fall unless he loses those 20 lbs in a hurry. He feels he is not ready to run a marathon at 8:35, but is close to that level for a HM as long as it is flat. He says his last HM was only 20 seconds per mile off that pace, had a large hill in the middle, and felt "easy" overall.

He enjoys running on a track, and he has a great one (cushion surface) just over his back fence.

His hill running is not structured....just runs a very hilly road everyday. Hills are up to a kilometer long with perhaps 100 meters of elevation change. Routes are out and back, so he gets uphill and downhill workouts. He says for his HM he ran a 4 km long hill with about 1500 feet of elevation change, doing this several times to work on ankles and calves.

He feels he needs to get his HM time down about 8 or 9 minutes before trying a goal marathon. His next goal race is not yet defined but will probably be another HM in the fall.

So to summarize the observations and suggestions....his low end aerobic base running appears OK. Try to maintain around 10 hours per week of running. Start working on power and stamina. The way to do that is to run some longish race pace (goal race) type runs and to start to push the threshold pace above 8:30. True speedwork is probably not necessary, but pickups or striders would help keep form and turnover in line. Race frequently if possible, more short distance (5k, 10k) than long distance.

Sounds like a good project! Anything else?

---

Well, sounds like a solid thinking guy (as are you! ;o)). We call him Phil and call this "Project Phil" (I don't know, I just wanted to say that... ;o)).

Now, I don't know how old your friend is (unless I missed it), but I tell ya, it gets harder and harder to lose a pound as we get older! I probably carry some 15 lb extra (I always say "I ran such-and-such...20 lbs ago!") and they are as stubborn as fat cell super-glued to you! But, under such condition myself, something I learnt, whether it's right or wrong, is; don't wait for something to happen. I had a bad case of Achilles injury and with work and all that, took some time off. My running got very sporadic while my eating didn't so I gained weight. It was about the time when I decided to come back to get back in shape, Rengle wrote an article about shoes (minimalist shoes). I thought, "Yup, minimalist shoes are the way to go; but I should lose weight first before I slip my minimalist shoes..." Then, I can almost remember that run, I thought, "Oh, what the heck; let's walk the talk!" and took off in one of the thinnest minimalist shoes in the market at the time, NB racer. Slow, yes; but felt good! So my personal recommendation to your friend, Tigger, is actually go ahead and start doing longer runs, repetitions or tempo on track or structured hill training in a "sensible way". Most likely, it would be slower than 8:35 pace; but maybe even 8:45, 9:00 even, but it's repetitions, or tempo, or whatever. And you know what; that should also help him lose weight as well. Whenever I do hill now, what I think is, "Hell, if I get stronger on the hill now, I'll be even stronger once I lose some weight!" I may never lose weight (I like to eat! ;o)) but I sure get stronger...at least a little!

Now that said; you have to remember, I'm one of those "Lydiardites". I believe in the Lydiard program. So...if your friend wants to run a marathon in the fall; I would suggest him to count back to see how many weeks there are. Take Lydiard's "Beginning Marathon Schedule" and compare what he's been doing; what could be beneficial, what might need some adjusting, etc. I'd take 10 weeks or so for coordination/preparation for the race; 4 to 6 weeks for "structured" hill training to gain strength and flexibility in his legs; take 10 weeks or whatever the time left (especially since he's been running a lot anyways) for aerobic base building. Now, I would adjust this final part (aerobic base building) a bit because he's been doing all that till now. I would take advantage of all the summer races and perhaps do some races, like you said, to work on his strength/speed. But the point is; he needs to sit down and lay it all out so he knows what he should be doing and when and for how long. That of course needs to reflect what he needs to develop as well as what he wants to do. He needs to understand what his strengths and weaknesses are; he needs to understand, to the best of his environment, what exercises are best to be utilized to capitalize his strengths and strengthen his weaknesses.

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 10:42 AM               

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 10:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
Jimmy,

Thanks for the clarification on your meaning.

It is not my intention for someone to read the entire training guide and conclude that because they are in a particular level today that they are destined to be in that level from now on. I thought it was clear from the "predicting performance" section on the same page as the explanation for the levels that one can move up from one level to another. In that section I included this, "Can a runner move from a lower level to a higher level? Certainly. The levels are a method of classifying experienced runners, runners who have at least several years of training under their belts." Between that and the section "the single most important thing in running" I expect readers to walk away with the understanding that they must find their own optimal training load no matter what I or anyone predict that optimal to be. Perhaps I need to reinforce on page 1 the idea that the level someone is currently at can and will most likley change with training if that person is not yet at their peak of lifetime fitness.

---

Think simplification. I for one have a hard time sifting through most websites I go to. I know with my own websites that there are always some who won't be able to navigate or understand the process, even though I think it is clear. I'm constantly simplifying. Cutting, throwing stuff out is a virtue in any form of writing.

If the heart of your website is really about offering a workable training program, then have it be mainly about that--keep all the studies and theory very, very, VERY minimal. Then start to build a collection of stories, success or fail, from people who use it. Then use that information to add and support the program and website. If it is a website that is trying to prove a theory, having a scientific, intellectual bent, then make that what it is about. Simplification is still in order. Think E=MC2. A lot of thinking went into it, but it ended up being a simple and beautiful formula, and workable, and convincing.

That all being said and offered, reread your LEVELS. The wording implies and illustrates your rock solid beliefs about training volume and genetic talent, and what each level should be doing. If Level one is for the genetically talented, and level 4 is for those who are born sloths who can never get faster no matter what they do, then I don't see how anyone, according to your levels, can level hop if they don't have the genetics, unless they mutate. Nothing wrong with mutating. A yearly mutation of any kind can be refreshing.

You can make those levels part of your program of course. But in keeping to the "Truth About Mileage" theme and challenge thrown down by you, I think that ultimately you can't be throwing the word TRUTH around when your program has not been tested enough in the real world with real runners over many years. The heart of your program is in those levels you created, and is at the heart of this thread. They reflect the truth you are referring to.

What I think is really the heart of this thread has become experience vs. intellectual or book smarts. Not miles.

As far as programs go, being the running Borg that I am, I look at your program and see some workable things, and will assimilate what I think is new. But the levels would be left as space refuse, as they are very arbitrary and self-limiting. I base that assumption on my experience.

Again, good luck, Richard. Whatever your ultimate vision is with the website, I hope you accomplish it. Be successful. Simplifying will accelerate that.

Now, down to the cool cellar for a 5-miler on the treadmill and an epsisode or two of The Munsters while watching the neighbors evolve through the window.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 10:56 AM            

My friend is almost 57. He is 6 ft 4 in. tall, weighs over 200 lbs and runs about 21% bodyfat, so he clearly has an opportunity to exploit. No sense carrying the equivalent of two 10 lb hand weights for 26.2 miles if you don't have to.

To clarify....it will probably be a half marathon (HM) in the fall, to see if he can go under 1:50, and if successful then a marathon next spring or fall. Over the last 5 years he has dropped his half marathon PR from 2:05 to 1:57 through increased mileage, with his weight around 205 to 210 range. Losing that 20 lbs seems to be a good way to get faster without adding more miles.

You are right about getting rid of excess weight. I've struggled with that all my adult life, but when younger it seemed easier to lose it. Not only does fat stick around longer now, but muscle seems to have disappeared as well. Running these days makes me feel like investing in a jog bra to keep the upper body in place.

I will keep you up to date on my friend's progress, both weight wise and running wise.

Thanks Nobby, and thanks rengle. You guys are first class coaches!

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 11:05 AM            

People with talent and motivation
People with talent but no motivation
People with motivation but no talent
People with no motivation and no talent

The first three can all improve considerably through coaching and training, whatever their genetic talent, and the same basic principles apply to each.

In my experience, its just as satisfying seeing someone I care about breaking two hours in a half marathon for the first time as it is seeing Dathan Ritzenheim break the longstanding Central Park 10K record as he did on Saturday.

In my first marathon I agreed to pace someone at 9 minute pace. She blew up at halfway, I finished 9 seconds ahead of my target time.

The biggest lesson for many of my slower running club team mates is to learn to slow down in training. Our normal Saturday run pace is around 9 minutes per mile. I've taken one or two runners aside and run with them at 10:00 to 10:30 pace and they have improved their race times as a result.

The "truth" is that pretty much anyone will see major improvements if they are willing to be coached, whether that is through reading a book, running with a team or hiring a personal coach. Or even listening to a faceless runners on a Cool Running discussion forum.

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 11:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jjwaverly42:
Think simplification. I for one have a hard time sifting through most websites I go to. I know with my own websites that there are always some who won't be able to navigate or understand the process, even though I think it is clear. I'm constantly simplifying. Cutting, throwing stuff out is a virtue in any form of writing.

If the heart of your website is really about offering a workable training program, then have it be mainly about that--keep all the studies and theory very, very, VERY minimal. Then start to build a collection of stories, success or fail, from people who use it. Then use that information to add and support the program and website. If it is a website that is trying to prove a theory, having a scientific, intellectual bent, then make that what it is about. Simplification is still in order. Think E=MC2. A lot of thinking went into it, but it ended up being a simple and beautiful formula, and workable, and convincing.

That all being said and offered, reread your LEVELS. The wording implies and illustrates your rock solid beliefs about training volume and genetic talent, and what each level should be doing. If Level one is for the genetically talented, and level 4 is for those who are born sloths who can never get faster no matter what they do, then I don't see how anyone, according to your levels, can level hop if they don't have the genetics, unless they mutate. Nothing wrong with mutating. A yearly mutation of any kind can be refreshing.

You can make those levels part of your program of course. But in keeping to the "Truth About Mileage" theme and challenge thrown down by you, I think that ultimately you can't be throwing the word TRUTH around when your program has not been tested enough in the real world with real runners over many years. The heart of your program is in those levels you created, and is at the heart of this thread. They reflect the truth you are referring to.

What I think is really the heart of this thread has become experience vs. intellectual or book smarts. Not miles.

As far as programs go, being the running Borg that I am, I look at your program and see some workable things, and will assimilate what I think is new. But the levels would be left as space refuse, as they are very arbitrary and self-limiting. I base that assumption on my experience.

Again, good luck, Richard. Whatever your ultimate vision is with the website, I hope you accomplish it. Be successful. Simplifying will accelerate that.

Now, down to the cool cellar for a 5-miler on the treadmill and an epsisode or two of The Munsters while watching the neighbors evolve through the window.

--Jimmy

Jog Log
zzzzzzz

---

Our friend's BaseBuilding/Maffetone thread is a good example. Interesting and not entirely accepted point of view, supported by actual results from people actually trying to apply those principles. Some success stories. Some failures. But real experiences and a good time had by all. I'm sure one could muck it all up with talk of slow-twitch, fast-twitch, high-responders, low-responders, and a donkey in the middle, but you won't find much of that. It helps that the person running that discussion is thoughtful and candid about his program/philosophy.

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 12:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
That's the problem I have with the messages people like MaryT and Richard99 and many others in other places are tossing around. They're talking to people whose early attempts at the sport show little evidence of talent and saying,
"See. You aren't suited for this. Don't waste much of your time and passion on it. Accept your poor performance as inevitable. We've got scientific evidence that you can't change it."

---

rengle,

I don't speak for maryt or anyone else, but for me your comments are completely contrary to what I say and believe.

I would not tell someone "see, you are not suited for this, don't waste your time" or anything like that based on their level of performance - and especially wouldn't tell that to someone who had just started working at a sport/activity. I seek to promote the sport & activity of running, not discourage those who want to participate.

I don't believe the mere discussion of talent is discouraging or de-motivating in any way. I think people can use "talent" as either an excuse for not doing the work or as a reason to keep running.

My discussions of talent is not meant to discourage participation, it is meant to encourage participation. It encourages by helping people understand that there are differing levels of talent, to help them understand and not get discouraged if they aren't as fast as they think they should be or as fast as they want to be or as fast as a friend. It is not meant as a crutch to explain away lack of effort, training, or motivation, though some will use it this way; it is meant to offer a logical, truthful explanation of reality and to give those who train diligently yet don't get the results they desire or the same results as someone else a reason to continue training.

I'll use myself as an example. In addition to being a runner for the past 26 years I've also been an avid strength trainer too. When I first started lifting almost 26 years ago, my goals were quite lofty. The reality of the situation turned out to be that my goals were must higher than my in-born level of talent allowed. Despite years & years of diligent, dedicated effort I never came close to developing the level of strength and size I desired. After 10 years of solid effort I was very discouraged and was tempted to just quit. But, then I came across a scientific article on talent and its influence on performance. The article included some data on strength levels of untrained college age men. When I looked at the data I realized that despite not being as strong as I wanted to be that my strength levels were pretty high compared to untrained college males. That data gave me some perspective on things. I continued to train diligently in order to maximize my strength levels, but now I had a better understanding why I wasn't getting the results I wanted or the same results others I knew were getting. That article was the turning point for me. I have continued to strength train every since, knowing that I got as much from my body as was reasonably possible.

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

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited May-24-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 12:28 PM            

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 01:39 PM               

At the American College of Sports Medicine 25th anniversary meeting / convention in 1989, I was one of just a handful of patrons to the classroom where Dr. Pete Van Aata was speaking. (Theree were 2 or 3 lectures going on at the same time, but I chose Pete's, because he was a geneticist / sports scientist from the US Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs - plus he was a friend of my coach and he'd attended my university). Anyway, I think many people missed out on a fantastic lecture. Pete talked about his research on the expressions of genotypic and phenotypic traits. It was very enlightening!

Pete said that how fast one responds to a stimulus is one indicator of talent. He said that of 60 people in a study, 10 would have enormous response, 40 would have an average response and 10 would have zero or almost zero response. So, if all were given a 1 hour run, 10 might improve quite a bit from it, 40 just a modest amount, and the last 10 not at all.

I asked Pete about the relationship of response magnitude to ultimate potential. He thought for a moment and said, "Good point, young man. Just because a subject response dramatically to a stimulus and shows quick improvement does NOT necessarily mean that they have more talent than another subject."

What I am trying to point out is basic: Don't be fooled into thinking that just because your talent grows slowly, there is less of it. My brother and I were both told in 1st grade by our family doctors that we were going to be short like our parents. All the statistics showed that a kid reaches X percentage of height by age 6, he said. My mom was despondent! My dad said, "Let nature take its course. It's out of our hands. WE can only feed 'em and see how it goes!"

I grew 4 inches taller than my father and my brother is 5 inches taller!

Tinman

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 01:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigapplepie:
So having read one article, the reasonable thing to do was to give up on your dreams? Is that the message?

---

Seriously, that's the message you took away from that entire post?

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

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 01:53 PM               

Great point. The rate at which one responds may not coincide with the magnitude that they respond.

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

IP: Logged

posted May-24-2007 02:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:

My friend is almost 57. He is 6 ft 4 in. tall, weighs over 200 lbs and runs about 21% bodyfat, so he clearly has an opportunity to exploit. No sense carrying the equivalent of two 10 lb hand weights for 26.2 miles if you don't have to.

To clarify....it will probably be a half marathon (HM) in the fall, to see if he can go under 1:50, and if successful then a marathon next spring or fall. Over the last 5 years he has dropped his half marathon PR from 2:05 to 1:57 through increased mileage, with his weight around 205 to 210 range. Losing that 20 lbs seems to be a good way to get faster without adding more miles.

You are right about getting rid of excess weight. I've struggled with that all my adult life, but when younger it seemed easier to lose it. Not only does fat stick around longer now, but muscle seems to have disappeared as well. Running these days makes me feel like investing in a jog bra to keep the upper body in place.

I will keep you up to date on my friend's progress, both weight wise and running wise.

Thanks Nobby, and thanks rengle. You guys are first class coaches!

---

Now This is stuff that interests me. If the guys are helping with "Project Phil" then may I play too.
"Phil's " diet interests me. Not that I am into anything extreme. But it as an area where some basic adjustments can make a huge difference.
For instamce ; Many US Households eat large amounts of Carbohydrates (as do Kiwi ones), possibly too much "red meat" and not enough Fruit and vegetables. Simple adjustments in these areas can work wonders.
This was an area that had Arthur fascinated in the early mid 80's when Eira was diagnosed with Cancer. But he was also looking at athletes as well. One reason he was looking is that New Zealanders were no longer occupying them selves with vegetable gardens and what was available in Supermarkets, may look good but was not necassarily 'fully' nutritional. Hundreds of acres of Tomatoes grown in 'special houses' Hydroponically are a classic example.
He took me to lunch one day and then as we selected various items he gave me a run down on what the food value of each was.
I reached for a Chicken leg. Arthur said "I would not touch one of those, Paul Ballinger told me they are full of hormones"
Needless to say I did not have a Chicken leg !.

Any fedback on "Phils" diet ??

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

IP: Logged