| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
 posted Aug-07-2007 05:20 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by runfastcoach:
Dr. Costill would never desparage Arthur Lydiard, knowingly, I believe.
Yup, he outwardly "apologized"--and he didn't even write it! Sounds like a perfect gentleman to me. I was just thnking about the irony... So much for "The TRUTH about Mileage" when, from the get-go, the reference wasn't even "true"! ;o) [This message has been edited by Nobby (edited Aug-07-2007).]
IP: Logged |
ca marathoner
Member |
posted Aug-07-2007 05:42 PM
I as well have met and spent time with Dr. Costill, he is both a true gentleman and scholar whose scientific inquiries have added much to the sport. He would never disparage another, probably investigate the program's physiological effects on the athlete but never intentiontally or otherwise disparage.
If you ever get a chance to listen and met the man you will find him to be humble and of quick wit.
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-07-2007 10:03 PM
Tinman,Just before I turned 40 I had a late spurt of decent racing, compared to what I'd been doing and it came when I was doing four runs a week in the 15-18 mile range and about 8-9 miles on the other days, usually with seections of it at a fairly good effort.
I can't recall why I got away from it. Probably because even though I was running better than I ever had I still wasn't happy. But that was the best routine I'd come across for a while.
But the trouble with pushing that sort of routine is that there aren't very many people who want to do four or five 15-17 mile runs in a week.
I may have said this earlier in the thread, but one of the truths about mileage is that a lot of people don't like it and go looking for reasons to avoid it.
IP: Logged |
runfastcoach
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-07-2007 11:29 PM
Rengle -To springboard off the 4 x 15-18 mile per week idea, I read a year or two ago about Amby Burfoot's training. Most of his career he ran high mileage at a slow pace (140-160 miles per week), but during the buildup to his fastest marathon - a 2:14 at Boston - he ran just 4 times per week, as I recall, each 15 miles with a couple of those runs in fartlek form. My old coach, Mr. Mick, did his training like this: Mon - am - 5 miles; pm - 5-6 miles
Tue - 15-17 miles, EZ to Moderate
Wed - am - 5 miles warm up, 5, building to 7 x 1 mile at a moderately strong effort, 3 miles cool down.
Thu - 15-17 miles Slow
Fri - am - 5 miles; pm - 5-6 miles
Sat - 15 miles fairly hard
Sun - 17 miles, EZ He ran 19:28-42 for 4 miles x-country (that's how far the races were back then) off that training. And, he had only a p.r. in the mile of 4:23. He said, "I wasn't blessed with leg speed, so I had to work on my strength." He once ran 49:51 on a 10-mile course his team ran as a test for fitness. His freshman year, he ran that course, all-out, in 66 minutes and felt sick for 2 days, he said. By the end of his sophomore year, he ran 54 minutes. By the start of his junior xcountry season, after a summer of 100 mile weeks as shown above, he ran 51 minutes and some seconds. I can't remember the seconds. The following year, in fairly warm weather (he only said warm) in late August, that had to mean at least 80 degrees or so degrees Farenheit, he ran 49:51. I saw that course, it was fairly flat, but not exactly what you'd call smooth. It was a loop around bunch of cornfields in the countryside on blacktop roads.
Tinman
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-08-2007 08:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
Tinman,
But the trouble with pushing that sort of routine is that there aren't very many people who want to do four or five 15-17 mile runs in a week.
I may have said this earlier in the thread, but one of the truths about mileage is that a lot of people don't like it and go looking for reasons to avoid it.
I was doing it 7 days a week for a period of time when I was 54, and got some PF. That was the AM run.
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-08-2007 12:10 PM
Tinman,
Burfoot's 2:14 came at Fukuoka in 1968. He ran 2:22 when he won Boston. It was a hot day at Boston and times were slow.
Otherwise I seem to recall the same thing you do.
IP: Logged |
willamona
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-08-2007 12:46 PM
But then the question becomes how long must someone run to be able to do that. Let's face, Burfoot did not do that 'off the couch' so to speak. He had years of running behind him at that point. One could argue that those years of training helped greatly to bring about those performances. I am sure I could drop my mileage right now and maintain what I have as opposed to keep increasing to improve, but at the same time it has taken over a year to get where I am today. I have a feeling Burfoot was more than a year into training to get those kind of times.------------------
***********
My myspace
No Complaining
Low Heart Rate Training FAQ Because many have asked...
You have poopie pants.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-08-2007 12:56 PM
Amby Burfoot
Training: (1968 season) twice a day (6:30 a.m., 3p.m.) 7 days a week 12 months a year. About 115 miles per week. longest ever training run: 38 miles.
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-08-2007 01:00 PM
so 1968 - 6000 miles
IP: Logged |
qwestman
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-08-2007 01:25 PM
what happened to Richard Gibbens? i was so enthralled reading this thread and then about page 10 or so he just disappeared. I love seeing arrogant people get nailed to the wall with common sense and logic. How embarassing for him and what a pathetic attempt to cover up his tracks. This is Better then daytime tv.
IP: Logged |
Long Run Nick
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-08-2007 03:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredurie:
Amby Burfoot
Training: (1968 season) twice a day (6:30 a.m., 3p.m.) 7 days a week 12 months a year. About 115 miles per week. longest ever training run: 38 miles.
What kind of time does Burfoot run now? 10K-- Marathon?
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-08-2007 03:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by qwestman:
what happened to Richard Gibbens? i was so enthralled reading this thread and then about page 10 or so he just disappeared.
My schedule & an out of town trip kept me very busy for a couple of weeks. Once things settled down for me, I resumed active participation on this thread (page 29). ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
qwestman
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-08-2007 03:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
My schedule & an out of town trip kept me very busy for a couple of weeks. Once things settled down for me, I resumed active participation on this thread (page 29).
awesome thanks for letting me know. I'll be caught up in no time.
IP: Logged |
loopy
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-08-2007 04:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Long Run Nick:
What kind of time does Burfoot run now? 10K-- Marathon?
He ran a 1:27:40 half in April. See this Blog post.
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-08-2007 08:16 PM
Amby had been running through late high school and college and was generally doing 100-120 per week in college. After graduating he started teaching school and had less time to train. I think he said he dropped to about 85 as prep for his 2:14 at Fukuoka. After that he ran slower and slower until he decided to have a go at the 1976 Olympic trials marathon. He got his second fastest marathon there, 2:18 something was back to about 100 miles a week by then.
I happened to be next to him on the bus to the starting line of the AAU 30km championships in Albany and asked him about his return to form after some years away.
He tole me that he thought the "secret" was that he was doing a session of 440s each week. I asked how he reconciled that with his previous identity as a slow trainer and he said that when he'd said he did only slow training in college he was honest. But what he hadn't thought of was that he raced one to three times a week almost every week at distances from one to six miles and while he hadn't thought of those races as speed work, that's what they were.
Once graduated his racing frequency dropped off significantly and he got slower. Once he figured that out he put in the session of 440s. He said he usually only did eght of them and only in about 72, but he thought that was why he was running better.
After that he "retired" and ran back and forth from work each day, as an editor rather than a teacher. It was a 3-4 mile run each way and he often did it fairly hard. He did no more marathons but kept racing well at shorter stuff.
IP: Logged |
runfastcoach
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-08-2007 10:18 PM
Here's a link about Burfoot:http://www.joehenderson.com/longslowdistance/home.php?article=2207
Here's an excerpt from Joe Henderson's Commentary about Burfoot (an excerpt from the above link):
"Even with Kelley's influence, Amby remained
something of a free thinker on training matters. His
system evolved into one of somewhat slower pace and
more mileage than his tutor's. At the time of his Boston
victory, Amby wrote, "My basic distance training is
always quite similar, varying with the seasons and
climatic conditions. I train either twice a day,
approximately 2 x 10 miles, or take one 15- to 17-mile
run. Running is usually done at 6:45 to 7:15 pace,
depending on the weather and how I feel." In regard to longest runs, he reportedly took several 35-
to 38-milers before going to Japan last fall. The long,
slow miles make up well over 90 percent of Burfoot's
training. What "speed work" he does, he said, is
"usually fartlek on grass. I do not enjoy running on the
track." He may not enjoy training in circles, but you couldn't
prove it by his racing times, particularly indoors in 1968.
His best 440 time is only 57.9. Yet on the 11-lap track at
Boston Garden, running in Tiger Marathon flats yet, he
strung together eight 65-1/2-second quarters for an
8:45.6 two-mile. That amounted to a 20-second
improvement of his personal best. A little later in the
indoor season, he brought his three-mile down by a
similar amount to 13:44.8." Regards, Tinman
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-08-2007 10:47 PM
The 8:45 mile is really impressive when you consider that his best mile was 4:19.
IP: Logged |
martinjames
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-09-2007 10:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by runfastcoach:
Here's a link about Burfoot:http://www.joehenderson.com/longslowdistance/home.php?article=2207
Here's an excerpt from Joe Henderson's Commentary about Burfoot (an excerpt from the above link):
"Even with Kelley's influence, Amby remained
something of a free thinker on training matters. His
system evolved into one of somewhat slower pace and
more mileage than his tutor's. At the time of his Boston
victory, Amby wrote, "My basic distance training is
always quite similar, varying with the seasons and
climatic conditions. I train either twice a day,
approximately 2 x 10 miles, or take one 15- to 17-mile
run. Running is usually done at 6:45 to 7:15 pace,
depending on the weather and how I feel." In regard to longest runs, he reportedly took several 35-
to 38-milers before going to Japan last fall. The long,
slow miles make up well over 90 percent of Burfoot's
training. What "speed work" he does, he said, is
"usually fartlek on grass. I do not enjoy running on the
track." He may not enjoy training in circles, but you couldn't
prove it by his racing times, particularly indoors in 1968.
His best 440 time is only 57.9. Yet on the 11-lap track at
Boston Garden, running in Tiger Marathon flats yet, he
strung together eight 65-1/2-second quarters for an
8:45.6 two-mile. That amounted to a 20-second
improvement of his personal best. A little later in the
indoor season, he brought his three-mile down by a
similar amount to 13:44.8." Regards, Tinman
From a mortal's perspective, this mileage doesn't seem like such a big deal. Assuming that he averaged 7 mi/mile in those 15-17 mi runs, he finished in under two hours. Any runner should be able to build to that. The only difference is that when we write down "mileage," we'll write down a smaller number. Seems so simple.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-13-2007 06:21 AM
The Mileage MythIn the latest edition of Runners Worlds is an article by 2 time Olympic Marathoner and exercise physiologist Ed Eyestone titled The Mileage Myth. A couple of things from the article caught my eye. "The truth is, more mileage is better only up to the point where you can achieve your potential. After that each additional mile only increases your injury risk. ..So, exactly how many more miles does a marathoner need to log per week than a 10-K or 5-K runner? Here are some suggested weekly totals by event for elites versus the rest of us. 5K: elite = 70-80, mortal = 20-25
10K: elite = 80-100, mortal = 25-30
1/2M: elite = 100-110, mortal = 30-40
Marathon: elite = 100-140, mortal = 30-50" What is most interesting about this chart is that it a) tells us that those with higher levels of genetic talent benefit from running higher weekly mileages and b) that the optimal weekly mileage for runners with average levels of talent is considerably below that of a runner with elite levels of talent. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Aug-13-2007).]
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-13-2007 07:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
[b]The Mileage MythWhat is most interesting about this chart is that it a) tells us that those with higher levels of genetic talent benefit from running higher weekly mileages and b) that the optimal weekly mileage for runners with average levels of talent is considerably below that of a runner with elite levels of talent. [/B]
I'm not sure that it tells us that Richard. I think it's telling us that you too can be an elite marathoner if you run 100 to 140 mpw. Seriously, you have a habit of making incorrect inferences from limited studies. And this isn't even a study. This is just one man's opinion.
IP: Logged |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-13-2007 09:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
[b]The Mileage MythIn the latest edition of Runners Worlds is an article by 2 time Olympic Marathoner and exercise physiologist Ed Eyestone titled The Mileage Myth. A couple of things from the article caught my eye. "The truth is, more mileage is better only up to the point where you can achieve your potential. After that each additional mile only increases your injury risk. ..So, exactly how many more miles does a marathoner need to log per week than a 10-K or 5-K runner? Here are some suggested weekly totals by event for elites versus the rest of us. 5K: elite = 70-80, mortal = 20-25
10K: elite = 80-100, mortal = 25-30
1/2M: elite = 100-110, mortal = 30-40
Marathon: elite = 100-140, mortal = 30-50" What is most interesting about this chart is that it a) tells us that those with higher levels of genetic talent benefit from running higher weekly mileages and b) that the optimal weekly mileage for runners with average levels of talent is considerably below that of a runner with elite levels of talent. [/B]
Where is the peer-reviewed study to back up this chart?
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-13-2007 09:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:
Where is the peer-reviewed study to back up this chart?
hee. I read the article last week. Ed describes some factors he feels important in considering mileage, and I believe it's his point 2 that says if you want to get faster, you need to increase your mileage.
IP: Logged |
DavidD
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-13-2007 11:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Kim Stevenson:
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 ??
I'm a great believer in finding what works for your particular body. So "diets" are crutches. At best they may serve as a stepping stone to figuring out what's best for you. As I write this I'm now not sure which "Phil" you're referring to. Phil Maffetone has written a lot of diet stuff pertaining to overall health, and especially in relation to optimal performance. I like it because he's scientific, clinical and has the same philosophy as me 
IP: Logged |
DavidD
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-13-2007 11:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Kim Stevenson:
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 ??
I'm a great believer in finding what works for your particular body. So "diets" are crutches. At best they may serve as a stepping stone to figuring out what's best for you. As I write this I'm now not sure which "Phil" you're referring to. Phil Maffetone has written a lot of diet stuff pertaining to overall health, and especially in relation to optimal performance. I like it because he's scientific, clinical and has the same philosophy as me
IP: Logged |
denton
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-13-2007 01:57 PM
"Seriously, you have a habit of making incorrect inferences from limited studies. And this isn't even a study. This is just one man's opinion. "...and u are surprised by this???????
IP: Logged |
 |
