| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
denton
Cool Runner |
 posted Aug-13-2007 02:01 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 |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-13-2007 02:07 PM
If you go back a few posts you should be able to figure out who "Phil" is. He continues to count his calories, and has dropped another 3 or 4 lbs since he was first brought into the thread.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-13-2007 02:09 PM
If you go back a few posts you should be able to figure out who "Phil" is. He continues to count his calories, and has dropped another 3 or 4 lbs since he was first brought into the thread.
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-13-2007 02:20 PM
I need to apologise to Kemibe. I feel that my last comment about what we could all do with our combined knowledge was maybe, condescending.
I have just realised who you are whilst reading an article last night !!!!!.
So sorry Mate , no offense meant.
Keep up the good work !Cheers
------------------
Run easy, Run long
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-13-2007 02:23 PM
I need to apologise to Kemibe. I feel that my last comment about what we could all do with our combined knowledge was maybe, condescending.
I have just realised who you are whilst reading an article last night !!!!!.
So sorry Mate , no offense meant.
Keep up the good work !Cheers
------------------
Run easy, Run long
IP: Logged |
dg12
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-13-2007 03:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by martinjames:
The good folks at Wikipedia tell us that "Under medical supervision, a maximum daily dose of 3200 mg may sometimes be used." That's 16/day.
Just because some folks say you can take 16 doesn't make it prudent. How many people have ruined their health listening to every Doctor doodad? Doctors aint God, we runners learn all kinds of stuff but wont research the harm these drugs do to our bodies. There's way better out there.
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 12:39 AM
Richard,
Runner's World always tells people that they don't need to run a lot of miles. They've been doing it for about thirty years now. It sells magazines and people like you love it because you can put it on your website.
I haven't read Runner's World for years but I know that if ed wants to keep his column he can't tell people that they need to run 120 miles a week. Even if he wants to say you'll run faster if you run more he'd have to find a way to qualify such a statement so that people like you, who really don't like to run very much, can read his comments and feel good about yourself.
But let's explore this business of genetic talent. How do you know what genetic talents you have? How do you know if you have a genetic talent for running? Have you got your genes tested? And if you have, where exactly is your "running gene?" We haven't found one as far as I know and I suspect that if we had someone with your knowledge of physiology would be all over that study.
Mostly we make assumptions. If someone runs fast early in their career or of off light training we'll say that they're "talented." If your early efforts are slow we'll assume you don't have a lot of genetic talent. I always thought, and still do, that was true for me. I never ran any distance, even a half mile, in high school at better than a 6:00 mile pace.
But I eventually worked my mileage up to 100-150 and managed to hold better than a 6:00 pace for a marathon. I've taken that to mean that someone with no talent can still run a fairly decent marathon if they run a lot.
But I have had people say, and I'd suspect you'd join this group, that I was really talented because I was able to do all that running and benefit from it. I don't really buy that, but let's assume it's true for the sake of argument,
If I had that talent it was not AT ALL evident in my first 5-6 years in the sport. I was slow. Doing even 50 mile weeks was HARD. If I had running talent I only found it by doing a LOT of running. If I'd thought like you do I'd have decided that there was no point in doing a lot of running because a) I wouldn't have been able to do it and b) it woildn't have improved me much even if I had.
So the choice someone who doesn't immediately set the world on fire faces is to decide to have a go anyway and see if they can find some talent if they really run a lot or accepting that they'll never be very good and only run a little.
I have no problem with someone making that latter decision but I have a BIG problem with people like you who send defeatist messages to people who are on the fence.
So let's get specific. What is genetic talent and how do we distingish between people who really don't have it and people who have it but for whom it will only show up after years and years of fairly high volume?[This message has been edited by rengle (edited Aug-14-2007).]
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 07:36 AM
rengle,No one - not science, physiologists, or coaches - has not come up with a way to reliably distinguish in advance of training someone's level of talent. There are some pretty good clues, such as a person's sprint speed or pre-training VO2peak, but nothing that is reliable enough to base a firm decision on. The only way I know of to reliable and accurately determine level of talent is through hard training. There is no substitute for hard training. So, how does this work in the real world? It's nothing new since runners have been figuring out their level of talent every since there have been runners. In a nutshell, here is what people do: A person starts running and sees some improvements. So they run some more and get even faster. The cycle continues until, eventually, the person reaches a point where more training does not produce more improvement. So, the person adds even more training, but then performance declines due to overtraining or the person gets injured. They take some time off and recovery. Then the process is restarted. After a couple of cycles hopefully the person figures out that they produce their best performance at X training load, and that training above that load doesn't produce a better performance. A guy starts running 20 miles per week and his performance improves. So, over time and in reasonable increments, he increases to 30 mpw and gets faster. Then 40. Then 50. Then 60. Progress stagnates. He bumps up to 70. No change in performance. Up to 80. Still no change. He holds 80 for weeks & weeks or bumps to 90, but no improvement. He overtrains or gets injured. Drops training volume so he can recover. Repeats cycle (all this takes a few years, of course). Figures out that 60 mpw works best for him. Everyone has some ultimate upper limit and training above that limit doesn't produce better performance. That's why elites don't routinely run 300 mile weeks. They have figured out that their upper limit is somewhere around 100-150 mpw. Experience has taught them that running more than that doesn't make them faster. Not everyone has the same ultimate upper limit. Just because some people can run and benefit from 100 miles per week doesn't mean everyone else can benefit from that same weekly mileage. ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 08:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
rengle,No one - not science, physiologists, or coaches - has not come up with a way to reliably distinguish in advance of training someone's level of talent. There are some pretty good clues, such as a person's sprint speed or pre-training VO2peak, but nothing that is reliable enough to base a firm decision on. The only way I know of to reliable and accurately determine level of talent is through hard training. There is no substitute for hard training. So, how does this work in the real world? It's nothing new since runners have been figuring out their level of talent every since there have been runners. In a nutshell, here is what people do: A person starts running and sees some improvements. So they run some more and get even faster. The cycle continues until, eventually, the person reaches a point where more training does not produce more improvement. So, the person adds even more training, but then performance declines due to overtraining or the person gets injured. They take some time off and recovery. Then the process is restarted. After a couple of cycles hopefully the person figures out that they produce their best performance at X training load, and that training above that load doesn't produce a better performance. A guy starts running 20 miles per week and his performance improves. So, over time and in reasonable increments, he increases to 30 mpw and gets faster. Then 40. Then 50. Then 60. Progress stagnates. He bumps up to 70. No change in performance. Up to 80. Still no change. He holds 80 for weeks & weeks or bumps to 90, but no improvement. He overtrains or gets injured. Drops training volume so he can recover. Repeats cycle (all this takes a few years, of course). Figures out that 60 mpw works best for him. Everyone has some ultimate upper limit and training above that limit doesn't produce better performance. That's why elites don't routinely run 300 mile weeks. They have figured out that their upper limit is somewhere around 100-150 mpw. Experience has taught them that running more than that doesn't make them faster. Not everyone has the same ultimate upper limit. Just because some people can run and benefit from 100 miles per week doesn't mean everyone else can benefit from that same weekly mileage.
Now this post actually makes some sense. Unfortunately is is in direct contradiction with pages and pages of junk you have posted before reeling against anything considered remotely "high mileage".
I started running at age 12. I was 16 before I broke 20 in the 5K and was down around 17:00 by age 18. I didn't break 17:00 until I was 20, and 16:00 at age 23. So I had been running for more than a decade to get to that point. Then at age 28 I run about 15:39-15:18 back-to-back for a 30:57 10K. Fo while it took me 16 years of running, I eventually got good enough that I would have gone to Nationals had I been in college. Absolutely noone who saw me in my first decade of running would have predicted anything remotely that good out of me. The only substantial changes I have made to my training are increased volume and a lower percentage of my running at high intensity (of course, at 100 mpw the absolute mileage run fast is more than when I ran 40 mpw). We all have an innate talent level...for some lucky people it is evident with little training. Olympian Marc Davis once told me that he's probably the only person in the US who's ever made an Olympic distance final on 50 mpw, he admits his talent is obvious and doesn't take much to bring out. Then there are people like me and rengle who have to train a long, long time to realize that we have talent but it's there nonetheless. Defeatists like the Penguin and you Richard are poison to this sport specifically because you lead people to believe that they might as well not apply themselves seriously and try because they don't belong to the group with obvious talent. That mentality is poison not only in sport, but also in life. And especially with young people, how they learn to act in sport carries over to the rest of life. Every single person I have known or trained that seriously applied themselves to seeing how good they could be surprised both themselves and me. Not all were objectively fast, but they became far faster than they ever dreamed.
[This message has been edited by AndyHass (edited Aug-14-2007).]
IP: Logged |
Ewart Harris
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 08:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:
Now this post actually makes some sense. Unfortunately is is in direct contradiction with pages and pages of junk you have posted before reeling against anything considered remotely "high mileage".I started running at age 12. I was 16 before I broke 20 in the 5K and was down around 17:00 by age 18. I didn't break 17:00 until I was 20, and 16:00 at age 23. So I had been running for more than a decade to get to that point. Then at age 28 I run about 15:39-15:18 back-to-back for a 30:57 10K. Fo while it took me 16 years of running, I eventually got good enough that I would have gone to Nationals had I been in college. Absolutely noone who saw me in my first decade of running would have predicted anything remotely that good out of me. The only substantial changes I have made to my training are increased volume and a lower percentage of my running at high intensity (of course, at 100 mpw the absolute mileage run fast is more than when I ran 40 mpw). We all have an innate talent level...for some lucky people it is evident with little training. Olympian Marc Davis once told me that he's probably the only person in the US who's ever made an Olympic distance final on 50 mpw, he admits his talent is obvious and doesn't take much to bring out. Then there are people like me and rengle who have to train a long, long time to realize that we have talent but it's there nonetheless. Defeatists like the Penguin and you Richard are poison to this sport specifically because you lead people to believe that they might as well not apply themselves seriously and try because they don't belong to the group with obvious talent. That mentality is poison not only in sport, but also in life. And especially with young people, how they learn to act in sport carries over to the rest of life. Every single person I have known or trained that seriously applied themselves to seeing how good they could be surprised both themselves and me. Not all were objectively fast, but they became far faster than they ever dreamed.
[This message has been edited by AndyHass (edited Aug-14-2007).]
Well said Andy. Now Richard I hope you can be a gentleman and close out this discussion.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 11:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:
Now this post actually makes some sense. Unfortunately is is in direct contradiction with pages and pages of junk you have posted before reeling against anything considered remotely "high mileage".
Andy, What I've written is what I believe. I also promote this philosophy in my powerrunning training recommendations. I don't perceive any contradiction between this and anything I've said about high mileage training in the past 2-3 years (since the running theory of everything). ------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
fuzz
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 11:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:
Defeatists like the Penguin and you Richard are poison to this sport specifically because you lead people to believe that they might as well not apply themselves seriously and try because they don't belong to the group with obvious talent. That mentality is poison not only in sport, but also in life. And especially with young people, how they learn to act in sport carries over to the rest of life.
Best post in the entire thread.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 12:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Andy,What I've written is what I believe. I also promote this philosophy in my powerrunning training recommendations. I don't perceive any contradiction between this and anything I've said about high mileage training in the past 2-3 years (since the running theory of everything).
Here is a quote from your site Richard. Andy and Rengle are/were clearly Level 1 runners at some point. Where would you have classified them before they got fast? "Level 1: Level 1 runners are genetically blessed with speed. Their genetics allow them to run fast off of little to no training and to improve significantly with training. Level 1 runners finish in the top 25% of local races and the very fastest ones are good enough to compete internationally. Level 2: Level 2 runners are also genetically blessed with speed, but not as much as the Level 1 runners. Level 2 runners form the upper 25 - 50% of finishing places in races. The fastest Level 2 runners finish ahead of about 75% of the other runners in the race and even the slowest level 2 runner finishes just in front of 50% of the other race competitors. Level 2 runners benefit from increasing their training load to a fairly high level, but performance levels off at a lower training load than that of the Level 1 runners. Level 3: Level 3 runners have average to below average speed and make up the 50 - 75 percentile of finishers in races. The relatively low level of genetic talent prevent these runners from running very fast or from benefiting from increasing training load beyond a modest amount. Level 4: Level 4 runners have below average speed and reach their genetic maximum at very modest training loads. Increasing training load beyond these very modest levels is likely to cause a noticeably poorer performance. Level 4 runners finish in the back 25% of races."
IP: Logged |
fredurie
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 01:02 PM
""Level 1: Level 1 runners are genetically blessed with speed. Their genetics allow them to run fast off of little to no training and to improve significantly with training. Level 1 runners finish in the top 25% of local races and the very fastest ones are good enough to compete internationally."Bullshxt. The guys finishing in the top ten when I raced would tell you
that they were not genetically gifted; they just worked very hard.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 01:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
Andy,What I've written is what I believe. I also promote this philosophy in my powerrunning training recommendations. I don't perceive any contradiction between this and anything I've said about high mileage training in the past 2-3 years (since the running theory of everything).
Here is a quote from your site Richard. Andy and Rengle are/were clearly Level 1 runners at some point. Where would you have classified them before they got fast? "Level 1: Level 1 runners are genetically blessed with speed. Their genetics allow them to run fast off of little to no training and to improve significantly with training. Level 1 runners finish in the top 25% of local races and the very fastest ones are good enough to compete internationally. Level 2: Level 2 runners are also genetically blessed with speed, but not as much as the Level 1 runners. Level 2 runners form the upper 25 - 50% of finishing places in races. The fastest Level 2 runners finish ahead of about 75% of the other runners in the race and even the slowest level 2 runner finishes just in front of 50% of the other race competitors. Level 2 runners benefit from increasing their training load to a fairly high level, but performance levels off at a lower training load than that of the Level 1 runners. Level 3: Level 3 runners have average to below average speed and make up the 50 - 75 percentile of finishers in races. The relatively low level of genetic talent prevent these runners from running very fast or from benefiting from increasing training load beyond a modest amount. Level 4: Level 4 runners have below average speed and reach their genetic maximum at very modest training loads. Increasing training load beyond these very modest levels is likely to cause a noticeably poorer performance. Level 4 runners finish in the back 25% of races."
I think what really astounds me is your suggested hours of training. I am clearly not a Level 1 (Level 3 at best) but I average 8 or more hours per week and have never had significant injury downtime.
IP: Logged |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 01:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
Here is a quote from your site Richard. Andy and Rengle are/were clearly Level 1 runners at some point. Where would you have classified them before they got fast? "Level 1: Level 1 runners are genetically blessed with speed. Their genetics allow them to run fast off of little to no training and to improve significantly with training. Level 1 runners finish in the top 25% of local races and the very fastest ones are good enough to compete internationally. Level 2: Level 2 runners are also genetically blessed with speed, but not as much as the Level 1 runners. Level 2 runners form the upper 25 - 50% of finishing places in races. The fastest Level 2 runners finish ahead of about 75% of the other runners in the race and even the slowest level 2 runner finishes just in front of 50% of the other race competitors. Level 2 runners benefit from increasing their training load to a fairly high level, but performance levels off at a lower training load than that of the Level 1 runners. Level 3: Level 3 runners have average to below average speed and make up the 50 - 75 percentile of finishers in races. The relatively low level of genetic talent prevent these runners from running very fast or from benefiting from increasing training load beyond a modest amount. Level 4: Level 4 runners have below average speed and reach their genetic maximum at very modest training loads. Increasing training load beyond these very modest levels is likely to cause a noticeably poorer performance. Level 4 runners finish in the back 25% of races."
Typical Dick logic. He draws a direct link between where people finish in a race and what their genetic potential is. In other words, if you finish in the bottom 25% there's no use trying harder or running more because, according to Dick, you are not destined to be any better.
Good thing the Internet did not exist yet when I was in 7th grade and humiliated because a fat girl run/walked her way to beating me to the line and making me finish dead last in my first CC race (I'd been last in several road races already). I could have heard this type of thought and given up. Instead I got pi&$ed at being bad at something and trained my tail off.
IP: Logged |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 01:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
Here is a quote from your site Richard. Andy and Rengle are/were clearly Level 1 runners at some point. Where would you have classified them before they got fast? "Level 1: Level 1 runners are genetically blessed with speed. Their genetics allow them to run fast off of little to no training and to improve significantly with training. Level 1 runners finish in the top 25% of local races and the very fastest ones are good enough to compete internationally. Level 2: Level 2 runners are also genetically blessed with speed, but not as much as the Level 1 runners. Level 2 runners form the upper 25 - 50% of finishing places in races. The fastest Level 2 runners finish ahead of about 75% of the other runners in the race and even the slowest level 2 runner finishes just in front of 50% of the other race competitors. Level 2 runners benefit from increasing their training load to a fairly high level, but performance levels off at a lower training load than that of the Level 1 runners. Level 3: Level 3 runners have average to below average speed and make up the 50 - 75 percentile of finishers in races. The relatively low level of genetic talent prevent these runners from running very fast or from benefiting from increasing training load beyond a modest amount. Level 4: Level 4 runners have below average speed and reach their genetic maximum at very modest training loads. Increasing training load beyond these very modest levels is likely to cause a noticeably poorer performance. Level 4 runners finish in the back 25% of races."
Typical Dick logic. He draws a direct link between where people finish in a race and what their genetic potential is. In other words, if you finish in the bottom 25% there's no use trying harder or running more because, according to Dick, you are not destined to be any better.
Good thing the Internet did not exist yet when I was in 7th grade and humiliated because a fat girl run/walked her way to beating me to the line and making me finish dead last in my first CC race (I'd been last in several road races already). I could have heard this type of thought and given up. Instead I got pi&$ed at being bad at something and trained my tail off.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 01:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tigger:
Here is a quote from your site Richard. Andy and Rengle are/were clearly Level 1 runners at some point. Where would you have classified them before they got fast?
tigger, Keep reading. I followed up the part you quoted with this: "Predicting Performance: Can you predict in advance what your ultimate potential is? No, you can't. While those with initially low levels of fitness may improve more than those with a higher starting level of fitness, the starting level of fitness does not predict how much someone can ultimately improve with training. The only way to know what your potential truly is, is by actually doing the work of training. Only training will reveal how much or little talent you may posses and how good you can become. 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. Beginners, especially those without a training background in other sports, will likely begin at a lower level and move to a higher one as their fitness and capabilities improve. Experienced runners, however, will be hard pressed to make significant changes in their level." Later on in the guide I wrote this: "Over time, you will increase your training load, ensuring that you track both the total training load and your performance. As your training load increases, you should see improvements in your performance. Eventually, you will reach a training load where performance stagnates or even declines; you've passed the point of optimal training and are now training at too high a training load. In this way, you will be able to identify the training load that is too low, too high, and just right for you. It will likely take several years of training to build up to your ultimate optimal training load, to reach the your absolute ceiling of training load. The training load that produces your best results early in your training career may prove to be too low in later years as your capabilities have increased. However, you won't know this unless you are taking the time to track your training load and performance over time." What I have posted in my training guide mirrors the points that I've stated here. As for classifying someone who is not yet an experienced runner, classifying someone relatively early in their running career, I would note they are in a particular category now, but would definitely not rush to say they would always be in that category. As they continue to improve keep increasing the training load until the point is eventually reached that more training no longer results in improved performance.
------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 02:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:
Typical Dick logic. He draws a direct link between where people finish in a race and what their genetic potential is. In other words, if you finish in the bottom 25% there's no use trying harder or running more because, according to Dick, you are not destined to be any better.
A weird thing. Richard spends most of that page telling people what their genetic abilities are by referencing this chart, then goes on to say the chart is meaningless in determining their ultimate potential. "That being the case, it makes sense to provide training guidelines for people whose genetics cause them to fall at different locations on the normal distribution curve. Thus, I divide runners into 4 levels, or classifications, and suggest what I believe are appropriate training guidelines for each of the 4 levels"
...
the chart
...
"Can you predict in advance what your ultimate potential is? No, you can't. While those with initially low levels of fitness may improve more than those with a higher starting level of fitness, the starting level of fitness does not predict how much someone can ultimately improve with training. The only way to know what your potential truly is, is by actually doing the work of training. Only training will reveal how much or little talent you may posses and how good you can become."
IP: Logged |
Kim Stevenson
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 02:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:
Typical Dick logic. He draws a direct link between where people finish in a race and what their genetic potential is. In other words, if you finish in the bottom 25% there's no use trying harder or running more because, according to Dick, you are not destined to be any better.Good thing the Internet did not exist yet when I was in 7th grade and humiliated because a fat girl run/walked her way to beating me to the line and making me finish dead last in my first CC race (I'd been last in several road races already). I could have heard this type of thought and given up. Instead I got pi&$ed at being bad at something and trained my tail off.
Hey Andy, Sounds like my story too !!!!
My best times when I was 16 were 2:10 for 800 and a 5:30 mile.
Whoops ! I forgot I cut out a 400 in 55 once (finishing last) and thought maybe I should become a distance runner.
I could not make my High School Team at all. Now I have never been a "High mileage" guy but through my 20's I got REALLY consistent. However, an aside, But related, this past weekend I hosted Santa Margarita High School Cross Country Team. Pretty quick kids some of them.
Saturday and Sunday Morning we were out on Trails and Forest Roads, heaps of hills too.... I actually got some of these guys puffing and blowing.
The last 15 minutes of the Saturday run I said to the team. "You are running my pace now". The whole group sighed with relief as we ran back to their accomodation.
Where does R99 put me then, when now at 59 I can take one of the Top Californian High School Teams for two 11/2 hr runs over Jack Foster country and yet at their age I could not run a 5 min mile !!!!!
Oh Yeah ! my consistency of late has been crap !!!. I have only averaged 3 days a week fot the last 2 months !! ------------------
Run easy, Run long
IP: Logged |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 02:31 PM
"Level 3: Level 3 runners have average to below average speed and make up the 50 - 75 percentile of finishers in races. The relatively low level of genetic talent prevent these runners from running very fast or from benefiting from increasing training load beyond a modest amount."You DEFINE these levels by the genetic talent inherent in these runners. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION, it is impossible to move between levels without changing your genetic code. This is sheer idiocy. I finish in the top 1% of the races I run yet I run very high training loads when doing that (nearly elite levels, and I am not elite but only regionally competitive) to do so. Before these training loads my performance was nowhere near that. There is nowhere in your categories for people who run fast but work hard to get there. When I stop running for even a few weeks, times falter precipitously. No easy genetic maintenance there. Kim,
Dick just claims we're outliers. That's what all data points are that don't fit his preconceived fallacies. Quoteth Adam Savage (Mythbusters): "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 04:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:
[B]"Level 3: Level 3 runners have average to below average speed and make up the 50 - 75 percentile of finishers in races. The relatively low level of genetic talent prevent these runners from running very fast or from benefiting from increasing training load beyond a modest amount."You DEFINE these levels by the genetic talent inherent in these runners. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION, it is impossible to move between levels without changing your genetic code. This is sheer idiocy. I finish in the top 1% of the races I run yet I run very high training loads when doing that (nearly elite levels, and I am not elite but only regionally competitive) to do so. Before these training loads my performance was nowhere near that. There is nowhere in your categories for people who run fast but work hard to get there. When I stop running for even a few weeks, times falter precipitously. No easy genetic maintenance there.
B]
Andy, you took the words right out of my mouth. The reverse of your situation is also true. I figure I'm level 3 but I run over 8 hrs per week. Hardly a modest amount of weekly running! I have been slowly increasing mileage for the last few years and am running faster at 57 than I did at 50. New PR's at 10k and HM this spring, Gunning for a new 5k pr in a couple of weeks...coming off 8 weeks of 11 hrs per wk avg running. Richard, you can't have it both ways. You can't set up a system based on genetic ability and then say one can move from one category to another through hard work. What happens in that case? Do your genes change with hard work? In my opinion one cannot know their ultimate potential until they test their limits with consistent sustained (over years) increases in both quality and quantity. It's a never ending game of tag. More work brings better results which enables even more work. If I ran 70 miles last week then I know I can someday run 71 after my body gets used to 70. When I eventually run 71 I know I will someday be able to run 72. When I reach the point where I can't add an entire mile I will still be capable of a half mile, or a quarter, or some incremental amount. It all eventually leads to faster times. The only thing that works against me is age.
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 04:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AndyHass:
You DEFINE these levels by the genetic talent inherent in these runners. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION, it is impossible to move between levels without changing your genetic code.
Andy, Genetics don't change. Level of fitness does change based on training. There is a difference between having the potential due to genetic talent to perform at a particular level and actually performing at that level. A person may have the potential to be a level 1, but not be in level 1 due to lack of training. You have to put in the hard training in order to perform to your potential. Train less and you won't get there. I'm not sure exactly what you are arguing against. Are you suggesting there is no difference in genetic talent - i.e. that we are all the same genetically? Or perhaps you are suggesting that genetic talent has no impact whatsoever on how much training a person can handle?
quote:
I finish in the top 1% of the races I run yet I run very high training loads when doing that (nearly elite levels, and I am not elite but only regionally competitive) to do so. Before these training loads my performance was nowhere near that. There is nowhere in your categories for people who run fast but work hard to get there. When I stop running for even a few weeks, times falter precipitously. No easy genetic maintenance there.
So, you are saying you are a level 1 runner training at level 1 training load. Your opposition to the levels is that you can't run at or near a level 1 without doing the training of a level 1 runner? Is that what you are saying?
------------------
Richard
World's Fastest Slow Guy
www.powerrunning.com
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 05:09 PM
Richard, let me put it to you another way, and I will use myself as an example. My PR times are 25 min for 5k, 52:30 for 10k (track) and 1:57 for HM. Based on your chart I am on the high side of level 3. I should therefore not run any more than 6 hrs per week to achieve my ultimate potential. But when I was running at that level a few years ago I was only able to run 2:00 or higher for HM and 55:15 for 10k. The only thing that allows me to run faster, although I am older is my volume. I run over one third more than I did back then. If I cut back the volume my times will decline. All of the work I've done over the last few years has resulted in faster race times.Another thing about your chart. You say I should max out at around 40 miles per week and 6 hrs per week. That's an average of 9 min per mile! I manage around 10:30 to 10:15 per mile. My average starts out slow in the winter and gets a bit better as summer progresses and I do more speedwork, but it has never been faster than 10:15 in the last 7 years. Anyone I know who runs at an average of 9:00 pace is a MUCH faster racer than your charts predict.
IP: Logged |
JimR
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-14-2007 05:25 PM
IP: Logged |
 |
