posted Aug-14-2007 05:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
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?

---

tigger,

Genetics don't change with training. Level of fitness can and does change with training. The classification of runners that I provide is aimed at experienced runners, not someone who has only been training for a relatively short period of time.

You can look and see what level you fall in today, but that doesn't mean, nor do I say, that you will always be in that level. When you've done the necessary training and are close to your genetic potential, your performance will be close to as good as it is going to get and, then, you will know what level you fall in.

If you and Andy are uncomfortable distinguishing between your current level of fitness and your upper genetic limit of performance, or if distinguishing between your current level of fitness and your potential is too confusing, then the level system is not one that is going to be useful to you.

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 05:28 PM               

Level 2: Level 2 runners are also genetically blessed with speed, but not as much as 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

Level 4: Level 4 runners have below average speed and reach their genetic maximum at very modest training loads."

So you're identifying runners in 4 distint classifications according to their genetic talent, and then say they can change classifications by training. So you're saying they can change their genetic talent by training.

I have to agree with Andy, that makes no sense at all.

[This message has been edited by JimR (edited Aug-14-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 05:44 PM               

The single most important thing in running is to find out what works for you and then do it. No matter what someone else says about optimal training you have to find out what works best for you.

If your experience shows that the best training for you falls outside the general guidelines I propose as being applicable, then I strongly recommend that you do what you know from experience works best for you.

Conversely, what works best for you might not work best for others, which can be a very difficult thing to accept.

At the end of the day our discussion of the levels comes down to this main point - does the level system I propose apply to the majority of runners or not? People aren't all the same so no system will ever apply to everyone, including mine. But does it apply to a majority or not? Clearly I believe it does. It is the best way I've been able to come up with to account for differences in genetic talent. If you and/or others don't believe it accurately applies to the majority of runners as to genetic talent, then feel free to propose your own method of accounting for genetic talent.

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

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Aug-14-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 05:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimR:
I have to agree with Andy, that makes no sense at all.

---

If it doesn't make sense to you, if you simply can't figure it out, then, like Andy, it appears the level system isn't going to be a useful resource for you.

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 05:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:

If you and Andy are uncomfortable distinguishing between your current level of fitness and your upper genetic limit of performance, or if distinguishing between your current level of fitness and your potential is too confusing, then the level system is not one that is going to be useful to you.

---

No Richard, that's not it. What I am uncomfortable with is your suggestion that someone who is at a certain level should train according to your guidelines. If that person is training below their ultimate ability and is therefore not at their genetic potential then how will they ever improve? I gave you a specific example of someone (me) who trains far more than your guideline recommends. If I were to believe your guideline I would be constantly out of action due to injuries, yet I am not! I run consistently, continue to increase time on the trails, and I continue to improve. Five years ago I ran at the level you recommend, and achieved performances at the level you predict for that amount of running. Had I believed what you wrote I would never have achieved my potential.

That is what I am uncomfortable with.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 05:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
If it doesn't make sense to you, if you simply can't figure it out, then, like Andy, it appears the level system isn't going to be a useful resource for you.

---

Oh, I agree completely. Your level system isn't a useful resource. Too many contradictions.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 06:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
If it doesn't make sense, if no one can figure it out, then it appears the level system I made up isn't going to be a useful resource for anyone.

---

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 06:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
What I am uncomfortable with is your suggestion that someone who is at a certain level should train according to your guidelines. If that person is training below their ultimate ability and is therefore not at their genetic potential then how will they ever improve?

---

tigger,

Seriously, you can't reconcile how I advise runners to find their optimal training level with the levels? It's simply too complicated for you to understand?

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

[This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Aug-14-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 06:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
If it doesn't make sense to you, if you simply can't figure it out, then, like Andy, it appears the level system isn't going to be a useful resource for you.

---

You mention that the median for the 2001 Motorola Marathon was 4 hrs. This is incorrect. There were 4937 finishers. The median is therefore number 2469. His time was just under 4:10. You can find the correct information at this link.

http://www.attaustinmarathon.com/results/2001/motorola2001overall.htm

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 06:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fuzz:
Fixed your post.

---

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 06:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
tigger,

Seriously, you can't reconcile how I advise runners to find their optimal training level with the levels? It's simply too complicated for you to understand?

---

You can't defend it so you prefer instead to insult me? Sir, I am far too intelligent to play that game. Stick to the issues and not personalities. Tell me....how many reputable people have reviewed your work for errors? Do you think you are infallible?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 07:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
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.

---

Richard:

Have you, on any other page of this thread or any other thread or any other message board of any other webiste, promoted "Run Less, Run Faster" principles (if you call that principles at all...)?

Have you, on any other page of this thread or any other thread or any other message board of any other webiste, insulted and disregarded Lydiard program by saying he "prescribed 100MPW for everybody regardless of the level" without being able to point out "where" he actually said it?

I'd have to go with tigger here; I've said this many times but I still have NO idea what you're promoting... Unless you really ARE promoting the idea that, don't try too hard because you don't have this genetic gift so might as well give it up; because, I'm sorry, maybe it's my English but, that's the ONLY message I see in your posts or website. It'd be interesting to see how many people actually understand what you're saying--I sure as hell don't.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 07:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard99:
...you can't reconcile how I advise runners to find their optimal training level with the levels...

---

I didn't know you actually "coach" or advise people! Do you?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 09:01 PM               

2) If you are very talented, according to your Level 1, you will be able to run very fast with little training yet somehow also be the group that benefits more from higher training loads.

Even if this were true, what a brilliantly useless insight! Geez, if I'm talented I'm faster....wow! You truly are an insightful genius!

3) Somehow, you go on to assign some sort of predictive value to optimal training load based on this genetic talent. Yet you only identify genetic talent that contribuutes to speed; resiliency is not in the equation! I had a college teammate who went 14:53 for 5k on 40 mpw because that's all he could do without getting injured. I've been in shape for roughly the same time (based on a 15:18 2nd half of a 10K) doing 100 mpw. Yet somehow we are in the same Level, so we should train similarly??? I'm sure you'll cry outlier here but the examples pile up...Marc Davis in the Olympic finals on 50ish mpw? Other training partners running 32ish 10ks on 100mpw?

4) You say your levels help find ideal training load, but then say someone must train for years to approach their talent before the Levels are useful....So someone must find their ideal training load to approach their talent so you can assign them to a level, which will then tell them their training load???

Did someone drop little Dick on his head?? This is truly obtuse.

5) Your assertion that you can know what level you are in when you are "experienced" is equally dumb. At what point in the 16 years I improved more or less continuously was I considered "experienced"? Because I went through all 4 levels over a long period of years.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 09:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by tigger:
You can't defend it so you prefer instead to insult me? Sir, I am far too intelligent to play that game. Stick to the issues and not personalities. Tell me....how many reputable people have reviewed your work for errors? Do you think you are infallible?

---

tigger,

It's one thing if you disagree with my points. It's another if you don't understand my points. I was trying to figure out which one is the case here - whether you were being serious about not understanding or just making an argument against a point you disagreed with.

If you understand but disagree, then we can discuss it.

Several here have indicated they don't understand my points. If, after all I've written on this topic, you are one who also truly doesn't understand my points, then at this point I don't believe I will ever be able to explain it to you, so there is no need to continue.

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 09:14 PM               

At the end of the day our discussion of the levels comes down to this main point - does the level system I propose apply to the majority of runners or not? People aren't all the same so no system will ever apply to everyone, including mine. But does it apply to a majority or not? Clearly I believe it does. It is the best way I've been able to come up with to account for differences in genetic talent. If you and/or others don't believe it accurately applies to the majority of runners as to genetic talent, then feel free to propose your own method of accounting for genetic talent.

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 09:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndyHass:
So let's wrap this up:
1) 4) You say your levels help find ideal training load, but then say someone must train for years to approach their talent before the Levels are useful....So someone must find their ideal training load to approach their talent so you can assign them to a level, which will then tell them their training load???

---

This is the one that stands out the most. Richard admits the table probably won't apply to newbies, but more likely to experienced runners. This creates the problems you pointed out, that one ends up having to already find their genetic talent before they can use the graph, which means they don't need it. The ones who could use it in the first place, newbies, can't use it because it likely doesn't apply to them.

It renders it useless.

Anyway, I'm glad Nobby, Kim, tinman, rengle, Andy and others had some good input in this thread, thanks folks.

It would be nice if one could hold a reasonable conversation with Richard without his childish argumentive style so, if nothing else, he could understand some of the problems and maybe tweak his site towards something useful and positive, and maybe if there's something in what he's proposing it could be brought to clearer light, but the condescending remarks get a little tiresome after a while.

As far as this threads concerned...I'm out.

[This message has been edited by JimR (edited Aug-14-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 10:34 PM               

IP: Logged

posted Aug-14-2007 11:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian McN:
If you do not challenge the body it will not adapt... People with a lack of talent can improve to unthinkable levels with volume based training. They will not improve to their potential off of less training. ...I could not turn a sub 60 quarter if my life depended upon it but I can hold on to low 6's for the Marathon.

---

Yes. This will go back and have Some ...applicability... to Richard's charts. I may have turned in one 440 in less than 60 while in HS. 20 yrs ago. Since then, in a 5 week track series, (after 5 years of base training... real training...) I have been able to turn on some of that 20 year ago "speed" and have run 27's for 200's and 62's for 400's in REGULAR WORKOUTS. no, not fast in any absolute sense, but ... hard work pays off. 70,80,90,100, 130 mile weeks. Adding in the hills. Adding in the distance. Adding in the long and short intervals in their due season: You will get results.

I went from last on the track team to ... a 2:30 marathon this spring. Simply stated, it was work.

This is the bottom line:

LOW "TALENT" ATHLETES REQUIRE SUPERIOR WORK LOADS TO COMPETE WITH THOSE OF HIGHER TALENT.

My 9 year old girl knows that "hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard." It's basic. Get with the program.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-15-2007 12:38 AM            

Brian hit it on the head......over time u need a greater stress to create greater results....but that is also relative to the event (egs my days as an 800-1500m runner, where i don';t think i got anywhere near my racing potential and ran 40-50 mile weeks to where i am now as a 5-10km plus runner where i routinley put out 100 mile week averages, but have come closer to reaching my potential in those events.....)

IP: Logged

posted Aug-15-2007 12:49 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Aug-15-2007 01:37 AM               

If one or two people didn't understand what you're promoting you could pass it off as a result of their obtuseness or stupidity. But when an entire message board doesn't get it you might want to consider that you might be the problem.
The thing that most of us seem to think you're saying is that a runner who has less genetic talent than average will actually perform better by running less than talented runners will. That's an extraordinary claim and requires some extraordinary proof. It flies in the face of the experiences that many of us who showed no early promise but who have turned in some better than average performances have had. It doesn't seem to have any supporting evidence that can be found in the real world and leads me again to a comment I made earlier; you don't know much at all about the practical business of helping people to run faster and should be asking fofr advice rather than giving it.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-15-2007 07:56 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rengle:
Richard,

...The thing that most of us seem to think you're saying is that a runner who has less genetic talent than average will actually perform better by running less than talented runners will. That's an extraordinary claim and requires some extraordinary proof. It flies in the face of the experiences that many of us who showed no early promise but who have turned in some better than average performances have had. It doesn't seem to have any supporting evidence that can be found in the real world...

---

rengle,

What I'm saying is that people have varying abilities as to how much and how fast they can adapt. Or said another way, people vary as to how much training they can handle. Of this there is no question.

You see this in real life every day. If there wasn't an upper limit to how much training a person can handle, then you would routinely see all elites running 300 mpw. But, this is not the case. Clearly, elites don't all run the same weekly mileage, nor do they run 300 mpw.

Even at the elite level, elites aren't all the same and can't all handle the same amount of training. Some elites run 140, some 100, and some less than 100. They all have a personal upper limit to how much training they can handle and it isn't the same for all of them.

That being the case, on average do most elites train closer to 100 mpw or 40 mpw? You know the answer is closer to 100. As a group, elites all tend to run high mileages. Of course there are exceptions, but there always are and it doesn't change the fact that the majority of elites run high mileages.

These are the major points:
1. everyone has an upper limit
2. the upper limit is not the same for everyone.

If we are agreed on the major points, the the question before us is whether non-elite level talent benefits from running similar mileages as elites. Can the majority with average talents benefit from running 100mpw? Or said another way, do genetics play any role in how much mileage a person can handle? Is there a correlation between someone's level of genetic talent and how much mileage they can handle?

Clearly, I believe there is a correlation, as do Nobby and Kevin Beck.

On this topic Kevin wrote, "There's a decent correlation among distance runners between the ability to handle mileage and running speed because the biomechanical factors that allow people to absorb a lot of footstrikes often translate into efficient striding and top-tier race results as well. But this is rough at best."

Nobby replied with, "Kemibe is absolutely correct. Rough, yes, but correct..."

So, Kevin, Nobby, & I agree that there is a reasonable correlation between genetic talent and how much mileage a person can handle. I don't know what these 2 guys base their opinion on this topic on, but mine is based on research studies and empirical observation.

This brings us to the final question - if there is a decent correlation between genetic talent and how much mileage a person can handle, then how much mileage can a person with x amount of talent generally handle?

Ed Eyestone, Bob Glover, and I have similar answers to that question for runners of average ability - 30-50 mpw is the general range. You, Nobby, Kevin, and others probably have different answers.

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-15-2007 08:22 AM               

No, what you are doing is your classic bait-and-switch. You post a stupid chart that assigns specific attributes based on a correlation between genetic talent and placing in a race dictating mileage, which is deservingly torn apart. So you back into more and more vague statements, claiming that you were simply misunderstood. BS. Go back and address my Point #4, Dick. Funny how you just ignored that.

You take a ROUGH correlation between genetic talent in the form of speed and the ability to handle high mileage and take it to the extreme like you do everything else, suggesting that average athletes can only benefit from 30-50mpw. The major fault here is that there is a world of "talent distance" between the elites running 100-140mpw and the average runner. You completely ignore the large number of runners who could benefit from moderately high (60-90 mpw) mileage. Moreover, you have repetitively bashed even trying high mileage by attempting to say it has no value to most people and are now saying people must try an experiment of one to find their optimal training load. Those two statements are at odds with each other, Dick. Combine that with the conundrum I pointed out in Point 4 of my last post and it's a clear example of the fact that you know not what you talk about.

You don't run remotely fast. You don't train anyone to run fast, slow, or anything else for that matter. You clearly can't be considered a physiologist of any type due to your inability to even understand the statistics used in such studies. You really should be asking for advice rather that acting like you have any sort of experience or background enabling you to dish it out.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-15-2007 08:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by denton:
.....not defending richard here, but one can run reasonably well off a low training workload....but it will be short term

Brian hit it on the head......over time u need a greater stress to create greater results....but that is also relative to the event (egs my days as an 800-1500m runner, where i don';t think i got anywhere near my racing potential and ran 40-50 mile weeks to where i am now as a 5-10km plus runner where i routinley put out 100 mile week averages, but have come closer to reaching my potential in those events.....)

---

Certain factors, such as enzyme levels, blood volume, and red blood cell levels, can be trained more or less to maximal levels over a period of weeks. This is more or less what you see in peaking (in addition to recovery from cutting back). Other changes, such as muscle fiber composition and strength, and mitochondrial numbers, can be optimized in a matter of months. But other factors, such as overall physique, efficiency, capillary density, and cardiac output take years to maximize. One study I read said no end was reached to capillary density and that incremental gains could likely continue for many years.

This is why periodization and base training work so well together. One set of factors must be training over the long term, but you can get a great bump in race times by focusing on more speed-oriented factors in the 2-3 months leading into a race. This is where lots of new runners see great gains for a few months, but then it levels off and they get disheartened and quit.

You can get good returns with less running over the short term, but it's short term and there is a limit to where you can go without stepping back and working on the long term development factors.

Currently I've had a bad year, I'm probably averaging half the mileage I did last year due to a new baby and some anemia or some other deficiency issues. Now going into the last 7 weeks before Chicago I finally feel good. Will I be training the same way as if I'd had a good summer and been training all along? Heck no! The long-term train has left the station. I must leverage whatever long-term development is left over from last year (things that take a long time to build also take a long time to leave, my resting HR is still low 40s indicating cardiac output is intact) and maximize those short-term factors.

This doesn't negate the importance of volume-based long term development....I wouldn't have anything to build on if I didn't have several years of 3000+ miles to build off of.

IP: Logged