Matt Fitzgerald's new book 80/20 Running - Rojo what can u tell us about this book since you wrote the foreward

Is the title of the book based on the classically defined 80:20 ratio in which 20% of all observed phenomena is responsible for 80% of the results? I.E., in an economy, 20% of workers generate 80% of the product or 20% of all landowners own 80% of the available land. I'm going to guess that this can be extrapolated to runners in that 20% of runners enjoy 80% of the success. 20% of your training should generate 80% of your results. Find that crucial 20%, and you should be pretty good to go. I'm just thinking out loud.

No. It's about running 80% easy, 20% medium/hard.

I wonder how Matt would categorized "Ed Whitlock" training? The Grand Master of Masters!

I think Jon has written a good review of the book.

I obviously liked the book or I wouldn't have agreed to write the foreward to it. If it had been entitled, "High Mileage Manifesto", I'd be going bonkers over it. I also like Jon loved chapter 2.

I get the concept that things have to be marketed to the masses but still dream of a book being entitled "High mileage manifesto". I also wasn't pleased with how i didn't approve the final version of my foreward.

To me the key of all training is its repeatability, and hard running isn't really repeatable. Lydiard is the man from whom all others originate so getting his message out to the masses is only a good thing.

The subtitle to the book is "Run stronger and race faster by training slower." I'm sure the letsrun crowd will get on here and start debating whether Rupp or Farah run slow on their easy days. I'll admit I'd prefer if the term had been "Race faster by training more relaxed" but get why they used the term slower. I even used that term myself when I was coaching at Cornell.

Let me share a few anecdotes.

My brother Weldon, was famous for running his easy days often well over 7 minutes a mile but racing 28:07 for 10,000. When he was in college, he ran his easy days close to 6:30 per mile and never broke 30:00. So his whole pro career was the result of him running more but slower on his easy days.

But Weldon always made a point of saying, "My goal isn't to run slow on my easy days." His goal was to run relaxed and at a pace that allowed his body to recover and get ready for it's next fast/hard day (He also hated the term hard day as the goal isn't to run hard but to run fast).

I remember one day in Flagstaff we went for a run after he'd been out with an injury and was doing his first run of substance in a month or so. I and the other guys in the group started out at his normal crawling easy day pace. Weldon was running ahead and turned back to us and said, "What the hell are you guys doing? Why are you running so slow? You're barely moving"

We said, "We're not running slow. This is your normal easy pace when you are running 125 + per week." He was even surprised himself as he naturally running something like 40+ seconds per mile faster as he was probably only going to hit just 25 mpw that week. He just felt fresher.

Similarly, I remember telling a kid at Cornell, "You are wearing yourself out on your 'easy' days. Run slower." I don't like telling people to run slower. I'd prefer to say run more relaxed but the it's hard to get a 19 year old male D1 athlete to understand relaxed sometimes.

So the goal is not to run slow, but to run relaxed. Now most people don't get that so 'slow' is the term you often read which puts some of the letsrun.com crowd into a tizzy as they'll see the pace that a Farah/Rupp run and think "That's far from slow."

But the pace one runs on their easy days is one of the least important aspects of training - assuming it's not too fast. When I first moved out to Flagstaff in February of 2000, Weldon had already been there for a few months. I was recovering from my own failed attempt to make the 2000 Trias (2:23 marathon) and when I started running with Weldon, I was stunned by how slow he was running. I called John Kellogg and said, "Hey do you want me to secretly increase the pace of the easy runs? This pace is painfully slow. I bet I could run 15 seconds a mile faster and he might not realize it."

John said, "No. He's running that pace naturally for a reason. He's adapting to altitude and more mileage than ever before. We'll worry about that last." We'll we never did worry about it and he ran nearly 2 minutes faster for 10k than he ever had before.

So I believe in the message but don't love the title as much High Mileage Manifesto. I'm not sure how much the importance of mileage still remains in Fitzgerald's book with the title change. If i could give every runner only one piece of advice it would be, "Slow down but run more"

-Robert

PS. Here is an article I wrote about how it's key your training is repeatable:

http://www.letsrun.com/2009/training1209.php

Rojo, what can you tell us about this book?

I know Matt pretty well and it's important to understand that he's a writer first...then a runner/triathlete. He makes his living selling articles and books. His talent lies in writing; if he were to have earned his income through running, he have had a hard time. Like so many others, without this pressure to perform, he's altered his "training beliefs" with each passing year (and each subsequent book). "Studies show" is a primary line of his, and those who have known him for years poke fun about his ever-changing stance on how to train. But we understand implicitly that he's out to sell books and respect that immensely; he does this successfully.

Years ago he had a hard time understanding why it took so much running (or, in the case of triathlon: running, swimming and cycling) to achieve desired results. I think he felt that most of what these athletes were doing wasn't "training" so much as appeasing their compulsions and addictions. It was not easy to get Matt to listen, so we didn't try. It seems ultimately best that athletes learn the hard way, but in his case, as it is with so many others, the years caught up to him and his best races are now well behind him. All because he didn't believe in greater training volumes.

Americans in particular like to search for easy solutions and magic bullets. But in endurance sport, there is no easy way. Lydiard said this very thing back in the '50s for crying out loud! Still, we search for the shortest of shortcuts leading us to the top, a notion that already goes to undermine our toughness (which, along with motivation, is the key ingredient for success in sport).

The 80/20 rule isn't exact, nor is it true science, but if you delve into it, you'll see how accurate the premise is at the top tier. But it all comes down to embracing a substantial amount of chronic training volume, or it makes no sense whatsoever. Those expecting to reach their best by doing the least amount of work (or the wrong work, ala the cross-fit nonsense) will, hopefully, see their flaws one day, before age has caught up to them and its too late.

Mo Farah and Galen run low to mid 5 min miles for their "easy runs" which is only 30-45 seconds slower than marathon pace for both of them. I would assume that Matt is suggesting people run much slower than that on their easy days. I don't necessarily think using Mo Farah is a good example of running 80% slow mileage each week.

From the review "First, and most obviously, more volume improves aerobic capacity"

But that's just not true, it's a popular myth. Not that you are really interested, just thought I would point it out anyway.

actually... wrote:

From the review "First, and most obviously, more volume improves aerobic capacity"

But that's just not true, it's a popular myth. Not that you are really interested, just thought I would point it out anyway.

What's your proof for this?

Fitzgerald's claim is that the primary fitness gains from high volume came in areas other than aerobic capacity. But (if I read it correctly), he still asserts that volume does increase aerobic capacity somewhat. Just wondering if you had evidence that supports your point as I'd be interested to read it.

actually... wrote:

From the review "First, and most obviously, more volume improves aerobic capacity"

But that's just not true, it's a popular myth. Not that you are really interested, just thought I would point it out anyway.

If your measurement of aerobic capacity is vo2 max, you're right. If your measurement factors in extra capillarization, blood changes, mitochondrial changes etc, you will find you are dead wrong, which you are.

Jonathan Gault wrote:

actually... wrote:

From the review "First, and most obviously, more volume improves aerobic capacity"

But that's just not true, it's a popular myth. Not that you are really interested, just thought I would point it out anyway.

What's your proof for this?

Fitzgerald's claim is that the primary fitness gains from high volume came in areas other than aerobic capacity. But (if I read it correctly), he still asserts that volume does increase aerobic capacity somewhat. Just wondering if you had evidence that supports your point as I'd be interested to read it.

Read Brain Training. You'll see how much Fitzgerald has changed his views. Back then he thought the stride/form was everything. Now he seems to think it doesn't matter what your stride is like so long as you are relaxed. So basically he's taken an about face on a book he was very passionate about a few years ago.

As a previous poster who knows him mentioned, Fitzgerald is constantly changing his tune. That is part of the discovery process, but at the same time it means he hasn't really figured it out yet.

you gotta be kidding wrote:

Mo Farah and Galen run low to mid 5 min miles for their "easy runs" which is only 30-45 seconds slower than marathon pace for both of them. I would assume that Matt is suggesting people run much slower than that on their easy days. I don't necessarily think using Mo Farah is a good example of running 80% slow mileage each week.

I would be calling BS about low 5 minute miles, but they are definitely running sub 6s in their training. Assuming their average easy day pace is 5:35-5:55/mile (3:28-3:40/km) and their marathon pace is 4:55/mile (3:03/km), they are essentially running 40-60 seconds slower per mile (25-37 seconds per kilometre). Put these times in ratios and they are running their easy days at 6:7 of the their marathon pace. When your 2:38 marathoner (3:45/km) is running 4:10-4:20 per km on his easy days, he is running at 8:9 of his marathon pace.

I still think that Salazar's group is running too fast on their easy days, but if you take the same time difference and apply it to slower runners, it looks a lot harder for the slower runners to maintain it.

It's a fallacy to say that Lydiard training is just slow running for the base phase. They ran quick. Lydiard himself states 100mpw at a 'strong aerobic pace' and then add some supplementary jogging on top of that if you wish. The main bulk of their running was pretty quick. Look at the logs of Malmo, John Walker Steve Jones, Steve Scott and other guys from the 70's-80. They were regularly running sub 55 10 milers in training, almost every day. Malmo posted a record of his almost daily 'magneto loop' that was 8 miles I think. I remember posters going mad that he would regularly be clocking 5:30's with the occasional 'run to the barn' that was even faster. I'm not saying these guys were strict Lydiard followers by the way, just that they all ran a high volume with much of it at a quick pace. Mo and Rupp seem to following a similar idea, easy runs generally seem to be 5:45-5:15. When you can run sub 27 for 10k then that's totally believable and jogging around at 6:30 pace or slower for most of their mileage would probably be more detrimental than anything. If you want to run fast, you gotta run fast!

McFatty wrote:

...Fitzgerald is constantly changing his tune. That is part of the discovery process, but at the same time it means he hasn't really figured it out yet.

And as long as people buy his stuff, all's good.

It is never as easy or simple as a one line ,80/20 formula.

For all the kids who ran poorly running too much speed in the 90s, an equal number have jogged 100miles a week and never improved significantly.

The reported anecdotes are that Salazar's group runs pretty fast on off days.

I guess I should buy the book, but what does he say about the Kenyans who run that 10 mi increasing tempo run every single day!

I like a mixture, and I agree that relaxed running might well be fairly fast for some but slow for others.

But I think the evidence of the last couple of decades improvement have come from running more hard tempo like stuff rather than simply increased miles or slower recovery days.

I think this is a fair analysis of Fitzgerald. In "Brain Training..." he hops on board the Tim Noakes Central Governor Thesis viewing neurology as the limiting factor in fatigue...a position contra that of Lydiard. This seems to be running in the opposite direction. A couple brief thoughts

1) Mo Farah I think is a poor example. Wasn't the major change Salazar instituted was to drastically increase easy day paces?

2) I will agree that when the PURPOSE of a run is to recover, one needs to run at a pace that merely stimulates blood flow and recovery and not try to squeeze out a secondary purpose. Kenyans under Canova use slow running frequently to recover.

3) He is right that most runners do not recover properly or enough

4) I think the title and shift smacks more of a marketing gimmick than science. It is telling hobby jogger what they want to hear...just an opinion

One further observation...

I think Steve Magness' question of zone training is on point here. Does merely running in an "aerobic zone" stimulate aerobic development? This has never definitively been demonstrated.

another canuck wrote:

It is never as easy or simple as a one line ,80/20 formula.

For all the kids who ran poorly running too much speed in the 90s, an equal number have jogged 100miles a week and never improved significantly.

The reported anecdotes are that Salazar's group runs pretty fast on off days.

I guess I should buy the book, but what does he say about the Kenyans who run that 10 mi increasing tempo run every single day!

I like a mixture, and I agree that relaxed running might well be fairly fast for some but slow for others.

But I think the evidence of the last couple of decades improvement have come from running more hard tempo like stuff rather than simply increased miles or slower recovery days.

To be fair, Fitzgerald is quite clear that "it is never as easy or simple as a one-line 80/20 formula." This book is not marketed to the elite; he's selling it to casual/novice runners looking to improve or push their training to the next level. For them, 80/20 is ideal because it is a philosophy that most runners improve under. But to maximize gains, 80/20 might not be the best program for every single person.

Hi Rojo, here's something to consider. The argument you make about wejo assumes the period where he ran easy days faster and easy days slower are independent.

Its possible you are right, but it is also possible that his actual training combination (years of faster easy runs followed by years of slower easy runs) are why he improved so much..