Can Anyone Give a Recap or Any Noteworthy Things at the Rocky Mountain Distance Summit?

I did the calcuations quickly, but it looks like Mr Broe does 85-95 miles a week most of the year (?), and then drops the mileage as he starts to race. (well, he is in the high 90's in the early months, and then appears to get into the high 80's in some later months)

Another sub100 MPW superstar.

I've read a couple of things Brad Hudson has to say on training. And having coached on the collegiate level it seems to me that he likes to throw out all these big terms. And yet, he doesn't really know what they mean. Is it just me, or does anyone else get that impression. If you need an example, read his interview on mensracing.com.

He has yet to make a dent at a WC or Olympic final.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

I did the calcuations quickly, but it looks like Mr Broe does 85-95 miles a week most of the year (?), and then drops the mileage as he starts to race. (well, he is in the high 90's in the early months, and then appears to get into the high 80's in some later months)

Another sub100 MPW superstar.

Not sure where you're going with this statement, but several weeks in the high 90's early in the season is close enough to 100 mile weeks, in my book. What I'm saying is...is a guy who runs weeks at 95 miles per week REALLY advocating against 100 mile weeks? Do you agree that there is not much difference between 95 and 100 miles a week?

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

I did the calcuations quickly, but it looks like Mr Broe does 85-95 miles a week most of the year (?), and then drops the mileage as he starts to race. (well, he is in the high 90's in the early months, and then appears to get into the high 80's in some later months)

Another sub100 MPW superstar.

Lancelot, if this is another rant on those who actually train like distance runners (120+ per week base phases), might I point out that Broe, after running 13:20, had nothing left in the final and finished way back in 11th.

He might well have enough talent to be up amongst the medalists, or at least in the 7-8th place range with Mottram.

Without those higher mileage weeks, he and all of us will never know. As good as Broe he is, on the top, top level, he is the farthest thing from a superstar.

Make sure you read this correctly, because I do not want to start a furor when some idiot cannot read the English language and misinterprets: I have great RESPECT for Tim Broe. He is an enormous talent and one of the best in the nation.

But I GUARANTEE that, continuing his 85 mile weeks will earn him no medals, no sub-13:00 5,000's, and no notable races on the world level.

You simply cannot compete with someone like Bekele or Kipchoge, who, in addition to having more natural talent than Broe, puts in those higher mileage weeks.

13:20 is a great time, but Haile Gebrselassie did 2 x 5,000m on a hilly road at altitude FASTER than that before Doha in 2002.

I hope Broe gets it right.

am i banned

I think Broe will gradually run more in base training. He talked about how hitting 90/week this past winter was a step up for him. THe last 2 years he didn't run AT ALL in the winter because he was injured. In college he didn't run AT ALL in the summer...he just didn't realize he should be and wanted to hunt and fish instead. Tim has lots of room for improvement...he'll eventually get to 100mpw and some really fast times, too, I think.

i agree. who can get on this guy for not running more mileage when he was always starting at square one the first of the year? also, he told me himself that he put in a couple 100+ mile weeks this winter, and i believe definitly understands that's where he needs to be to be competitive. but, at the same time, he understands it's a process, and is willing to make the commitment to get it right.

College Coach wrote:

I've read a couple of things Brad Hudson has to say on training. And having coached on the collegiate level it seems to me that he likes to throw out all these big terms. And yet, he doesn't really know what they mean. Is it just me, or does anyone else get that impression. If you need an example, read his interview on mensracing.com.

It's not you. To everyone else, except his posse of immature dolts, it's obvious.

Hudson's next narrative will cover organic morphology and methodology, its construction to and from Sartreist existentialism, up to and beyond Baudrillardist deconstruction, cultural nationalism and neotextual deappropriation.

Thusly, should Geoffrey have to choose between Debordist image and textual predialectic theory? Hudson claims "no."

Hudson uses the term 'Lacanist obscurity' to denote the role of the poet as participant. Is the primary theme of the works of Madonna not dematerialism, as Marx would have it, but Ritzist postdematerialism? Hudson suggests, "the vagaries of morphology makes the answer to this question vague."

Word.

Colorado College wrote:

Ritzist postdematerialism

Does anybody else think Broe's track workouts seem really easy for someone of that standard?

Compare it with el guerrouj workouts 10x1000m (2 min rec) in 2.32/2.33 and 12x400m(1 min rec) in 53-54 it seems very easy!

I really enjoyed Brad's talk but then i'm a lot smarter than the masses. If you are questioning his knowledge throw us some substance. You have a problem understanding the organic system in relation to training? organic system = heart, lungs, liver... muscular system = muscles I'm not sure it's really to tough.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

I did the calcuations quickly, but it looks like Mr Broe does 85-95 miles a week most of the year (?), and then drops the mileage as he starts to race. (well, he is in the high 90's in the early months, and then appears to get into the high 80's in some later months)

Another sub100 MPW superstar.

Your calculations look to be pretty accurate, but then again if you look at the following interview with him, you might notice that he does run 100mpw at times...

I think the "argument" can end there, and in reality it's not always the amount of mileage you put in but the consistency of "higher volume" (whatever that is) for the individual that matters. For example, I'm a pretty good friend of Adam Tenforde (never ran at Stanford or for the FT) and know for a fact that he runs right around 65-70mpw and has produced PR's of 13:39/28:23. As you can see he doesn't run much volume, but he also doesn't really have those "down" weeks in his schedule either, just consisten weeks of 65-70.

Another funny thing to me is that while 85-95 is not 120 mpw it is also not "low" mileage. If Tim is running 95 mpw now all he has to do to get 120 is run an extra 20-25 minute run per day...is that really going to make a difference? 85-95 mpw CAN kick your ass if you are doing quality...likewise you can "twirl your cock" to get junk mileage and just be a skinny-ass slow guy.

taco wrote when describing what each person talked about that long runs are not needed...what does that mean and what should i do with that information?

"Greg Weich mostly talked about team-building activities and how important he thinks this is in his teams' enormous success (e.g. pre-season camps in the summer, doing stuff as a team outside of practice, etc.). Kaltenbach trains like 30 miles a week. Brent Vaughn ran 8:45.6 off of no runs longer than 70 min."

I think I read an RW article where KK was running 42-45 MPW. I find it hard to believe that a XC national champ runs 30MPW.

Taco,

Can you write down the comments and notes about Tim’s talk? (the things you were too lazy to type

in)

For example

- pace on mileage

- specific 5000m workouts

- weight & plyos?

I want details!

And was the 12 month training program he showed his training for the 2004 Olympics?

Thanks