I seem to recall once Malmo was saying something about running all of his runs under 6:00 pace (or that this was normal or something) and Hodge chimed in saying "C'mon, Malmo, when you ran with me in Boston we ran 7:00 pace all the time."
Refresh my memory - it was years ago. Seeing Malmo and Hodge disagree is like watching your parents fight about how much discipline you should get - when two people who know and experienced so much don't agree it makes the rest of us feel better for being so ignorant.
>I seem to recall once Malmo was saying something about running all of his runs under 6:00 pace (or that this was normal or something) and Hodge chimed in saying "C'mon, Malmo, when you ran with me in Boston we ran 7:00 pace all the time."
Refresh my memory - it was years ago. Seeing Malmo and Hodge disagree is like watching your parents fight about how much discipline you should get - when two people who know and experienced so much don't agree it makes the rest of us feel better for being so ignorant.<
I never say we ran "7 min. pace all the time"
malmo say he only run slower cause he running with me (which is true). If you view my running logs from 1979-88 you will see the exact times & mostly guesstimated distances that I ran.
You will see that I ran many miles at paces from 5:00-7:00 with track workouts, hills and many races thrown in.
I've met many wejo's and many malmo's. Regardless of the pace they ran on any given runs their training has much more similarities than differences.
<< 've met many wejo's and many malmo's. Regardless of the pace they ran on any given runs their training has much more similarities than differences.>>
That pretty much says it all right there. We gain nothing by focusing on trivial differences.
Yeah, I think what it might have been was Malmo said he NEVER ran that slow and you disputed the letter, but not the spirit of his statement.
I have a feeling that many people who run similar race times have very different "graphs" that describe accumulating fatigue as the pace gets faster. I'll use HR as an example, not to condone the use of HRM, but because it is a fairly objective masure of effort. I bet for some people if you graph the change in HR compared to their pace, the HR changes more between 7:00 and 6:00 pace and then not so steeply thereafter whereas other people don't change much between 7:00 and 6:00 pace but then changes more steeply thereafter. But their curves (relative to their own percent of max HR) intersect at the same point, so they are pretty similar in races. For me, if I am going 6:00 pace, that is uncomfortable enough so I will just tend to go ahead and run hard (under 5:20 pace) for the rest of the run and be done with it. If I am feeling good enough so I want to run 6:00 pace, then I'll just go ahead and run hard. Personally, I rarely do any running between 5:30 and 6:40 pace. What seems to work better for me than doing a 12 miler at 6:00 pace is doing the first 7 or so at 7:00-6:40 and then the last 3-5 at 5:10-5:30 - I don't seem to accumulate any more fatigue like that than if I just run the whole thing medium hard and I think it makes me fitter. But other people I have run with seem much more comfortable at 6:00 pace than I do but no more comfortable at 5:20 pace. Like you said earlier, you just let the pace come to you and it is just going to be different for different people. So many things make a difference - I seem to be doing my easy days a good 20-30 seconds a mile faster now that it is cooler out and I feel better and recover faster doing it. I am not trying to, it is just happening.
I think the main point Wejo makes is that some people force a pace on easy days that jeopardizes more important elements like higher mileage or quality workouts. I know college guys who try to run in the low 6:00's on all their runs, but their hard days are only like :20-:30 seconds faster and they skimp on mileage because they think "running slow makes them slow" without every realizing that 6:00 pace isn't terribly fast compared to the times they want to race at. For me, everything is just in context of the week. The day after a hard workout, I might be stiff and tired at 7:20 pace. If I go several days without a programmed workout, 6:20 pace may seem comfortable. I notice for me, what constitutes "comfort" at those medium paces is all about leg and joint fatigue and not at all about cardiovascular difficulty. The constants I try to keep are the mileage and keeping a pretty good workout schedule (I have become more free-form on this owing to Malmo's advice and it is working well - impromptu hard efforts like long fartleks and "runs to the barn" more frequently and programmed workouts less frequently so that I end up with more hard efforts during the week) and I let my easy day pace vary as needed to absorb the unpredictability of the fatigue accumulated by the other two elements.
You certainly do live up to your name, Hazy Documentarian. As far as NEVER running 7:00, to the letter that would be incorrect wouldn't it? Warm-downs after hard sessions and races I certainly ran that slow. As far as MY training runs go, the answer is NEVER (when fit, of course). Usually my first mile is measured, and I check the split, 6:00 to 6:15, then I either continue at that pace, or usually, drops down to 5:45 or better. Often the final 2-3 miles of many runs would approach 5:00 pace. Although you'll rarely see the word "tempo" in my training logs, I'd run tempo runs of three to eight miles, three to five times a week.
FYI of the half-dozen times (high estimate) I've run with Hodge, I'd say that he (or others, K. ryan, P Pfitizinger) led the pace at maybe 7:00, quickly dropped to low 6:00 and finished in the 5:00 to 5:15 pace. I recall running with Hodgie-san only once on the track, repeat 2000s.
Mike, it wasn't Fullems' post. It was my post, the result of a series of emails betweem Fullem on I which he forwarded to his experts an the subject. I just posted the unredacted results. You would have to go back and read the entire thread to follow what we were talking about. At issue was whether or not hill running was more strssful (because of eccentric loading) than flat running. Being that stress increases by the square of speed, and that no one I've ever heard of runs faster uphill than on the flat, it made no sense that hill running (uphill of course) would be mmore stressful, ergo more injuries.:
What follows is a series of emails to two the foremost authorities on achilles injuries in athletes which debunks the contention that hill running is a major cause of achilles injury. Of course you can spend untold hours arguing for proof that they are "authorities" but I trust my source, who, by the way, is a reader here at LetsRun.com.
To be fair to you, pumper, my source did say this is a common theory perpetuated in the field (to borrow your phrasing) without evidence. From my point of view it's without thought. If true, there must be studies and data to support it. There's none. If true, the physics should support it. It doesn't.
You can dutifully write down and regurgitate what is fed to you in class, or you can do a little independent thinking, say to yourself, "that doesn't make sense to me" and raise your hand. You may be right, or you may be wrong, but a least the instructor will know that the elevator goes to the top floor.
Good luck with your studies.
In a message dated 2/3/2003 8:15:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, malmo writes:
The question is, do you see evidence that hills are a major cause of tendonitis?
...Secondly, how different is that from normal loading from running on the flat? During normal stride aren't the loads eccentric at push-off? It seems to me that running on a hill, even a steep one with six percent grade, the forces would not be all that much different, even less due to the slower speed and less than full stride extension. What am I missing?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: the physics of hill running
This is a question sent to me by a friend. Can you 2 achilles experts add some insight to his questions?
here is my other experts reply. These are 2 of the foremost authorities in
the world on achilles injuries athletes. I think the verdict is that there
is no scientific explanation but it has always been conjectured and
implicated (it appears wrongly) For my running patients it is almost always
faster running that leads to this, not hill work.
RESPONSE #1 (Malmo's note: The issue of eccentric loading was addressed in my original query.)
I think the main problem is that running uphill does eccentrically load your Achilles, & if you try to get up on your toes even more strain occurs. Furthermore the downhills keep you calves contracted, making them tighter to stretch. The Achilles can only lengthen 4% until damage occurs & the faster you run increases the force on the tendon exponentially, such that microtearing occurs.
There is no scientific evidence that hill running is worse than running on the flat. The only piece of published work that I know of comes from the veterinary world, and is enclosed
Equine Vet J Suppl 2002 Sep;(34):353-8 Related Articles, Links
Biomechanical implications of uphill training on the aetiology of tendinitis.
Takahashi T, Kai M, Hada T, Eto D, Muka K, Ishida N.
Equine Research Institute, Japan Racing Association, Utsunomiya, Tochigi.
It has been reported that a small decrease in the strain in the superficial digital flexor tendon (SDFT) occurs if the toe is raised during walking. Although walking on a slope appears similar to raising the toe, it is unclear whether uphill exercise decreases the strain in the SDFT. Because the force or strain on tendons is one of the important factors leading to tendon stress injury, we hypothesised that reducing the force in the SDFT during exercise may prevent tendinitis. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of treadmill inclination on the force in the SDFT in the walking horse. 'Arthroscopically implantable force probes' (AIFP) were implanted into the SDFT of the forelimb of 4 horses. The AIFP output was recorded during walking on a treadmill inclined at 0%, 3%, 8% and then 0% again. When the inclination increased from 0 to 8%, the first peak of force in the SDFT decreased significantly, the second increased significantly, but the maximal force and the area under the force-time curve did not change. In conclusion, uphill walking on an inclined treadmill did not decrease the maximal force in the SDFT or the area under the force-time curve, however, the patterns of force were altered. Future research should focus on the force distributions of tendons and ligaments at faster gaits, because the effects of a change in hoof angle and slope may be greater at faster gaits.
Best regards, and see you soon
Nicola Maffulli MD, MS, PhD, FRCS(Orth)
Professor of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
Keele University School of Medicine
Thornburrow Drive, Hartshill ST4 7QB
Tel: + 44 1782 55 46 08
Fax: + 44 1782 41 22 36
Is it hard for people to believe someone can start a run at a minute slower than their marathon pace and then finish the run near marathon pace? 5:00 pace = 2:11 marathon. Malmo PR = 2:12:23 = 5:02 pace. 6:00-6:15 = 1:00 over marathon pace. There is a difference between easy and effortless and something that starts out hard could become effortless and something that should be easy isn't always effortless.
ON PACE (RC 402). I wanted to let you and your readers know that the second edition of Dr. David L. Costill's Inside Running: Basics of Sports Physiology is finally available. This is the ultimate argument-settler and mind-putter-at-easer for those interested in the scientific measurement of what the body does while running.
It's also the book that describes, among many other mind-blowing anecdotes, Derek Clayton running on the treadmill in Costill's lab at just about 5:00 pace while accumulating no additional lactic acid over resting levels. In other words he was running at, for him, LSD pace! (George Beinhorn)
REPLY: Didn't I just use the term "physiological freak"? Clayton, who held the world marathon record from 1967 to '81 (and was the first to break 2:12, 2:11, 2:10 and 2:09) was marvelously freakish. Marvel at what he did, but don't try to mimic it.
I can't believe that people are surprised that 2:12 guys consistently run sub 6:00 pace in training. I am not that fast (32 10k) and ran 31 miles at 6:14 pace on a hilly course (in trainers). It felt pretty easy until the last five miles, when I backed off to 6:40, somewhat due to hamstring problems. I train 75-100 miles a week, mostly on trails, but have a good idea of what 6:00 pace feels like on flat roads. When I do get a chance to check out my usual run pace on a track or measured course, it is 5:40-6:00. I would've have thought that 2:12 guys train at a faster pace, and I know Khalid runs a lot of mileage at 5:00 or faster. Go watch the Endurance movie and watch Haile's typical pace. He's definitely doing 5:00 while just cruising. There are many guys in the Boston area that do most of their running at 5:30 to 6:00. I first started to focus on trying to do all my running at a solid pace when I read an article about Mark Donahue, a phenomenal master's runner a few years ago, who said all his mileage was below 6:00.
As far as the talent issue, there is such a thing. The fact that evolution occurs depends on differences in physical attributes. However, I am 28, and have been training very hard year round since I was 20, and I only now am I making significant progress with my performances. The interesting thing about my training is that I have to do workouts of a 24 minute 8k runner to run 25, and it has always been like that. I have been able to hang with guys in workouts that crush me in races, and we are in no way talking about some mental issue. I am not blessed with superior running physiology, but I am very durable. Based on that, I try to do decent mileage at a fast pace, two workouts every week, and race about 30-40 times a year. It may take me a bit longer, but I'll get where I want to be. My goal this year is to be able to feel comfortable at 5:40-5:45 pace. My opinion is that anyone should be able to run up to 100 miles a week at their marathon pace, with quality workouts in addition. I would say more mileage, but I've never had the time to do much more than 100. I would even add that this mileage could be done in 7 runs a week, as I don't have the time for two runs. Based on my own training, I am not impressed with people who run virtually full time and only do 100-110 on 10-12 runs a week while training for a marathon.
Your reponses have been the best sustained good points in a thread by one person since well...the last time I bantered in a thread. Excellent job there Malmo! Again, I can see why you were MVP of 2003 - you're making a strong case for MVP of 2004. Basically you have the point making ability of Flagpole Willy but with running talent.
I'm sure someone will call me a brown noser, but what does it get me to suck up to you? A big ol' dose of nuttin'. I just see the good and the bad and comment accordingly.
Again, Malmo, you've been brilliant in this thread.
Had to jump in!
1) Mileage can be increased but not at the speed and quantities most of us want. I have used 3 mile a week increments to build up mileage, and after 3-4 weeks back off 15 miles for one week. With several elite athletes I have been able to increase, SAFELY, from 60's to 100's without any problems. Amazingly, the races got faster and faster too!
2) The paces that my athletes train are all within 20 beats per minute of the anaerobic threshold (both fast work and slower training days) I can get more development from 3 medium training days of fartlek, interval, or tempo runs and a long run, than someone training fast intervals two times a week. An example being 20x1k (3:20)(:60 rest)for women training for the marathon. They also ran their long runs at 6:20 pace for 25 miles at elevation. Then they could run sub 2:30 (5:45 pace) at sea level.
3)IMHO - most runners train too slow on their distance and too fast on their interval/fartlek/tempo. They never develop the efficiency to race their event.
Just a few of my thoughts to help cloud the issue.
Flagpole, you are correct, I loathe obsequiousness. I'm surprised that you missed this bizarre thread.
FYI, if it's not already evident, Tom M has mental instability issues that requires the care of a psychiatrist and psychotropic drugs.
Read the link and you'll understand where he's coming from:
My simple thoughts on this thread...
To be a great distance runner, you need to run high mileage. You can't measure or predict your "natural talent" and adjust training accordingly. It's possible that you may be injury prone. Deal with it. It doesn't mean you aren't "naturally talented".
To the person who said whenever they tried to run more than 50 miles a week and got injured: Did you run too fast? Did you run mostly on pavement? Did you not stretch? Did you not eat right? Did you not get enough sleep? I'll guess as a low-mileage 4:14 high school miler, you answered yes to a few of those questions. Did you step back and take another look at your training and try to modify it accordingly? Perhaps you needed to run some miles slower to get stronger. The kind of endurance you need to be a great runner isn't "natural", it's obtained through training. My point: You can't try to run 50 miles a week in high school and because you got injured chalk it up to not having "natural endurance" or "talent". If you stayed with it and ten years later still couldn't run a lot of miles, then too bad. At least you experimented and gave it a shot. Should anyone feel bad for you? No. If I shoot free throws all day and play basketball for 8 hours a day from the time I'm 4, will anyone feel bad for me if I don't play at a Div I school? No. And they shouldn't. Not everyone can be an elite, but you sure as hell don't know if you're going to be one when you are in high school ripping off 56 quarters with 5 minutes rest like a hero. My favorite line is, "I'm more of an 800m guy naturally." No shit, genius; you run 30 miles a week...you aren't going to be a "natural" 10k runner off of that....
I only read the first part of this but it reminded me of what something asked me the other day. My friend Gabe and I went up to the HS and some young runner asked us how we ran so much without getting sore or have something hurting. The question kind of shocked me, but several other young runners wanted to know the answer too. Some of them complained to us about how there shins would hurt sometimes and there knees would sometimes hurt, so they would stop running and go ice until it got better. Later that day Gabe and I were finishing up a 2 hour run and I turned to him and asked him if anything was aching. He said "Not anything other than what's normal." I said same here, and then thought about what the kids asked us earlier that day and asked him what was aching that normal. He said something like "oh you know aching knees, shins, some muscle soreness, nothing big." Then I realized that what we think the normal aches and pains of running, are thought of as not normal to some. Dunno if this has anything to do with the thread, but I thought it was rather interesting.
|and I have nothing|
First, thanks a lot for posting your log on the web. It's a real inspiration.
As a runner who has been injured a lot, but who has also put in some stretches of pretty high mileage (100-140mpw), i can relate with your theory about less experienced runners just not understanding how much of a pain training can be sometimes. when i'm running a lot, the first couple miles of every run feels like absolute crap, and there are definitely some low-level aches and pains, BUT, there is also a big difference between an ache that you know you can run through and an ache that turns into a stress fracture or tendonitis.
it is likely that these younger runners are merely wussing out, but, i also think it can be hard to discern between a "run-through" pain and an "injury" pain. Personally, after not being able to run for more than 4 weeks at a time over the past 4 months, i've become a bit gun-shy.
Keep up the good work and high miles. Here's to hoping that your pain continues to be the "run-through" type and you rip it the hell up in track this spring!
Hodgie-san, isn't it funny how, when young athletes run badly, some people say they have no talent?
years later when those same athletes, with a point to prove, win races and run fast times, they are praised for their "natural talent".
"It became a matter of singular concentration, discipline, monomania. I had to zero in on one thing; I had to make it so nothing else mattered. I just made up my mind to work and see how good I could be. I didn't want to quit and say for the rest of my life, 'Well, maybe I could have been.'" - Frank Shorter on his decision to train with Jack Bacheler in Florida