| Long time listener |
| ||
|
When I first looked at Malmo and Hodgie's logs years ago, I couldn't figure out how they were so fast because I know several guys with PR's around low/mid 14:00, high 29:00, 2:18-2:21 who train just as hard or harder - similar volume and workouts but they just aren't as fast and don't make gains as quickly or continue making gains as long. Not unsurprisingly, these guys trained similarly in HS as well, but ran 20 seconds slower for 2 miles. Running, like every other physical sport, is largely dependent on genetic endowment. No noe would hesitate to assert this is true of sprinting and weight lifting, so why do we refuse to see it is true in distance running? Probably because the work is so hard and unforgiving that the people who find their way into running often do so for psychological reasons rather than physical ones - not many people without talent are going to plug away at sprinting because it doesn't offer the many intangible awards of merely participating at whatever level. Let's take 2 young high school kids: Say a guy who is "untalented" and a guy who is "talented" who both have no background lifting weights decide they are going to see how much they can bench at the end of a year lifting 3 times a week, together, every day. On the first day of lifting, they both start with the same weight 120 pounds and each do 5 sets of reps to failure. Talented Guy does 10,9,8,7,5 and Untalented Guy does 9,7,6,5,3. So talented guy is somewhat better out of the box, but not too much better. But even worse, they continue to do the same workout every week - 5 sets to failure at 120 pounds - and by the end of the year, Talented Guy can then do 25,23,21,20,19 and Untalented Guy can do 18,16,15,14,12. Untalented guy has literally demonstrated Malmo's dictum - he has gotten considerably better, but untalented guy has worked just as hard as talented guy and now lags even further behind him than he did at the start. Untalented guy has worked just as hard as talented guy (he did his 5 sets to failure every session just like talented guy did), but Malmo would seem to deride his mediocrity as not being a hard enough worker even though he has done the same workout as talented guy every session for a year - he just didn't improve as fast or make as big gains. So Untalented Guy is in the unenviable position of KNOWING he works as hard as the other guy, but having his lack of parity chalked up to not working as hard. To make the example even more real world, Talented Guy starts adding an even greater workload and continues to improve while Untalented Guy, frustrated by his lack of parity, decides to work harder and makes no further gains. |
| malmo |
| ||
You're welcome. Where was the personal insult, BTW? |
| NoSuchThingAsTalent |
| ||
|
I agree, not everyone can run sub 32. But you won't know if you can until you've tried. And to have "tried" doesn't mean you did 50 mpw, then bumped it up to 75 mpw, got some shin-splints, maybe a head cold and said to yourself "I can't handle the mileage". If you've not done the long mileage, you can't say what your talent level is. Because your talent might be that you respond well to training. It may take some time to get used to it. A lot of people think that building up to 100 miles per week means starting at 40mpw and increasing 10mpw until you get to 100. That works for some people. Other people have to run 3-4 months at 60, 3-4 months at 65, etc until they get up there... And yes, some people cannot handle the training no matter what. But to give up on the first attempt at it is folly. My point about the sub-32 guys is that here were some guys who should never have even thought in the remotest possibility that they would break even 35 minutes, and they all surprised themselves at what they could handle in training... |
| roadrunner32 |
| ||
Do you not see where one could interpret this as a personal attack. I will not dispute this fact but using it in the way you did was not meant to be taken in a flatering way. Besides I never claimed that I knew more than Hodgie or had more experience than Hodgie and never would. But I suppose it is pointless to argue with you as I doubt you would ever admit that or realize that your response in such a manner was not necessary. Regardless, I still respect your accomplishments as a runner and the advice you share on this site and others. Just too bad you couldn't be a bit more personable. |
| mplatt |
| ||
That's NOT TRUE, AT ALL! I have been reading malmo's advice for years now. I have never read any posts in which he derides people because of there lack of ability. I have read posts of malmo's in which he encourages and praises even the very slow to mediocre runner, when they were putting in the right effort and had the right attitude. |
| malmo |
| ||
|
No I do not. You were pontificating about the experience of mileage and you were wrong. Hodsiesan has trained with hundreds who've "been there done that", and knows what the experience is. Besides, you're the one who challenged Hodgiesan as being "sadly mistaken. Give it a rest. Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're still not out to get you. |
| malmo |
| ||
|
The truth be known, "Long time listener" is probably Brian Erb, aka ViaD or Via Dolorosa. I'm 91 percent sure, because there's no one else who'd pursue this "nature vs nurture" leitmotiv of his with such zeal. ViaD, is a bright guy, SAT in the 1800 range, but his one weakness, his Achilles heal, is that he'll argue the same point, even when everyone is agreeing with him. Brian. We all agree with you. We always have. Just because you don't have the raw talent to be the best pianist in the world doesn't mean you have to sell yourself short and not try to be the best you can be. Now sit at the piano and play. |
| DMiller |
| ||
|
HAHAHAHA, oh god i love it...Malmo i would'nt worry about the pianist....im sure he is somewhere right now beating away at the keys... |
| roadrunner32 |
| ||
Ok Malmo, I see where this is going. I am wrong and you are right. And once again you feel it necessary to end with yet another personal attack accusing me of being paranoid. Could you not have just ended with, give it a rest? You have the right to interpret what I wrote however you wish. But as I stated previously and another poster noted as well, I was writing in support of Hodgie and refuting what others were saying. I was only offering my opinion in support of Hodgie and other experienced high mileage advocates. Again it is my opinion as a runner, who may never be as great as you or Hodgie, but I am at least willing to put in the 120-140 miles a week in an attempt to see how far I can go. And yes I am running high mileage in part from the advice that has been given from yourself and Hodgie. Hopefully you will restrain yourself from any further personal attacks. So with that I will "give it a rest" and wish you the best. Thanks for the advice and insight from your experiences in the past. At least you are willing to share your experiences with others. |
| malmo |
| ||
|
Oh my f***in god kid! "just because you're paranoid..." is a hackneyed joke! Always told with a wink and a grin. |
| Long time listener |
| ||
|
I said "Malmo would SEEM to deride". I know from being reading his posts for a long time that he doesn't really mean to do that, but he never prefaces his quips with that disclaimer and for people that don't read his posts with the attention they deserve, that is the message that might come through. It is a bit disingenuous to say "the harder you work, the more talented you get" but rather "The harder you work, the more you fulfill the talent you have" is far more correct in what is really happening. Training HS kids on higher mileage and have them, in spite of their bog personal improvements, can be a frustrating experience when they talk to the guys who beat them at big meets and are shocked and un-nerved to find some of them don't work as hard as they do. Many of the kids I have worked want to pull their hair out because they say "Johnny J. at East Bumblef*** HS runs 9:40 and only runs 25 miles a week, why are we running 60 a week to run 9:50?" and then they read Malmo's posts about talent being caused by hard work and don't get it because it defiew what the are observing? I have to explain to them that Malmo doesn't mean to deride their work, that they have to look at how much they have improved and will continute to improve and ignore what other people ae doing. And you also have to note that the guys running 9:10 are training like they are. |
| The Long Run |
| ||
|
"Talent" comes in many forms and sometimes unfolds in unlikely ways. I am near the same age as both malmo and Hodgie. In my early to mid-20's, I found that I had a biological ceiling on my ability to improve, which has proved to be lifelong (I only have come to accept this fact recently). What was then malmo & Hodgies' half-marathon pace was and remains my lifetime PR for a single mile. This is the case whether I train 20 or 100 miles/week (and I have... for extended periods). Fast forward 25 years, and I have not sped up, but at least in some events I have not slowed either. I can now do things in racing and training that neither Hodgie nor malmo is likely to ever do again. I state this as a simple fact, with all due respect to their earlier accomplishments. The "Talent" I turned out to have is that I haven't slowed with age and get more durable as the years go on. At some point I will slow also, but for now I am enjoying my "moment", where I can run as fast and more pain-free than I did three decades ago. There is no amount of money in this world that can substitute for the feeling of strength and grace when you are near your full potential, whether it is at 6:00 for a mile or 4:00. The keys were that I have always held onto the enjoyment, I have continued to educate myself about the development of the body and mind, and I never gave up on my dreams, however inconsequential they may have seemed to others. |
| malmo |
| ||
|
BTW. Two things: 1) I am not a "high mileage advocate". Never have been, never will. I'm a "right mileage advocate." 2) Good luck with your running. Glad to be of some help, even if it's just to motivate you to show me up. |
| TheBull |
| ||
|
To really make progress, someone needs to come up with an operational definition of 'talent' It seems like it means different things to different people. Perhas a start: Pure speed Natural Endurance Durability Desire? Mental Toughness? I dont know. SOmone smarter than me needs to figure it out. |
| Guest |
| ||
|
This is a good point. My talent did not come to the surface quickly or easily. I discovered it the last several years, when I learned I could put in decent mileage and not breakdown. This has put me ahead of several others I know who were "better out of the box" than I was, but couldn't handle as high a training volume. |
| DMiller |
| ||
|
I would not classify motivation or drive as a part of talent, While some derive these from the talent they have, they are seperate. people run for different reasons. The first time i really cared and started killing it was because a coach had so pissed me off i wanted to prove him wrong, went from last man on the team to 1st in a year. My level of work ethic and determination forced me to realize what my level of capability was in that short frame of time but I wouldn ot classify it solely as a talent. |
| Guest |
| ||
|
I am not talking about motivation to train, I am talking about having the ability to train without getting injured. I believe this is one element which has a lot to do with natural talent. Some of us can pound the roads running 5k miles a year and be fine, others simply cannot. |
| malmo |
| ||
|
Brian, stop the nonsense right now. I was the kid who was running 60 miles a week and running 9:50 when the other kids were at 30 and running 9:30. I kept at it, and eventually got up in to the 100s regularly, even while racing, and ran 9:10 for two miles my senior year. Back in those days 9:10 sucked. In spite of having no speed, or in your myopic lexicon "no talent", and expecting to move up to the 10k in college because of being so freakin slow, I kept at it. By the time I was a senior, I was one of the best 1500 meter runners in the country and one of the best steeplechasers in the world. I never had to move up the the 10k, nor even the 5k, because I trained my body, and most important my mind, to become faster. Yup, "The harder I worked, the faster I became" alright. The problem I see today is that many runners train for the sake of training. It's predictable: One long run, one tempo run and one 10 x 800, or 5 x 1 mile workout. Week after, never ending week. And they never improve and never compete. Now let's contrast that with the training of Jumbo Elliots runners: Either 6 x 400, or 10 x 400 on Monday and Wednesday, and a half dozen races on the weekend. Week after never ending week. Which program was more successful and why? In which program did the walk-ons improive year after year? I'll tell you why. Jumbo got his kids ready for one thing: to win or die trying. |
| DIII Coach |
| ||
|
Dude I sentence you to one week of watching nothing but reruns of M*A*S*H before you come around with your pacifier dangling over your keyboard again. If you're going to run with the big dogs, you got to learn how to piss in the high weeds son. |
| no one |
| ||
|
"Back in those days 9:10 sucked." Malmo - I beg to differ Billy Crystal in Princess Bride: " your friend here is only mostly dead ..." 9:10 only mostly sucks. |