I find it very hard to beleive that anyone is running 60miles/week
at marathon pace (subtracting the long run).
I find it very hard to beleive that anyone is running 60miles/week
at marathon pace (subtracting the long run).
xxx wrote:
I find it very hard to beleive that anyone is running 60miles/week
at marathon pace (subtracting the long run).
Well, Derek Clayton was doing it in the 1960s.
Clayton got injured a lot, and his races became more hit and miss as time went by, without ever returning to his glorious paces of 1969.
xxx wrote:
I find it very hard to beleive that anyone is running 60miles/week
at marathon pace (subtracting the long run).
You're right, they aren't
okey wrote:
-20K average 60-63 mins depending on terrain.
-Recovery runs only after the interval sessions.
-The long run starts slowly then gets faster.
so what are they doing? I am left with conflicting information and anecdotes.
The reason, Renato started this thread is to point out that some of the fastest Marathon runners are doing lower mileage than most elite runners.
The training isn't really radically different, just less long recovery runs, and slightly faster hard runs. But the very long run is very slow
Wanjiru's training is similar.
http://japanrunningnews.blogspot.com/2008/12/samuel-wanjiru-shares-secret-of.html
I would guess that does those 400's quite fast, probably starting a bit slower than 3k pace and getting gradually faster.
The purpose of the very long very slow run, is to get used to concentrating for long periods of time. This is a Japanese idea, and I can confirm that it does work.
You're still thinking about the event in the traditional way.
60 miles/week at marathon pace is quite doable, especially with access to dirt roads. These 204-205 guys are very very fast at most any distance, and at some point, speed capability is essential to run with them. Top level marathoners these days are outstanding 3000/5000 runners (roughly <740/<1310 range) tackling the longer event because it is lucrative to do so.
Ultimately quality mileage wins the day with this crowd; and good tempo will feel far more natural. Much above 80 miles/week is just a security blanket. Furthermore, since most runners can handle only so much total volume, the focus has to shift to most return for the time on your feet. If you can converse at 4:50 mile pace, why train at 7' or 8' mile pace unless you are simply loosening up from yesterday 12x1000m 2:50 session? Who is it who said you aren't really training unless you do 90' day? Now that's just plain confused old world thinking.
so this is different from less is more? And american distance runners (esp marathoners) should change their approach accordingly??
I can smell the return of the 90's ideology amongst US distance runners. Smells like mule shit.
hmmm... 9 interval sessions, three all-out 20km runs, and
2 long runs of 38km per three weeks. sounds very unlikely.
hillbilly bob wrote:
I can smell the return of the 90's ideology amongst US distance runners. Smells like mule shit.
Yeah, it would be really stupid to train like those who are faster than you.
Renato Canova wrote:
So, we are now trying to better understand the connection between volume and intensity, because Kibet and Kwambai have a training of high quality with little volume (130-140 km per week), many times running only once per day. But, at the same time, Martin Lel and Robert Cheruiyot have a training of high volume.
Did something drastic change in their training in the past 6 months? From the front page:
"he's [Kibet's] a showman who claims to have run a minimum of 25 miles every day from May until Sept 11th."
That's over 280 km per week.
20k in 60 to 63 minutes isn't all out.
And Thys was running 90 miles hard years ago.
Why would Kibet shift to 175 miles a week, when 100 fast miles got him to 2:04?
maybe i'm dumb, but does anyone know if the "canova renato" poster w/ linked email is actually canova? or are only the posts with his "coach" distinction from him.
dumbo wrote:
does anyone know if the "canova renato" poster w/ linked email is actually canova?
Yes.
fred wrote:
Why would Kibet shift to 175 miles a week, when 100 fast miles got him to 2:04?
I still don't understand it either, and I'm going to keep bumping this until I get an answer.
fred wrote:
Why would Kibet shift to 175 miles a week, when 100 fast miles got him to 2:04?
Maybe he only counted his afternoon runs and forgot to mention his 18 mile morning runs. Including workouts and a long run this could easily be 85-100 mpw.
Example:
AM: 18 PM: 7
AM: 18 PM: 7
Workout: 18 miles total
AM: 18 PM: 7
AM: 18 PM: 7
Workout: 18 miles total
Long Run: 22 miles
"Total" - 86 miles per week
Actual Total - 158 miles per week!
UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:
Did something drastic change in their training in the past 6 months? From the front page:
"he's [Kibet's] a showman who claims to have run a minimum of 25 miles every day from May until Sept 11th."
That's over 280 km per week.
Maybe a "showman" would make exaggerated "claims" to display his confidence, intimidate his opponents, and arouse public interest.
But heck, I think even 130-140 km/week is high mileage!
What happend with this thread?Why James Kwambai dnf the Berlin marathon?He said he was doing 25 miles each day.I guess he have to go back to the last year training 130 km each week and he will run fast again