| Pages: | 1 | 2 | |
| agnadagnalagnab |
| ||
|
I wasn't running back then, so I'm curious as to what led to the change in the American running mindset from quantity and quality to just quality. Anyone? |
| random a hole |
| ||
|
Mies van der Rohe was a renown 5k runner that first adapted this philosophy. Fact. |
| adads |
| ||
|
I think the influx of electronic technology (internet, cell phones, google, etc.) being used by the younger generation made the kids look for the easy way. They started to get lazy and thought "how can I get mine without doing anything?" The younger generation are the entitlement generation: they think they should be successful without working hard. |
| mcgato |
| ||
|
Combination of Galloway and Runner's World. Galloway came out with his book about running less is better. This was based on his observation that after years of running 100+ miles a week, if he actually tapered for a race he ran better. He translated that into running less is better. Runner's World, at a similar point, was catering to the more casual runner. They figured most working runners didn't have time for 100+ miles a week, so they offered tips on training better while running 30 or 40 miles a week. Too many coaches and parents interpreted that to mean that you could be a highly successful running while doing 30 to 40 miles a week. That's just off the top of my head, so some details may be a bit off. |
| TMoney |
| ||
|
It started in the 80s at the international level with guys like Coe, Spivey, etc. even though they were milers. Some initial exercise science also helped propel this before the science of running was more understood (still isn't really understood in the lab.) This trickled down to the university and then high school levels. adads is actually very wrong about what he posted. The internet, mobile tech, and the like HELPED. In the late 90s when the internet became mainstream, runners were more aware of what other around the country were doing. They could immediately compare their race results to someone across the country. Places like dyestat, tnfmedia, and letsrun started to encourage training towards higher mileage again. The results of the last 10 years are a drastic improvement over the previous 15. Kids of this generation are not as lazy and entitled as some bitter old men would like to think. I ran 4:19 in 1996 as a hs junior off of 35-40mpw and was a big fish in a small pond, but with no way to find out what was going on in the ocean. The internet and information tech helped to change a lot of that. As a coach it's easy now to show young athletes what others are doing to be successful. None have been unwilling or afraid to do any amount of mileage or any workout I have asked. |
| michael furey |
| ||
Funny. I am assuming that you wrote this tongue-in-cheek but this does seem to be the view of some on these boards. And everyone knows that immediately after the entitlement generation killed US distance running, the influx of even more electronic technology led to a reversal of the "less is more" philosophy, and more hardworking runners. Because everyone knows that there's a sweet spot of technological advancement that makes people lazy - any more or less than this amount pretty much has no effect. As for me, I always thought that Seb Coe's (and/or his dad's) assertion that he had only run 55 mpw max (or whatever number he gave) was a big contributing factor. Everyone tried to imitate Coe, probably the greatest non-African runner of all time, without the intensity (and in all likelihood he was doing more than 50 mpw anyways). I was also under the impression that Runner's World was actually a pretty good source of information in this time period although I could be wrong. |
| fastfood police |
| ||
It began as Wendy's postured a little old lady who coined the query, "Where's the beef?" This sparked curiosity in the running world to aim that same question at training methodologies. For example, Joel Lemay, or Lemooo, lugged around a beef heavy program of 130 miles per week to run 2:13. Then Rod Dehaven said, "I've got your beef right here," as he hit 90 miles per week of high quality training but took the trials. Simultaneously, a young woman out of Alaska won the US Women's Trials in 2:45 off nothing but 30-40 treadmill miles a week. |
| dsrunner has the day off |
| ||
|
Think for yourself. AR 1000m 50 miles/week AR 1500m 55 miles/week AR 2000m 65 miles/week AR 3000m 70 miles/week AR 5000m 70 miles/week 3000m Steeple 30 miles/week 8:09.2 3000m Steeple 90 miles/week 8:08.8 |
| Gnomebe |
| ||
|
Honestly things are better now for runners. Quality matters so much more than junk mileage. |
| Recovers |
| ||
|
There is no such thing as junk mileage. Do you call it junk mileage when a Kenyan kid runs 10k to school each way everyday? No, you call it building an aerobic base. So what is the difference between Americans running 20k everyday? I call it training. I do believe that running fast matters, but running is running and running makes you better. When Michael Jordan shot 1000 shots everday, did people call it junk shooting. No, they called it practice. |
| speaker of truth |
| ||
WR 1500 - 125 miles/week WR mile - 125 miles/week WR 2000 - 125 miles/week WR 3000 -150 miles/week WR 2 miles - 150 miles week #2 5000 - 125 miles/week #2 10,000 - 125 miles/week any questions? |
| casual commentary |
| ||
WR 1500 - 125 miles/week WR mile - 125 miles/week WR 2000 - 125 miles/week WR 3000 -150 miles/week WR 2 miles - 150 miles week #2 5000 - 125 miles/week #2 10,000 - 125 miles/week any questions?[/quote] All of this is wrong. First, the AR in the 15-5k is held by Lagat who does 60mpw Secondly, no world record holder runs that much currently. Bekele does less, El G did less, and I bet Komen did nothing near 150mpw |
| My time is valuable |
| ||
WR 1500 - 125 miles/week WR mile - 125 miles/week WR 2000 - 125 miles/week WR 3000 -150 miles/week WR 2 miles - 150 miles week #2 5000 - 125 miles/week #2 10,000 - 125 miles/week any questions?[/quote] 3:29 for 55 mpw Vs 3:26 for 125 mpw (was El G's mileage really that high?) I'd take the 3:29 any day. Plenty fast enough. And I'd have much more free time to do other things with my life. Anyone else feel this way? |
| calling your bs out |
| ||
you're a troll. |
| Lower works |
| ||
|
I agree the Internet made people work harder, not less. I ran in the late 80s and early 90s. There is no doubt that the Coe effect was massive...but here's the catch, low mileage worked for guys like me and many others. Yes as a whole, the more mileage the better. But I can name Olympians who ran better on lower mileage, and who cracked when the mileage went up--particular in the 800m to 5k events. Beyond that there is no doubt mileage works, and often helps long distance runners run faster miles. The key is figuring out your biology, and the only way to do that is to run big mileage for a significant amount of time to see it works. |
| gasjdgasjd |
| ||
Sorry but this is totally wrong. The low mileage high intensity mindset was in place when I ran in hs (1986-1989). There was no internet, no cell phones, no google. I was a serious and talented runner and didn't know anything about competition outside of the league/district/state level. I'd never heard of Footlocker until my senior year. We did not know who the top runner in the USA was until the top guy in my state set the top national times in the 1600/3200. There was simply no information available other than what your coach told you or what you read in Runner's World. Occasionally you could get a snippet of a workout from Track and Field News, usually some monster interval session by Aouita, which would leave you wondering how anyone could run such a workout. My coach had been a record holder at a PAC 10 school during the Rono/Salazar era. He had done the long miles. He was against high mileage in high school because his career had been ended due to injuries. The late 80s was by no means an entitlement generation. The other talented people I trained with were all willing to do anything to get better. I'd have gladly run 100 miles a week in high school. We were begging our coach to let us do more. Most of the people I knew in high school and college were overtrained from hammering the 40-60 per week into the ground. More often than not, the star runners on my college team were sidelined with stress fractures. The internet has been a great help for the people who actually want to do well with running. All the information is available now. Kids now have the ability to decide if they want to get good, and access to top level professional training plans in detail. Lazy/entitled people were never going to do well in this sport. You have to love hard work to succeed in running. There are a lot of kids out there who want to work hard and make a name for themselves, and that is why we're now seeing so many sub 9:00 high school 2 mile runners in the USA. In the 80s/90s, hard working kids were out there being misled by their coaches and the running press. I ran under 4:20 for the mile on 25 miles a week. If you don't think that's hard work, try it yourself... |
| BIG |
| ||
The current thinking is "Yes Is More" |
| ggg |
| ||
|
what really sparked it was the talk given by Peter Coe in 1981 I believe (in Italy) at some conference where he presented their approach. You can always find counterexamples that some people run better on low mileage but most don't. However, training is a little more complex. You may hill sprints and other extras. Note that most of Canova's runners run high mileage part of the year, also those who excel at 1500m. I also find it strange that people argue against facts. The depth in the 70s was better than until a decade ago. The tide has turned and the US see the results: Rupp, Solinsky, Ritz, Hall etc. |
| Xxxxxxxx |
| ||
|
The lack of successful showing at the Olympics and WC in the mid to late 80's led to a second guessing of the high mileage training of the 70's and early 80's. People were saying US runners were getting burned out by the time the Olympics or WC took place. They were blaming the US "system" of domestic spring meets, US champs, Summer Euro meets, etc. Whereas they were pointing out that the eastern bloc countries selected their athletes, their athletes were supported by the government so they didn't have to race as much, etc. Then there were the poster childs of overtraining of Alberto Salazar and Mary Slaney as they declined in the late 80's after their record runs of the mid 80's. So there was this whole "avoiding burn out" movement. It trickled down to the high school level where 40 miles a week was considered a lot (Bob Kennedy's mileage was 30 to 40 mpw in HS). Then plyometrics came into vogue as supposedly this is what the successful eastern bloc countries were doing. And so coaches were replacing mileage with bounding sessions. Also Ovett, Walker, and Scott were the last of the high mileage milers (up to 100 mpw) so as their careers faded so did the high mileage philosophy. True, there were guys doing well on relatively low miles like Henry Marsh, Steve Jones, Jim Spivey, Seb Coe, Said Aouita?. But for the US and Europe the overall depth declined. |
| CoachB |
| ||
|
While in grad school, I remember reading an article on VO2 max correlation to training mileage. The upshot was something like this. I believe the article was in Journal of Applied Physiology, but it could have been Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise "The improvement curve is steepest until 60mpw. From 60-80, there are only very small gains to be realized in V02 max. After 80mpw, no VO2 max gains reported" I don't still have the article, nor do I even remember who the author was, but I've since seen it quoted in a few different running books (better training for distance runners being the first that comes to mind.) and magazine articles. During the late 80s and most of the 90s, physiological variables seemed to be the most important. "how high is your VO2 max?" seemed almost as important as "what is your PR?" Now, of course, not many of us actually knew our VO2 max (mine, I discovered in grad school, was 69 ml/kg/min) I think the mindset stemmed from our desire to reduce the training formula to a few simple equations. Most runners and coaches thought VO2 max was THE MOST IMPORTANT factor in performance and neglected many of the smaller, more subtle changes that occur with higher mileage. Also during that time period, I don't ever remember any of my coaches telling me to SLOW DOWN on intervals. This may or may not be indicative of a wider coaching phenomenon, but in the view of my coaches, since mileage was NOT the way to improve, then running workouts much faster must be what was needed. Workouts that should have been done at 5k pace were done at closer to 1500 pace. Workouts that should have been at 1500 pace were pretty much all out time trials on every rep. Tempo meant going pretty much balls out for 4 miles and an "easy" day was an 8 mile that ended up being pretty darn close to what my tempo pace really should have been. It usually wasn't until an athlete was really starting to struggle, that they actually took their easy days easy and by that time, it was generally too late. |
| Pages: | 1 | 2 | |