This is amusing at best, obscenely stupid at worst. Already you have begun with the contention that I have "nothing better to do." Let the other readers observe the unprovoked, ignorant, foolish personal attack.
wise guy wrote:
Sorry, but all that effort you put into that post did nothing....zero.....nada...to disprove what I said about JK. I know, you had nothing better to do, but still.....what a waste of words.
So the "road to recovery" is to accept your fallacious argument? My "disease" is not accepting your falsehoods? Fascinating. If only I had known sooner. Especially turning a discussion of distance running into a philosophical debate of black, white, and gray. Fascinating indeed. Let the recors again show that you have made no point, only a personal attack. Read on.
1) the quotes from JK that I listed 100% proves my contention that he thinks there is ONLY ONE WAY to become an accomplished distance runner. He is wrong. I know, I know, it's so much easier to live in a black and white world, but.....the world's grey my friend, very grey. Accept that, and you will be on the road to recovery, 'cause right now you are sounding kinda insane.
Another personal attack (implying I am not a "sane person"). Beyond that, stupidity. Read the quote again. JK says he admits it may not work for some. But most, like I imagine yourself based on your adamant refusal to read, write off a tried and tested plan WITHOUT ACTUALLY TRYING IT. What person who does this has a claim to sanity? Writing off a successful method without trying it yourself (or so it appears)? Is that sane? And still, you fail to see JK NEVER said there is only one narrow way.
2) You wrote: " Another piece of sage wisdom; give the context of a quote." Um, do you know the difference between "context" and "follow up defense of a quote one is trying to make look more sensible" ??? Because the "context" you list is NOT where I took the quote from. The text you list is JK's atttempt to validate his previous quote. So you are wrong there, I did NOT purposely leave out the context (and the ACTUAL context of the quote did not change the meaning of the quote, but only strengthened it). And even more funny is the supposed context of the quote that you bother listing. Show me where in it it has JK stating there are are "different strokes for different folks" or that there are "many ways to skin a cat" or some such meaning as that. It can't be found!!! AND THAT IS ALL I WAS STATING: that JK says there is ONLY way to achieve distance running success. And since there have been MANY, MANY different approaches that have allowed runners to achieve success (MANY which have had runners averaging UNDER 120-150 miles a week), the one can only conclude that JK is wrong. Well, at least a sane person would conclude that
Here is some more JK. I heartily suggest you actually READ the text this time, instead of hitting the reply button and typing out a list of insults you cut and paste just for the ocassion.
"How much mileage are we talking about? It all depends on the individual. As much as is necessary to "push the boundaries out". For Webb, 63 miles might have been that mileage level. For Ritzenhein, it might have been a 90-mile week. In general, runners who are suited to short- or middle-distance events require more time to develop the aerobic component; that is, they may need 5 or more years to achieve a mileage level that a natural distance runner could reach in 2 years. Bottom line on this: Anything you can do without a high mileage base (or a lifetime base) can be ADDED ON TOP OF a strong base, and the rewards will be ENHANCED.
Nobody - repeat, nobody (including "that guy on your team", Jim Spivey, Doug Padilla, Seb Coe, etc.) - ever reaches full potential without SOME background of high mileage running. How much is that? As much as they can run before the cost/benefit ratio becomes unfavorable. There actually may not be an upper limit as far as gaining benefits (however miniscule), but all observation points to somewhere between 180 and 200 mpw (based on elite runners who actually experiment with this much - and higher - mileage) as the point at which the gains become so puny that they are outweighed by the risks and by the fact that other important aspects of training must be compromised.
Having said that, 50 mpw is NOT enough for ANYONE (even a 1,500m runner) to maximize innate talent. Period. Significant changes take place at much higher mileage levels than this, and even if these changes were NOT profound, there would still be SLIGHT benefits (remember: diminishing returns are returns all the same). For the people who would like to run more but "can't get above x miles without getting hurt", what can we say? If every possibility of locating and correcting their weaknesses has been exhausted, there are other forms of aerobic exercise they could use to supplement their x miles per week of running. Cross training (oh, crap, did I just type that? I think I'm gonna puke) still won't be as effective as actual running would be, but it's an option.
Bottom line: If you CAN run the higher miles, get out there and run them until you can glide along comfortably at a high end of aerobic effort. Stay in touch with some speed without hammering yourself, and THEN add the "quality" (actually, the high-end aerobic running IS the quality training, but you know what I meant - hard track stuff). Some people may find it tougher than others or may not NOTICE any benefits for quite a long time. That doesn't mean those people are wussies with a capital "P"; it just means they might require years of patient development before any breakthrough occurs. "
That's (arguably) one. Spivey ran 3:49. Talk to his coach about his extensive aerobic work. Also aks yourself if he could have been faster. Did he set a world record? Win a gold medal? So your example fails; a talented individual running fast off low mileage (and he ran for years and years, so had cumulative areobic base) says nothing about ultimate potential. There is no control group; he ran low mileage, so you cannot redo his performances off high mileage).
3) You ask me to list some runners who achieved great success from the 1500 on up who did NOT average the type of mileage JK is advocating. It's easy, and this is just off the top of my head:
* Jim Spivey: ABSOLUTELY stated he usually averaged no more than 60 miles a week (usually less)
That last sentence basically says "And don't give me this valid argument" that Lagat was not sitting on his rear end playing Nintendo during his childhood. That is a valid argument. To you, apparently, a valid argument is dog excrement. Again, fascinating. So your argument for Lagat fails; he surely had an aerobic base growing up in Kenya without school buses, cars, or any other means than moving one's two feet. Next.
*Bernard Lagat: same thing- no more than 60-70 miles a week. And don't give me this "all Africans ran 10 miles back and forth to school each day" crap because it is not true, MANY did not (of course SOME did, but not all).
*Sebastion Coe: right now we are getting to the bottom of it, but it appears that AT MOST he average in the 70 range for most base weeks
This is, in every sense of the phrase, beating a dead horse. Coe trained since the age of 13. Years and years of miles building an aerobic base. And with 1:41 800 speed, he UNDOUBTEDLY UNDERachieved in the 1500. Anyone who can average 50.8 seconds per lap for 800, with proper aerobic development, has the potential to average 54.5-55 seconds per lap for 1500. Coe ran 3:29, slightly under 56 seconds per lap. Underachievement.
Your argument has the undeniable odor of old cheese. You have to use the same athlete TWICE (Spivery referenced also above) to further a failed argument.
*Jim Spivey: said he averaged in the 50-70 range
Years and years of near-100 miles per week. And he ran 2:08. MAny have surpassed this time. Again, a possible underachiever.
* Steve Jones- there have been various accounts of his training, but most accounts show him under 100 miles per week most weeks.
Not sure why you mention this, as you admit he ran high mileage.
*Lasse Viren: had weeks of high mileage, but if my memory serves me correctly, he RARELY got into the 120+ range
100's more? Yet every example you already gave was shot down. Aouita, another North African who grew up in Morocco playing soccer and other aerobically oriented sports to build a lifetime base. JK uses the 150 mile a week figure as a base building number for white runners who have not spent their lives in aerobic activity barefoot at altitude. Again, consider the context.
I guarantee you there 100's more. I don't have every athletes exact training logs in front of me. Someone quoted both Murray Halberg and Said Aouita (both gold medalists) stating that they average in the 50-60 range.
As always, you miss the point. Webb swam hundreds of miles in building an aerobic base a youngster. Hours and hours of breathing, than not breathing, than breathing, than not breathing. Off that you can become an aerobic MONSTER. And who is to stay Webb could not be even better off higher mileage? Answer: You cannot, but of course, best not argue with the one who declares, in infallible arrogance, "I am right, and you and JK are wrong." I shudder to think I hve crossed your all powerful wisdom (can you detect just a smidge of sarcasm, or did you pass that by also in your "reading"?)
So..........even if I have ONLY ONE example, I am right and you and are JK are wrong. One does NOT absolutely have to average 120-150 miles a week to become a champion runner. How much does Alan Webb average???? 60-70.
Ask him yourself. After all, you consider him almost a religious figure (in your words, he gives "parables").
So accept it: his absolute statement is wrong. If he wants to talk SOLELY marathoning, he is still wrong, but might be a lot closer to the mark. He never said marathon.
Get your answers from the source rather than making foolishly idiotic message board attacks.