McMillian Elite Running Company is shutting down.

made it too difficult wrote:

redux wrote:

OMG! IS THE CALCULATOR GOING AWAY?

The good easy to use calculator went away a year or two ago.

Also, do any distance runners actually train in Adidas?

Yes, numerous top college programs train in Adidas. Although, they don't have much choice.

Nikon wrote:

If we had 20 Greg's Hansons Rogues ZAPP etc we would continue to have more outliers. Thank you for your efforts Greg.

Gregg is the only one of the above mentioned that charges his athletes to be coached?

So what did he do for us? He made a living off of us. The Hansons and Steve Sisson (Rogue)make their money from their stores. Zapp makes money from their camps.

Gregg took guys that are on Food Stamps and charged them.

runnerperson wrote:

i was always confused..Mcmillian elite and Team USA arizona (on paper not the same, but kind of...just not all the adidas support for Team arizona). will Team arizona just absorb McMillian elite ?

IT is NOT McMillian. It is somebody's name and a proper noun, get it right.

Former Flagstaff Resident wrote:

Gregg is the only one of the above mentioned that charges his athletes to be coached?

So what did he do for us? He made a living off of us. The Hansons and Steve Sisson (Rogue)make their money from their stores. Zapp makes money from their camps.

Gregg took guys that are on Food Stamps and charged them.

Unfortunately, these are the sentiments that have echoed around Flagstaff for some time now. The program may officially be shutting down after Christmas, but its been on the way out for the last couple years now. It sounds like Greg wasn't all that interested in coaching his elites, and was more in tune to his paying email coaching customers.

The guy has a right to make a living, but if you're going to claim you provide a service, follow through. It kind of seems like McMillan Elite may have been a way to give Greg's name some credibility to the RunningTimes/internet coaching types, but it seems his elites weren't very satisfied with the coaching.

Current Flag Resident wrote:

it seems his elites weren't very satisfied with the coaching.

Not one of us moved to Flagstaff to be coached by Greg. The appeal was always Flagstaff. I would have made a different choice if I had a chance to do it all over again.

He lives and trains in his hometown aptos ca now, I think he is self coached with advices from his high school coach Dan Gruber.

Heard from knowledgeable person that Hall was considering trying to form a group, either here or outside of Flagstaff. He seems to change direction frequently so who knows...

Flag MoP wrote:

Heard from knowledgeable person that Hall was considering trying to form a group, either here or outside of Flagstaff. He seems to change direction frequently so who knows...

Is God going to coach the group? Are you required to attend church if you are part of the group?

rekrunner wrote:

Antonio,

What exactly did Hadd/"O" say that you think is right? You are a firm believer in specificity -- please be specific.

Hadd on that thread is right about everything. More specific than that it´s impossible. Might be that i copy and past all Hadd/O posts on that thread but that doesn´t made me more specific.

In the thread Antonio mention, HADD is mentioning something I find very interesting:

"

Now, I can tell you more about the real LT intensity; it´s the intensity that you can run without lactate accumulation above ~3-4mmol, and it´s possible to run at it about 90-100minutes, not 60-70 minutes like the common misconception is. Try measuring your lactate levels after about 50minutes when you run at HM pace, and it could very possibly be ALREADY above your lactate threshold point. You can run at LT up to 90-100minutes without lactate accumulation beyond the LT point, commonly ~3-4mmol. The following will happen after this; you have almost completely depleted your glycogen stores and you have to rely more and more on fat as an energy source.

"

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3396308&page=2#ixzz2fEanfiFy

Buy your shoes from LetsRun and save 20% everday

http://www.letsrun.com/save

I'm happy to read that 90-100min pace as corresponding to LT intensity (I guess by LT he actually means MLSS), because I find this to better correspond to field experience than the usual 60min pace.

===> Does somebody know a scientific reference mentioning that MLSS could be sustained up to 90-100min before exhaustion ?

By the way, I am amazed to see how many american runners are overconcerned about mileage... Why in France for instance many leisure runners are overconcerned about short/fast interval training of the BILLAT's 30/30 type (completely disregarding aerobic base and mileage for a lot of them)... Different countries, different excess/misconceptions ! ;-)

It's funny how some runners want a professional sport but complain about paying for coaching. They want someone to help them make money, but don't think they should pay for the help -at all. No other professional athletes demand free coaching. Even more ironic is these athletes readily hiring agents and giving them 15% but don't want to pay a coach anything. Without a good coach the agent/athlete don't make as much or in many cases anything.

What is worse is the other coaches who chastise and make fun of coaches who charge while they inturn solicit dollars from groups like the NYRR (who are funded by runners), to run a 501c3 in which the single biggest expense is their sizeable salaries. The only difference is they take money from runners second hand with less clarity.

The fairest system is a standard % deal. This eliminates the coaches who are not effective and allows the good one's to make a living honestly.

BBen

If you read Cabral and John Hadd thread "2 kinds of runners. Which are you?"

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=2375989&thread=2375989

He discriminates both lactate clearance training zones with different aerobic stimulus.

One is LT, the other LTp. Definition is there. One corresponds more to what is classic LT, the other to what was been defined as MLSS/MaxLass, Maximum Lactate Steady State.

If you read Cabral and John Hadd thread "2 kinds of runners. Which are you?"

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=2375989&thread=2375989

He discriminates both lactate clearance training zones with different aerobic stimulus.

One is LT, the other LTp. Definition is there. One corresponds more to what is classic LT, the other to what was been defined as MaxLass, Maximum Lactate Steady State.

The mess is that some authors and in some academic physiology papers/articles both defines are used without the needed discrimination, and often we see the LT (not the LTp) defined with MaxLass lexicon and vice-versa.

Other authors, namely the american one do define the MLSS by critic velocity (CV.

SClocal wrote:

He lives and trains in his hometown aptos ca now, I think he is self coached with advices from his high school coach Dan Gruber.

Thanks.

Wierd that nobody really mentioned him when talking about McMillan

That was one of the "confusions" "Ö" caused in the McMillan thread:In the "2 kinds of runners" thread, Hadd linked:- "LT" to 2mmol, and marathon pace (something I would have called it AeT, or MP)- "LTP" to "MaxLaSS" to HM and 10K performancesYet in the McMillan thread (the one where "Ö" said everthing right), "Ö" talks about a "real LT intensity" that corresponds to 3-4 mmols, and is possible to run in 90-100 minutes, and indicates that HM pace is too fast."Ö"'s "real LT intensity" doesn't seem to correspond well to either of Hadd's "LT" and "LTP" definitions, but somewhere in between.Did Hadd ever talk about this "real LT intensity" before 2010, or since?

António Cabral wrote:

...

He discriminates both lactate clearance training zones with different aerobic stimulus.

One is LT, the other LTp. Definition is there. One corresponds more to what is classic LT, the other to what was been defined as MLSS/MaxLass, Maximum Lactate Steady State.

...

The mess is that some authors and in some academic physiology papers/articles both defines are used without the needed discrimination, and often we see the LT (not the LTp) defined with MaxLass lexicon and vice-versa.

Other authors, namely the american one do define the MLSS by critic velocity (CV.

Antonio: this is terribly confusing indeed... Even HADD seems to contradict himself between different post.

This is what I've found in the "2 type of runners" post:

" represents this runner's Lactate Threshold (LT) which corresponds to 2 mmol/l blood lactate ([La]b). It can thus be noted that 2mM is the effort level this athlete can maintain for a full marathon.

"

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2375989&page=1#ixzz2fEvg7akh

Now this is what I've found in some of HADD's posts (under the name Ö) in the thread you've mentioned:

"

Now, I can tell you more about the real LT intensity; it´s the intensity that you can run without lactate accumulation above ~3-4mmol, and it´s possible to run at it about 90-100minutes

"

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3396308&page=2#ixzz2fEanfiFy

Buy your shoes from LetsRun and save 20% everday

http://www.letsrun.com/save

Nowadays, the scientists usual definition of LT seems to tends to a consensus of being (I quote the reference below) :

" Exercise intensities only slightly above the LTAer result in elevated but constant bLa during steady-state exercise and can be maintained for prolonged periods of time (~4 hours at intensities in the range of the first increase in bLa[82-84] and 45–60 minutes at an intensity corresponding to the maximal lactate steady state [MLSS]. [...] The described thresholds (first increase in bLa and MLSS) have recently also been called ‘lactate threshold and lactate turnpoint’ "

Ref : Lactate Threshold Concepts How Valid are They? Oliver Faude,1,2 Wilfried Kindermann2 and Tim Meyer Sports Med 2009; 39 (6): 469-490

So, where does the definition of a 90-100min pace come from ??? My guess was that it is really the highest intensity which could be maintained without lactate accumulation up to exhaustion, whereas in labs the MLSS is usually estimated with incremental tests using 20-minute constant load trials, so not up to exhaustion.

Most cientists and academics are not coaches, and they don´t no special coach skill.

Jonh Hadd is not present here to correct me. Therefore in myopinion BBen and Rekrunner confusion lies about the lack of discrimination from 2 different aspects. One is LT (or LTp) pace and LT (or LTp) training pace.

Just read O/Hadd on that same McMillan thread.

(...) With the LT training (this doesn´t

mean training purely at LT intensities)(...)

The best marathon LT training it´s not at your LT intensity.

To think about LT individual pace as the same pace as LT individual training pace is one trainng metdology absurd. The more if the LT training is done by intervals.

Antonio: no, this is not the case, and I've carefully read the thread. Here a some more extracts from this HADD's post (taken from this page: Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3396308&page=2#ixzz2fFy134dm

) :

"Now, I can tell you more about the real LT intensity; it´s the intensity that you can run without lactate accumulation above ~3-4mmol, and it´s possible to run at it about 90-100minutes, not 60-70 minutes like the common misconception is. [...] With the LT training (this doesn´t mean training purely at LT intensities) [...]"

===> so HADD really means there is a "lactate threshold" @90-100min pace. By saying "LT intensity" he really seems to refers to a specific pace at this supposed threshold, as he later in the same post he makes the difference with "LT training".

"Try measuring your lactate levels after about 50minutes when you run at HM pace, and it could very possibly be ALREADY above your lactate threshold point. You can run at LT up to 90-100minutes without lactate accumulation beyond the LT point, commonly ~3-4mmol. The following will happen after this; you have almost completely depleted your glycogen stores and you have to rely more and more on fat as an energy source."

===> From this, I thus assumed that HADD consider that this "LT" @90-100min correspond to the MLSS when measured up to exhaustion.

I don't know if there is any evidence from that, and obviously this definition of LT does not correspond neither to the current consensus definition (see end of my previous post and corresponding publication), nor to HADD's definition in the "2 kind of runners" thread.

Science is always a measure of something that already happened. In our sport it is usually something that was done with the supervision of a coach. That means COACH comes first.

Sometimes each one of us we add something more to the debate, and step by step, post by post we are in battle arguments that places us distant than the original question.

See just my example take from this thread. The thread starts with real or fictional McMillian Elite Running Company is shutting down. Right ? Then some people turn it on to if McMIllan training is good or don´t. I did introduce the thread McMillan where O/hadd did contest the value of McMillan training in what concerns the high mileage McMIllan training. At that time – the one from 2011 – there were been the usual Lydiardim disagreement with O/Hadd of many. Their main argument is that “yes we can run more than 100miles”, when in other contexts the same individuals do deny that more than 100miles week is dangerous and not efficient as mile volume and not necessary and might result in high risk lead to injury.

Or it happens that I guess that despite the strong opposition O/Hadd is right and the others are wrong. Also my reading based on facts is that McMillan training doesn´t prove by facts and performances to be so effective that make the runners be “elite” runners.

What Gotched did so special ? 2:11 ? Today it´s not elite, might be 30 years ago.

From there you move to the LT debate,and Hadd ideas. First of all you ask me about hadd opinion, and I got no special attorney or knowledge to debate LT issue. I just said my opinion. Secondly, you make one mistake of argumentation, The mistake is this. O/John on the McMIllan thread he says what he says about the LT simply because the question was if the runner with more PURE aerobic mileage volume that able him to carry on more LT training that the runner with less aerobic mileage volume, the O/Hadd thread opponents they debate. It´s in this context that the LT duration might be read, related that we can carry on Lt training during a long period of time that normally is considered.

Or what you want is something different. You just want that the O/Hadd LT define be according the academic and scientific mainstream conclusion. O/Hadd means LT in a particular context – the one of the marathon event and marathon training, instead of the scientists that you quote that just consider LT definition neglecting what´s the event that it´s considered. Also John, if he says something different about the LT ot LTp that he says in that McMIllan thread you might read it at the interpretation that there are zone of LT depending of what´s been the event considered.

It´s quite simple. As there are aerobic zones of training, different aerobic paces, but all that different falls in the same aerobic large umbrella, there are also LT training zones that correspond to different paces and different lactate concentration, being all threshold, and being all effectives to the target goal of LT training that is enhance our lactate clearance. This is why the pathway of LT training related to the marathon it´s not the same that the LT for the 1500m event.

However the scientist see things and analyze things with some objectivity by tests and data to the tests, but in abstraction.

If you ask about LT is (just classic conventional value) 2mmol it´s right, but there are another threshold of lactate at 4mmol (just another classic conventional value), and another one at 6mmol eventually. There are few pathways of lactate EXPONENTIAL concentration related to the LINEAR pace increase. That are several THRESHOLDS OF LACTATE at various values of lactate concentration. Te problem with science physiology is that they start from classic definitions to support his data conclusion.

Your doubt is about to be fixed on conservative academic support.