Pearls of Wisdom From the Late Jack Foster on Training and Shoes

Here is a link to a picture of Jack winning the 1975 Honolulu Marathon:

http://www.honolulumarathon.org/history/1975.html

I love those old photos..thanks

Yeah those photos are great. Look at what Kim Merritt was wearing to win the women's marathon in 76:

http://www.honolulumarathon.org/history/1976.html

If you changed her shoes she could be a businesswoman running for the train. :)

She also doesnt look as thin as some these days..but then again her time while very good isnt super fast

Before EPO and THG.

God Bless Jack Foster. One of a kind. Gotta LOVE dudes like that, guys made of iron.

JonD wrote:

'Nor did he run the "150 miles a week that some top marathoners are doing. I rarely did more than half that. I believe it is possible to achieve results in a less self-destructive way."

THIS POST SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY!! HOW DARE JACK FOSTER SAY SOMETHING THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT JK AND WEJO PREACH. REMEMBER THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JK:

" A runner absolutely must obtain the ability to train at 120-150 (or more) miles per week by the peak of the career in order to reach fruition. There are no exceptions to this."

So either:

A) Jack Foster was lying about his mileage, or...

B) JK is wrong

Since JK is clearly the "best coach in the world" (according to the brojos), then he is not wrong.

Jack Foster BE DAMNED!!!!

I'd just like to note that the best coaches in the world are not always right. They observe the results of training and desire to learn and correct their mistakes for the future.

That being said, I think

most

top 10km/marathoners are not far off from what JK espouses, but there are always expceptions. Such as Baldini -- there are times when accumulated volume is more important than instantaneous or current volume.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

So either:

A) Jack Foster was lying about his mileage, or...

B) JK is wrong

Since JK is clearly the "best coach in the world" (according to the brojos), then he is not wrong.

Jack Foster BE DAMNED!!!!

OR....

(c) Jack Foster was capable of running faster than he did

did you sleep through logic class????

I recall listening to Lydiard discuss Foster's lack of 100 mile weeks. Arthur said, "But you should see the ground he trains over. He doesn't need 100 mile weeks." He went on to say that much of Jack's training was done over what were essentially mountains.

Also, Jack always acknowledged that he was not willing to do much more than he did because he just did what was fun for him. ("I don't train. I just go for a run each day.") He also acknowledged that he may well have been slightly less successful for approaching the sport than he would have been had he gone all out.

To follow up on this last post, the Henderson article did go on to quote Foster saying something to the effect that he trained in such a way that perhaps it left him a bit short of what he could ideally achieve. That said, success can be measured in the high points (the best times), or in the fact that he avoided significant injury. Given the level Jack Foster ran at, and his age, this was no small accomplishment. Further, if you consider that injury can lead to large gaps in time spent doing daily aerobic running, then Foster's lack of impairment allowed him to year in, year out build his enormous aerobic base.

There was also a lot of running that Foster did which he didn't consider 'training' so his actual mileage was probably higher than he considered to be his 'training'.

Benji Durden posted that the ran 2:09 off 80-90mpw and he was a 4:36/10:00 hschooler so why shouldnt run someone else 2:11 off 60-80mpw?

I remember reading a log of Jack Foster and there were 2-3 very easy days per week like jogging 30mins or taking off, similar to what Durden posted.

JK claims that athletes "should attain the ability to run 120-150 miles per week". This is not the same as saying that "athletes who can, should run 120-150m miles per week".

In all likelihood, Foster could have run that mileage. He did "attain the ability".

DeLima wrote:

JK claims that athletes "should attain the ability to run 120-150 miles per week". This is not the same as saying that "athletes who can, should run 120-150m miles per week".

Are there any women marathoners in America running that many miles?

DeLima wrote:

JK claims that athletes "should attain the ability to run 120-150 miles per week". This is not the same as saying that "athletes who can, should run 120-150m miles per week".

In all likelihood, Foster could have run that mileage. He did "attain the ability".

I know that is a possible interpretation of what JK said (the language he chose on that one part about is kinda vague), but I think it is a cop-out. How does one know that one has "attained the ability" to do something UNLESS THEY DO IT ?? And I also feel that what he means is: one must become capable of doing that mileage.....AND THEN ACTUALLY DO IT......or they are selling them selves short. To say that someone doing HALF the miles of JK's absolute, was STILL fitting into JK's "no exception" equaiton on mileage, is, as I said, a cop-out.

It would be like me saying:

"One must obtain the ability to run HARD speed workouts, every day, in every workout, year-round, with NO exceptions, or they will not reach their ultimate ability", then having you give me countless examples of athletes who did NOT train that way(and instead ran lots of long, easy distance runs most of the year), and then have me turn around and respond with:

"Yeah, but they DID attain the ability to do it, they just didn't happen to do it."

I will say for the 3rd time: COP-OUT.

(and in response to the person[xxx] who said I must have slept through logic class, YES, you are correct: the 3rd possibility is that Foster did not reach his "fruition", or ultimate potential. That is always a possibility. But a 2:11 at age 41, a MASTERS WORLD RECORD......um, I think he did pretty well. So are you saying if he doubled his mileage, maybe he could have run 2:10?? It's always possible, but JUST AS POSSIBLE (and in fact, more likely in my mind), is that if he had changed his training drastically (and a drastic change would have been needed to meet JK's requirements), he would have done WORSE than what he actually achieved using his own methods of moderate miles. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and 2:11 at 41 certainly was not broke)

Foster was also a competitive cyclist prior to his amazing master's career. Pedaling all those miles gave him a great base to work off. Does anyone know if he continued to ride a little while he was running? 75-80 miles of running plus a 8-10 hours of easy, high cadence riding each week probably has the same aerobic effect as 120+ running miles but with less pounding.

That's a good point. I remember reading somewhere that Foster continued to ride. Not so much as training, but simply because bicycling was his first love.

What's interesting is that when he first took up running at 32, after years of recreational and competitive cycling, he struggled at first. The Henderson article quotes him talking about the first run. He thought he went out for many miles. When he returned, his wife wondered why he was gone for such a short while. Turns out he had only managed 10 minutes or so of running.

Sir-Lance Alot,

I largely agree with you that there are always exceptions, while I would wager that most top marathoners in world are running some kind of volume like that.

I would also agree, for the the most part, that what's not broke needs to fixing, however: don't assume that your patterns will continue in definitely.

A few cases in point:

-Alan Webb -- more endurance work, a year of being tired and running below his level (2003) and now 3:32.

-Michael Granville -- how much did his program change from HS to UCLA?