---

Ed at Work wrote:

Another giver of +1 wrote:

Ed at Work wrote:
But saying it "works" is a very hard thing to do with such a small sample size. Remember Ed is not actually improving which is how we generally tell if training is "working".

Also he does get injured. He takes whole years off at a time.

---

The reason Ed is not improving (year by year) is that he's at an age where natural physical decline is accelerating faster than any type of training can hope to overcome.

His training is "working" in that he's usually the fastest runner for his age as he ages.

I agree with Turbogeezer when he says you can reach 95% or more of your race potential off simple base mileage with regular short races being the only fast running. Not getting injured is the secret for older runners.

Disagree. His physical decline is faster because he's training one dimensionally.

---

Turbogeezer wrote:
Remember that Ed is NOT training like most marathoners. He is running MUCH slower in terms of his training pace than almost all comparable performers, with MUCH higher mileage.

I had six cardio-conversions for A-fib between 2006-2011. None since I slowed my training pace, while still doing the mileage and alactic speed training. I also have eliminated grains and eat low-carb. If you want to run long in every sense, you have become a fat-burner. Every other marker of heath has improved also.

iiagdtr wrote:
This definitely has me rethinking my retirement years training.

What about the studies that indicating going long and the associated heart inflammation can lead to damage or heart attacks? Seems that is more apt to happen in less fit marathons as I recall. Here is one such article:

https://breakingmuscle.com/learn/endurance-training-is-bad-for-your-heart

Kind of think Ed is dispelling this, or is quite the exception?

---

---

rjm33 wrote:
I already told Ed that I thought he has done a very long Lydiard aerobic base phase (40 years)…and that he should now try a 12 to 16 week peaking phase including speed intervals, vVO2max intervals, with vLactate Threshold Maximum Steady State workouts also included…and some sand dune hill sprints in Australia…and some weight training with plyometrics to improve his running economy…and an altitude tent.

Ed told me that he thought all of my ideas were stupid and that he was not going to ever use any of my stupid ideas in his training program.

Darn.

---

---

HRE wrote:
. It depends on how you want to phrase things but we generally count a runner not running while waiting to heal as a runner..

---

---

iiagdtr wrote:

Turbogeezer wrote:
Remember that Ed is NOT training like most marathoners. He is running MUCH slower in terms of his training pace than almost all comparable performers, with MUCH higher mileage.

I had six cardio-conversions for A-fib between 2006-2011. None since I slowed my training pace, while still doing the mileage and alactic speed training. I also have eliminated grains and eat low-carb. If you want to run long in every sense, you have become a fat-burner. Every other marker of heath has improved also.

iiagdtr wrote:
This definitely has me rethinking my retirement years training.

What about the studies that indicating going long and the associated heart inflammation can lead to damage or heart attacks? Seems that is more apt to happen in less fit marathons as I recall. Here is one such article:

https://breakingmuscle.com/learn/endurance-training-is-bad-for-your-heart

Kind of think Ed is dispelling this, or is quite the exception?

---

Ah, there's an ultra guy in Savannah - Andrew Snope - who apparently trained himself to be a fat burner.

When you race after these far slower training runs, are you able to step up the pace considerably like Ed? Seems the running mechanics from so much slow running would be quite different from running a marathon at a far faster pace.

From my own experience, years ago I found something interesting. Doing 30 mpw with lots of speedwork and doing 60 mpw with less speedwork yielded similar times for the 5k. A bit slower at 60 mpw but the distance work was easier than the intervals. But I do like do intervals, guess it's the challenge of always wanting to work harder and to be able to see it.

Getting older, though, I don't want it to end until the end is near.

Are you running the same hours every day or does it vary?

---

rjm33 wrote:
Wow. It was a joke.

I listed the 11 world records that Ed set this year and his world record VO2max at age 81.

Don't you think that it is obvious after 40 years and many world records that Ed Whitlock knows what type of training works for Ed Whitlock?

Thanks for your analysis.

---

---

Turbogeezer wrote:
The key isn't just lots of miles (though that helps) but lots of easy, *very relaxed* miles, which nurture and regenerate rather than degrade. Look at Ed in those videos of his jogging runs. He has incredible bounce for any runner, not to say one who has done the huge slow mileage he has. He has done a fantastic job in retaining his middle-distance form even when jogging. He looks like a miler doing a warmup jog, not a grinder shuffling to his next mileage goal.

I vary the terrain, and the distance constantly, though I am now far more consistent in my day-to-day mileage. I also do lots of pickups, plyos, stretching, weights, strides, short hills and a 10x100 on the track every 7-14 days. My legs are no longer "hammered flat", so I feel my stride has loosened and opened up up considerable in four months of this. The prospect of competing even at 400/800 next summer excites me now.

Sometimes I'll throw in a tempo mile at the end of a run. I haven't raced yet, just building a very large base. But have done a few track sessions that are extremely encouraging. Certainly for 10K-marathon this training I would think this can be done with little additional speed work, indefinitely. At least you'll beat the legions of old guys who are too beat-up to make the starting line.

---

---

iiagdtr wrote:
Thanks for all of that good info. Do you ever do striders after the daily runs? 2 a days?

Not many hills here, but plenty of bridges and always the tmill for hills too. I like the direct challenge and focus hills bring to the training table.

Turbogeezer wrote:
The key isn't just lots of miles (though that helps) but lots of easy, *very relaxed* miles, which nurture and regenerate rather than degrade. Look at Ed in those videos of his jogging runs. He has incredible bounce for any runner, not to say one who has done the huge slow mileage he has. He has done a fantastic job in retaining his middle-distance form even when jogging. He looks like a miler doing a warmup jog, not a grinder shuffling to his next mileage goal.

I vary the terrain, and the distance constantly, though I am now far more consistent in my day-to-day mileage. I also do lots of pickups, plyos, stretching, weights, strides, short hills and a 10x100 on the track every 7-14 days. My legs are no longer "hammered flat", so I feel my stride has loosened and opened up up considerable in four months of this. The prospect of competing even at 400/800 next summer excites me now.

Sometimes I'll throw in a tempo mile at the end of a run. I haven't raced yet, just building a very large base. But have done a few track sessions that are extremely encouraging. Certainly for 10K-marathon this training I would think this can be done with little additional speed work, indefinitely. At least you'll beat the legions of old guys who are too beat-up to make the starting line.

---

---

Londoner wrote:
I think you will find that Ed did not set a world record in Cambridge. The track was not properly set-up. Not enough rail, not accurately measured. Ed ran the mile again a few days later in London, Ontario under proper conditions and set the world record there. A bit slower but then he probably had to run an actual mile.
http://canadianmasters.ca/cmaw...-09-28.pdf

---

---

Turbogeezer wrote:
From the looks of that track at Cambridge, it was 5-8 seconds slower than a modern track.

Londoner wrote:
I think you will find that Ed did not set a world record in Cambridge. The track was not properly set-up. Not enough rail, not accurately measured. Ed ran the mile again a few days later in London, Ontario under proper conditions and set the world record there. A bit slower but then he probably had to run an actual mile.
http://canadianmasters.ca/cmaw...-09-28.pdf

---

[/quote]

Ed has already covered this stupid nonsense on our previous thread about all of his world records in 2016.

Here is what Ed already said on the other thread:
Update Ed Whitlock 2016 M85-89 World Records (again):

1) 1500m Indoor World Record – 6:38.87 (outdoor WR 6:37.75)
2) Mile World Record – 7:18.55
3) 3000m World Record –13:41.96 (equivalent to a sub-7:00 minute mile)
4) 5K World Record – 24:03.99
5) 10,000m Track World Record – 51:07.53
6) 10K Road World Record - 49:50
7) Half-Marathon World Record – 1:50:47
8) 25K World Record - 2:16:46 (split during Marathon WR, Ed says does not count)
9) 30K World Record - 2:45:46 (split during Marathon WR, Ed says does not count)
10) Marathon World Record - 3:56:33 (3:56:38 gun time)
11) 15K World Record- 1:15:10 (8:04 mile pace)
12) Ed's next race: 800m?, 1500m?, Mile? 8K?, 12K?, 10Mile?, 20K?

Take that Martin Rees.

---

amkelley wrote:
I found the NY Times article both inspiring and informative. What I do find a bit sad, and surprising, is that Whitlock says he doesn't enjoy running for its own sake and finds training to be drudgery. He runs mostly so that he can gain acclaim by performing well in races. I can't imagine doing something that is supposed to be recreation that requires so much time and effort on a daily basis if the only enjoyment I got from it was when I entered a race. I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with that--everyone needs to find his own source of motivation.

Anyway, the guy is an amazing athlete and certainly a source of inspiration to so many of us who are trying to hang on to as much as we can at an age where all derivatives are negative.

---