Biggest Running Fallacy

Flagpole Willy wrote:

Another big fallacy is that fast guys just work harder or have more guts than slower guys (Ritz works harder and has more guts than Wejo for example). Fact is that NO, Ritz just flat out has boatloads more talent.

Some people could train like Ritz (run as many miles, run hard workouts at same percentage of their max, etc.) and still only run 19 minutes for a 5K.

This is true, but I would bet that in most cases it is a combination of the fact that ritz has boatloads more talent AND that he works harder and has more guts. This probably is not the case with a guy like Wejo, but my bet would be that there aren't too many 19:00, or even 16:00 guys doing the volume and amount of hard work that ritz does. This is probably why the falacy exists, because the fastest people also tend to work the hardest, in reality that is only PART of the reason they are faster.

This is theoretical. Gatlin would never run a 5k so fast that he wouldn't have enough in the tank to outkick some slow ass distance runner. Maybe in a mile or something, but not in a 5k. No way.

I wouldn't agree that Ritz works harder. He's more talented, but I'm pretty sure WeJo busted his ass for his 28 minute 10k.

LOFR-

Your post is representative of the lactate fallacy. We know that lactate isn't what causes fatigue; this isn't what causes the need to slow down.

Lactate is produced steadily at every level of exertion and thus the term MLSS is no longer valid either.

A big running fallacy is that tall people and/or people with long legs can and should be able to run fast. I have to remind my high school runners all the time that weight is much more important(be careful of how you tell the girls that) and that the best distance runners in the world are often 5'8" and under.

Speed in the longer distance is way overrated. I enjoyed watching Brian Sell who has 4:10 mile speed outkick (over the last 400 meters) Alan Culpepper who has 3:55 mile speed at Boston this year.

Good point:

http://usatf.com/athletes/bios/Ritzenhein_Dathan.asp

http://usatf.com/athletes/bios/Torres_Jorge.asp

http://usatf.com/athletes/bios/Myers_Rob.asp

http://usatf.com/athletes/bios/Webb_Alan.asp

http://usatf.com/athletes/bios/King_Max.asp

It might even be more beneficial to be shorter than average.

Mtn Dew wrote:

I wouldn't agree that Ritz works harder. He's more talented, but I'm pretty sure WeJo busted his ass for his 28 minute 10k.

Did you read the post dumbass, I said this probably wasn't true for a guy like Wejo, but that while it's possible a guy could work just as hard as ritz and run 19:00, I doubt that there is anyone who does this. I would imagine that pretty much all elite runners put in a similar amount of hard work, but to say that ritz is only faster than you because he's more talented is a cop out that allows you to not work hard.

common cents wrote:

This is true, but I would bet that in most cases it is a combination of the fact that ritz has boatloads more talent AND that he works harder and has more guts. This probably is not the case with a guy like Wejo, but my bet would be that there aren't too many 19:00, or even 16:00 guys doing the volume and amount of hard work that ritz does. This is probably why the falacy exists, because the fastest people also tend to work the hardest, in reality that is only PART of the reason they are faster.

In reality, only somewhat fast people are able to train at a very high level. If you took a 25 min 5K guy and said build up to 100 miles a week with quality mixed in, he would be running upwards of 2hrs a day just to get the mileage in. It's kind of a catch 22.

100 Miles A Week Is What You Must Do.

Great Point wrote:

Speed in the longer distance is way overrated. I enjoyed watching Brian Sell who has 4:10 mile speed outkick (over the last 400 meters) Alan Culpepper who has 3:55 mile speed at Boston this year.

whata? wrote:

The limit itself doesn't matter - whether he can run 17:13 or 17:30 - the point is if he's redlining it for 4800 meters, he's not going to have the sprint speed of someone who is fresh.

Yeah, but that limit comes with the implicit assumption of using a kick. How many of you have set PRs with absolutely no acceleration at the end? This is all based on the ridiculous notion that PR's are achieved at a constant pace throughout the race.

So, if he's on 17:30 pace through 4800m, it can be assured that he'll run under 17:30. You can always transition from aerobic to anaerobic metabolism to accelerate, no matter how many lungs you're coughing up. This is biology here.

Back to the point....if you are together with Gatlin with 400m to go...you lose - you left it too late.

common cents wrote:

Did you read the post dumbass, I said this probably wasn't true for a guy like Wejo, but that while it's possible a guy could work just as hard as ritz and run 19:00, I doubt that there is anyone who does this. I would imagine that pretty much all elite runners put in a similar amount of hard work, but to say that ritz is only faster than you because he's more talented is a cop out that allows you to not work hard.

You are a very mature little boy I can see. I was referring to Willy's original statement, not yours. I was stating that I agree that Ritz's work ethic is the cause for his success b/c that's obviously not the case. The whole world doesn't revolve and you. I could care less what you have to say on the subject.

I ran with a guy in high school who had no talent. I mean NO talent. He worked his ass off, and after a string of 1600s run from 7:10 down to 6:25, in his last race of his high school career, he ran 5:59 in the 1600, puking immediately afterwards, and lying on the grass crying and gasping for breath.

That guy worked harder and had more guts than any runner I've ever known.

In your example, NO, there aren't a lot of 19 minute guys doing the kind of work Ritz does, but there are a TON of guys running 15:00 on the roads and just under 14:00 on the track who work just as hard as he does. Guaranteed.

Ritz runs some of his workouts faster, but that's because he's more talented. He isn't pushing harder than they are.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you can't take a 16:00 minute 5,000 guy, have him workout with Ritz and suddenly turn him into a 13:25 guy (even if the guy works as hard and has the guts).

I agree, I never disputed this fact, in your original post you said something about how it would be possible for a guy to work that hard and run 19:00, I think that's a little off, I doubt anyoen does that. And like I said, I would also bet that the majority of elite runners, you say 15:00 on the roads and 14:00 on the track, work as hard as he does. I would mostly agree with this statement. My only statement was that attributing his, or any great runners success only to more talent is taking away from all the work they have done.

And Mt. Dew, go back and read Willy's original post, he said nothing about Wejo not working hard to run 28:00. In fact, he said the opposite, he used it as his example of a falacy. Go back to middle school and work on your reading comprehension skills, then come back and you will be welcome to post again.

No where in my post did I say lactate causes fatigue.

Lactate is produced at every exertion, but to a varying degree.

Let me make it simple... MLSS can be defined as the fastest speed at which lactate does not increase to any significant degree over a long period of time. This is said to happen b/c lactate production=lactate elimination. Let's break it down, We have Joe run 30minutes at a specific pace and take lactate samples throughout. There will be an initial rise once Joe starts but then it will level off. At a slower pace it may look like this:

6 minute pace- reading at..

resting-.8

5min-1.4

10min-1.5

....30min-1.5ish

No increase from 10min to 30min, or at most a very very slight increase of .1.

Joe does the same test over and over again (fresh each time) at increasing speeds. At 5:45 pace there is still no increase from 10 to 30min. At 5:40 pace, sitll no increase. At 5:30 pace still no increase from 10 to 30min even though the lactate may be a bit higher throughout and look like this:

5:30 pace- reading at..

resting-.8

5min-2.5

10min-2.8

....30min-2.8ish.

but the key is no or very little increase from 10 to 30min because during this time lactate is being produced at the same rate as it's being eliminated. Now we do the test again and at 5:25 pace and the results are this:

5:25- reading at..

resting-.8

5min-2.5

10min-2.8

....30min-4.0ish.

uh oh, an increase, that means lactate production is no longer equal to lactate elimination.

And so you crossed your MLSS...the fastest pace at which lactate does not rise once at a steady state... So your MLSS is some where between 5:26-5:30 pace.

You do not need lactate to cause fatigue to have a MLSS.

And don't tell me these results would never happen because I've seen them documented and I've performed lactate tests like those above myself.

You say I represent the fallacy of lactate, but you represent someone taking data and forgetting real world application. Just because lactate does not directly cause fatigue does not mean LT or lactate is not useful. IF LT corresponds to the fastest pace at which you can run without lowering your blood pH or blood lactate or hydrogen ions or whatever you think causes fatigue, then it is a useful pace because for some strange reason all of those things seem to act simultaneously and correspond to one another (i.e. an increase in hydrogen ions occurs at the same time as an increase in lactate occurs!)

So for training purposes, it does not matter so much that lactate does not cause fatigue, but it matters that it coincides with it.

I will agree completely with everything you've said here.

Skuj wrote:

100 Miles A Week Is What You Must Do.

Am I alone in thinking Skuj is a tool?

Fallacy - that a long stride is best for distance running.