Interesting Haile Gebrselassie training thread on Dyestat

And another thing, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. The kids in my running club are running awewome times, on very modest mileage.

Learn something about training and how the body works instead of following the usual dogma.

You have no idea how ridiculous you sound.

You still haven't provided a coherent explanation of your earlier remarks about what times a runner "should" be able to run off of a certain amount of mileage, and your later comments about stride length reveal a fundamental lack of understanding about the physiology and biomechanics of running.

Glad you did too, because 'wellnow' comes across as a bordeline troll on several threads even though I am aware that he is indeed serious.

For another prime example of his stupidity check out any one of several threads where the theme is hardwork vs. talent, etc. He thinks that there is no such thing as physical talent and that it is all a mindset.

Which makes the comments on this thread even more hilariously ironic.

Seb Coe: 70-100mi/wk

El Guerrouj: 90-120mi/wk

Gebrselassie: 120-150mi/wk

Mottram: 110mi/wk

Mitochondria, myoglobin, capilarization, etc...

I'm assuming that wellnow is joking on this thread, anyway.

actually i'm pretty sure el g and seb coe only ran around 58 miles a week. El g would never go farther than 8 miles but he ran them at like 4:40 pace. Seb Coe was known for doing mostly track intervals and hills with very little slow running involved. Mottram does around 80 mpw. Geb mileage sounds about right at 120.

enduranceguy wrote:

actually i'm pretty sure el g and seb coe only ran around 58 miles a week. E

I'm really sure that you're wrong.

About that importance of mileage when training to 800m-5000m racing.

I understand what wellnow says and I think too you don´t need to run much to perform well, if training is smart. But when you want to reach your best at any distance from 800m and up the mileage should naturally be quite high because if you can get STRONG base without loosing your speed and capacity of fast twiches, you are so fit that you recover better from hard sessions and can make them more often.

Training slow twitches doesn´t worsen fast twitches, it is neglecting year round speedwork what makes it.

i split 17:10 on route to a 20:36 6km on XC. off training like 2 days the week before, nothing the week before that but a race, nothing the week before that, and week before that ran a 21:02 6km Xc. havent run basically anything for the last 2 months since ive had hamstring tendonitis. point is. you dont need much mileage to run 17 minutes for a 5000m. you just need small amount of talent.

I been coaching for decades, Young guys say 10th to 12th grade all run at least 20. Into the 15's on 35, and sub 15 at 50! Why don't you get a highschool coaching job and see if you can hit those times with the guys. Use your speed ideas and see where it gets you. You are way out of the loop. Go do it and see.

........... wrote:

i split 17:10 on route to a 20:36 6km on XC. off training like 2 days the week before, nothing the week before that but a race, nothing the week before that, and week before that ran a 21:02 6km Xc. havent run basically anything for the last 2 months since ive had hamstring tendonitis. point is. you dont need much mileage to run 17 minutes for a 5000m. you just need small amount of talent.

Who the hell wants to run a 17 min 5k? Do you think Kenny B woke up one morning in his teens and thought: "one day I´m gonna be a 17 min 5k runner!"

I am coming in to the defence of wellnow. His statement about sub 15 @50 mi is the only statement that is at all extreme. You do need some significant talent to run sub 15. There are thousands of runners who think that if they are only running 16:30-17:00 on 70 mi a week, the answer is to go to 80-90.Wrong.

The simple but harsh reality is that 5:00 pace is not all that fast, and so if you can't run 15:30 on 50 mi a week your problem is not endurance, its speed/talent.

I coach good hs guys and the better ones can all run sub 16 on 40-50 mi. Of course, our emphasis is on 1500-3k, and they run 3:55-4:05, and 8:40-9:00.

Many of you on this thread are exhibiting exactly the kind of misunderstanding about the benefits of volume v intensity that I am trying to point out.Your comments are typical of those who don't understand how training reall works:

well wrong! wrote:

I been coaching for decades, Young guys say 10th to 12th grade all run at least 20. Into the 15's on 35, and sub 15 at 50! Why don't you get a highschool coaching job and see if you can hit those times with the guys. Use your speed ideas and see where it gets you. You are way out of the loop. Go do it and see.

As I said before, the young guys in my running club are doing very well on modest mileage, so don't preach at me about coaching.

Avocados Number wrote:

You have no idea how ridiculous you sound.

You still haven't provided a coherent explanation of your earlier remarks about what times a runner "should" be able to run off of a certain amount of mileage, and your later comments about stride length reveal a fundamental lack of understanding about the physiology and biomechanics of running.

Training should obviously be balanced between speed and endurance. Just running lots of miles isn't the answer.

I can't provide a one size fits all training schedule, but I'm suggesting that progression of mileage should be gradual, with the purpose of accomodating the intensity. That is to say, the bulk of the mileage trains the slow twiitch fibers and helps the nervous system to recover.

If you don't understand how racing 800m helps to increase stride length, then you can't accuse me of not understanding the physiology and biomechanics of running.

Most male runners who are capable of a good 800 (sub 2 minutes) will have a stride length of over 2 meters, with a stride rate only slightly quicker than they use in long distance races.

Just some more fuel...

Bobby Curtis, current NCAA 5k Champ, only ran 30 miles a week in high school.

Personally I think you should run whatever mileage (along with intensity of course) that maximizes your potential. For some people, usually those who lack the talent to run fast off of nothing but do possess the talent to train hard and long without breaking down, they will need to train longer and harder. For other people, usually those who have the talent to run fast off of nothing but lack the talent to train hard and long without breaking down, a more low to moderate approach is needed.

Do what you need to do to succeed. Making broad assumptions doesn't hold water. We all know what happens when we ASSUME something correct?

Alan

Darkwing wrote:

Seb Coe: 70-100mi/wk

El Guerrouj: 90-120mi/wk

Gebrselassie: 120-150mi/wk

Mottram: 110mi/wk

Mitochondria, myoglobin, capilarization, etc...

I'm assuming that wellnow is joking on this thread, anyway.

You are talking about the mileage of the best runners in the World at their peak. This thread is about how a young 17 minute 5000m runner should train.

The original poster's suggestion of doing 96 mpw based on Haile's training is not a good plan. To run that much in the manner suggested is more than 14 hours of training per week. That is way too much emphasis on slow running, at an age when he should be developing his speed and speed endurance, just as the runners you mention did when they were young.

As for development of mitochondria, myoglobin, capilarization etc.... they are not just developed by slow running.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Just some more fuel...

Bobby Curtis, current NCAA 5k Champ, only ran 30 miles a week in high school.

Personally I think you should run whatever mileage (along with intensity of course) that maximizes your potential. For some people, usually those who lack the talent to run fast off of nothing but do possess the talent to train hard and long without breaking down, they will need to train longer and harder. For other people, usually those who have the talent to run fast off of nothing but lack the talent to train hard and long without breaking down, a more low to moderate approach is needed.

Do what you need to do to succeed. Making broad assumptions doesn't hold water. We all know what happens when we ASSUME something correct?

Alan

True Alan, we are all different. You suggest:

usually those who lack the talent to run fast off of nothing but do possess the talent to train hard and long without breaking down, they will need to train longer and harder.

That describes me, but I still didn't know how to race fast when I was young despite my good mileage. What I needed was a long intensive warm up. That was the same when I was 15 as it is now for me at 45.

4 yrs ago I was running 45-50 miles / week with 2 workouts and a longer run, ran 17 min 5k and 36 min 10k off that mileage/training

then took the logical step of increasing mileage/volume to reach a new level and faster race times, spent a gradual period of increasing mileage to 65-75 per week with two workouts/long run and have been at the level for the last 4 yrs, the only problem is my 5k/10k race times have not improved, I can run all day at my easy pace but workout times have not improved over the 4 yr period, so the way I am starting to look at it is all those miles and time running did nothing for me in regard to faster race times

I know 15 min 5k and 31-32 min 10k runners doing 60-70 miles week and I wouldn't say they are overally talented runners.

wellnow wrote:

Training should obviously be balanced between speed and endurance. Just running lots of miles isn't the answer.

I can't provide a one size fits all training schedule, but I'm suggesting that progression of mileage should be gradual, with the purpose of accomodating the intensity. That is to say, the bulk of the mileage trains the slow twiitch fibers and helps the nervous system to recover.

If you don't understand how racing 800m helps to increase stride length, then you can't accuse me of not understanding the physiology and biomechanics of running.

Most male runners who are capable of a good 800 (sub 2 minutes) will have a stride length of over 2 meters, with a stride rate only slightly quicker than they use in long distance races.

Here is the statement that you made:

"A young male distance runner should be able to break 17 minutes on 20 miles per week.

sub 16 on 35 mpw

sub 15 on 50 mpw"

I never came close to those times on such mileage (including lots of interval workouts and racing), but I later ran sub-30 10k and sub-2:20 marathon off of much higher mileage (with almost no interval workouts and very little racing), so I found myself wondering what you meant when you asserted that I "should" have been running much faster than I did on lower mileage. I asked you to explain your statement. You haven't done so, in any coherent way.

Your statements about stride length reflect a very common misunderstanding. It is true that stride rate or frequency changes relatively little with speed. Thus, for example, a four-minute miler has a stride rate that is only slightly greater than that of an eight-minute miler, and a four-minute miler who reduces his pace to an eight-minute mile does so primarily by shortening his stride length rather than reducing his stride rate. Some people -- including some coaches with much more knowledge than you have -- incorrectly conclude from such facts that training should be directed to increasing stride length. In fact, however, increased stride length for a distance runner is primarily a by-product of increased aerobic fitness, and not the result of training a distance runner to run a fast 800-meter time. In fact, a fast 800-meter runner with poor aerobic conditioning will have a shorter stride length during a long-distance race than will a fast 10k runner who has poor 800-meter speed.

wellnow wrote:

As I said before, the young guys in my running club are doing very well on modest mileage, so don't preach at me about coaching.

i hate to break it to you, but i could grab just about any random kid off the street, give them a few months of speedwork, and watch them do well against another kids... contrary to what you believe, THIS IS NOT GOOD COACHING!!!

unfortunately, your kids will never develop their true distance running potential, AND IT WILL BE YOUR FAULT.