Shalane's longest LR ever was 12mi

eojtlc: No, what's amazing is that you think this proves some weird theory about training that you have.

What's my weird theory?

As for specifics about the utter necessity of long-ass long runs, malmo's real-world observations of top runners + folks' notes on Grete Waitz (and on other threads, other runners e.g. Salazar) speak for themselves. It's simply not so remarkable, from what I hear.

The more general point is, it's always fascinating to observe people's diligence in preserving their belief systems in the face of the real world's tendency to contradict them. Shalane didn't run two hour long runs week in, week out, yet still was able to outperform Teg in the 10k? Well we *know* how crucial the long run is, so *obviously* she somehow performed amazingly despite this severe handicap.

Didn't she come down with food poisoning/flu-like symptoms earlier in the week (she raced on a Friday, if I recall).

Maybe trying to connect the dots between her long run and her bronze medal is irrelevant when something as significant as that happened in the days prior?

Shalane's longest Lestrun was 12 miles.

That dont make sense

I just read the article. It was that before Jerry she hadnt gone over 12 miles so shame on you OP for that terrible error.

3200guy wrote:

Carl Spackler wrote:

In an interview with Running Times, Shalane said her longest LR was 12mi before she joined Cook's group.

Amazing she could win bronze in the 10k with just a 12mi LR.

She was with Cook's group when she won bronze.

This was the second or thread post on this thread. How did it get two pages with people arguing that a runner doesn't have to run over 12 miles to win a Olympic medal in the 10k?

Who else has won an Olympic 10K medal without running over 12 miles?

I believe that would raise eyebrows!

Haji wrote:

3200guy wrote:

She was with Cook's group when she won bronze.

This was the second or thread post on this thread. How did it get two pages with people arguing that a runner doesn't have to run over 12 miles to win a Olympic medal in the 10k?

Who else has won an Olympic 10K medal without running over 12 miles?

Mary Decker ran a very fast 10000 in the early 80s, and I wouldn't be surprised if she hadn't run over 12, given her well-known fragility.

not so fast malmo wrote:

This is coming from a guy who underperformed in the marathon. Now we know why.

I seem to recall malmo posting about doing 30 mile runs, at a pretty quick pace too.

Yes, many distance runners do much more than 12 miles on a long run and can't make even 400m at Flanagan's 10000m PB pace. Ponder this and reconsider your paradigms.

How many long slow 20-30 mile workouts did you see in Tadesse's training schedule?

Is there anyone who really doubts Bekele could break 27 for 10000 never training more than 5 or 6 miles in a single training session?

not so fast malmo wrote:Personally, I'm 6 minutes faster in the marathon than what is predicted, and YES, I do emphasize the long run.

I think you underperformed in the half marathon. What the f*** is your problem?

dsrunner has the day off wrote:

Yes, many distance runners do much more than 12 miles on a long run and can't make even 400m at Flanagan's 10000m PB pace. Ponder this and reconsider your paradigms.

How many long slow 20-30 mile workouts did you see in Tadesse's training schedule?

Is there anyone who really doubts Bekele could break 27 for 10000 never training more than 5 or 6 miles in a single training session?

I wouldn't be too surprised, but your constant low mileage lobbying is completely out of place in the case of Bekele, who by all accounts has run north of 100 miles per week for years. No doubt he works on speed as well, and I have no clue whether how long he goes on any single run, but please don't confuse the younger runners here by using Bekele as an example of low mileage, speed-based success.

Malmo, thank you for responding to my question.

malmo wrote:

eojtlc wrote:

It is amazing that someone can reach that level with that kind of a long run, I guarantee you that everyone else in that final ran many long runs longer than that.

I can guarantee you don't have much experience with world-class runners.

This is an incorrect statement. I am on a first name basis with several, and have trained with a few, recent World Champs and Olympic qualifiers from the US on the mens side, and to a man every one of them does long runs longer than this, (this includes runners down to 800 meters).

I do have less experience with elite level female athletes, and the ones I have been around have generally run less mileage than their male counterparts, but I know that they at least occasionally did 13-15 mile runs.

Now, I know that you have a long history of saying that of all elements in training, the long run is the least important, and I tend to agree. I also believe that you give some of the most sound training advice on here. However, for someone to reach that level with that kind of a long run is at least unusual.

nsmb, old and slow wrote:

eojtlc: No, what's amazing is that you think this proves some weird theory about training that you have.

What's my weird theory?

As for specifics about the utter necessity of long-ass long runs, malmo's real-world observations of top runners + folks' notes on Grete Waitz (and on other threads, other runners e.g. Salazar) speak for themselves. It's simply not so remarkable, from what I hear.

The more general point is, it's always fascinating to observe people's diligence in preserving their belief systems in the face of the real world's tendency to contradict them. Shalane didn't run two hour long runs week in, week out, yet still was able to outperform Teg in the 10k? Well we *know* how crucial the long run is, so *obviously* she somehow performed amazingly despite this severe handicap.

I said it that way because your original post, at least to me, sounded like you were baiting for someone to question you so you could pontificate about some weird theory. This happens a lot here and I was making the assumption that you were following the trend. If I was wrong I apologize.

I also made no mention that her not having done a long run was a severe handicap, in fact I believe I specifically stated that it may have been what was best for her. I never made a statement about "the utter necessity long-ass long runs". I fully realize that some people do great on different programs and that a weekly two hour long run is not necessary for everyone and in some cases is even detrimental to training. All I said was that for a runner of that level to have never run farther than that in her life is unusual, and I said this because it is.

dumb shit wrote:

I think you underperformed in the half marathon. What the f*** is your problem?

Nope, the HM time is getting axed this spring. I wouldn't look to Malmo for advice on how to train right for the marathon, that's my "problem".

not so fast malmo wrote:

Nope, the HM time is getting axed this spring. I wouldn't look to Malmo for advice on how to train right for the marathon, that's my "problem".

Well, we know malmo's real name and his times, what are yours? When you get to a level that malmo did there is going to be discrepancies in your range, its just a matter of what the person is built for and training preferences. But with you 6 minutes faster than predicted would be very interesting in the 2:15/2:25 range, but not as much in the 3:30/4:00 range.

Without throwing stones or taking offense, what are your times?

What if you just don't care about the half marathon? It's a stupid ass distance, I'm sorry. Not many people race half marathons all out, it's usually done for training for a marathon. I would argue half marathon times mean nothing.

That's cool. To be clear, I wasn't originally intending to narrowly address you or any individual; more the general crowd of posters and non-posters. As we both know, plenty of whom are rigidly stuck on some cookbook training programs and principles, some of which may have dubiously empirical support.

"Unusual" I can buy. I'm well out of my depth in terms of contact with national and world class runners compared to some on this thread including you. But I'd wager, sure, *most* contemporary good runners racing the 10k probably run further than 12M with some regularity. That jibes with what I pick up here and elsewhere.

It is a little surprising, since it wouldn't be uncommon for high level college females to run 12-15 mile long runs. But it sounds like Shalane could have averaged 70-84 miles per week by running 10-12 miles per day. That sure seems like it could take a highly talented runner to an Olympic medal.

not so fast malmo wrote:

This is coming from a guy who underperformed in the marathon. Now we know why.

Really, just exactly which marathon did I underperform?

Having trained with 8 of the top 25 All-time best American marathoners, and 21 of the top 107 (cut-off point 2:13:34) I haven't seen anything different about their marathon preparation than mine. I'm sure that they'd all be excited to learn a few coaching tips from an anonymous blowhard on an internet message board. You should send them a letter.

FWIW, my slowest marathon was 2:13:44.

I doubt that her longest long run was 12 miles.

I was at Nike southeast regional championships in cary, NC in 2008. She was a guest speaker, and someone asked her about her mileage, she said the longest run she had gone on in recent training was 14 miles, but she had only done it once. That was the very first thing I thought of when I read the interview.

Now maybe her USUAL long run is 12, and she does that 99% of the time, however I doubt that that was the farthest she had ever gone, period, before the start of marathon training.