Solinksy Training

runn wrote:

Malmo- there is an emphasis, it seems, on easy, recovery days now. I believe you when you say that you ran heavy mileage at 5:40 pace. I remember, at my own mediocre level, taking "easy" days only when I was dog tired from so many hard days.

Do you think the easy days are necessary? I mean, I knew guys who could run under 31:00 for 10K and they didn't take easy days either. I remember guys hammering every day.

Some of these younguns don't get how different it was back then- track were slower, diet was much different, shoe technology, etc made us all a little slower than we would be today.

Of course easy days are necessary. Hammering every day is stupid. I've seen idiots do it time and time again. 5:40 pace is easy when you're fit. Some elites run 6:30 to (egads) 7:00 pace on the their easy days. I don't see any problem with that. Generally you'll find that for elites 6:00 pace is their easy "conversational" pace. Easy is a feel not a numerical pace. A few years ago I posted the results of my morning runs on a measure 8.5 mile loop. My log only revealed a subjective assessment of effort and perhaps half the time I jotted down the time. It was only decades later that I ran the pace per mile calculations. What that showed is that subjective effort varies somewhat, but also changes as the year and fitness progresses. What was once described as "moderate" beomes "easy", what was described as "hard" becomes "moderate"

Archimedes wrote:

I remember he said his reason for running that fast was to shorten the TOTAL amount of time he spent on his feet. I'm not going to do any math but he'd rather run 20 hours a week than 22-23 hours a week.

I'm not sure that I ever said that was the reason? It may have an ancillary benefit, but not the reason. If you run a minute slower per mile, then thats an additional 20 minutes a day slapping your feet on the ground. Who needs that?

For one, it's not as though I went out the door and ran 5:40 pace. Most of my runs started out at 6:10-6:15 then progressed downwards depending on feel. They could finish up at 5:30 pace or if the moment was there they could have 4-5 miles under 5 minute pace .... or longer ... or faster.

Malmo,

You are way too good to respond to poop like that smart aleck.

Let him learn what you did in your day and he'll regret such disrespect. The only one he is ridiculing is himself.

Thank you for your contributions to the sport and I hope such poop (wait, that gives poop a good name) finds another sport.

Greg Hill

malmo wrote:

I'm not sure that I ever said that was the reason? It may have an ancillary benefit, but not the reason. If you run a minute slower per mile, then thats an additional 20 minutes a day slapping your feet on the ground. Who needs that?

Because the search function on this website is useless, I can't the right post. It was the one where the guy was talking about running 150+ miles per week, and you said (at least I think you did) what I wrote.

curious about training wrote:

malmo wrote:

I've put in 150-170 mile weeks most of it at that pace. It should be a walk in the park for Solinsky.

How many sub 27 10k's have you run?

You seem to be out to prove you can't understand a real simple point.

Why is "hammering" everyday just stupid?! Why is it discouraged if it produces eventual results for those that can handle it. I can't stand how people always discourage running strong and training hard by putting labels on running a brisk pace like "hammering". I understand that some people like to do a ton of miles really slow but thats a boring way to train that gets a lot of runners stale, hurt, and slow. It's wrong to discourage running at a steady pace daily. Where does the animosity towards people that run fast on easy days come from? Jealousy? I just don't get it.

Thanks. I have to admit, I lost a little respect for a childhood hero with that "stupid" remark. You know, we loved what we did back then. We were "local class" runners and loved running together and hanging out. None of us were stupid. We all have advanced degrees and are professionals earning a good living.

Sorry Malmo, I still admire you as a runner and I love the advice you give here- I use it with the kids I coach. I even like what you said about easy being a feeling and not a number on a watch. But, stupid?

runn wrote:

Thanks. I have to admit, I lost a little respect for a childhood hero with that "stupid" remark. You know, we loved what we did back then. We were "local class" runners and loved running together and hanging out. None of us were stupid. We all have advanced degrees and are professionals earning a good living.

Sorry Malmo, I still admire you as a runner and I love the advice you give here- I use it with the kids I coach. I even like what you said about easy being a feeling and not a number on a watch. But, stupid?

It is stupid and he explained why.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

I don't know what malmo's 10k time was but it looks to me that he ran too much mileage at too fast of a pace.

There was not much difference between his easy days, which were not that easy considering the mileage, and his faster days. Also his faster days were not that much faster (other than short distances) than his easy days.

runn wrote:

Thanks. I have to admit, I lost a little respect for a childhood hero with that "stupid" remark. You know, we loved what we did back then. We were "local class" runners and loved running together and hanging out. None of us were stupid. We all have advanced degrees and are professionals earning a good living.

Sorry Malmo, I still admire you as a runner and I love the advice you give here- I use it with the kids I coach. I even like what you said about easy being a feeling and not a number on a watch. But, stupid?

Yes, stupid.

Let me repeat myself again, this time in caps:

"HAMMERING EVERY DAY IS STUPID. I'VE SEEN IDIOTS DO IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN."

Perhaps you didn't understand back then, but if you haven't gotten the message by now then, yes, you are/were STUPID, and, yes, you are/were an IDIOT.

Over the years I've seen many idiots try to force it by hammering themselves into the ground. Most times its those who are on the cusp and are trying to hang with better runners under the misguided assumption that they will become better that way. Ultimately the only thing that they accomplish is that they workout better for awhile. They race like shit, then soon they start training like shit. The purpose of training isn't to prepare to train, it's to prepare to race.

Training can, and SHOULD BE, very difficult at times. Chronic training at 95% won't allow you to get those occasional 99.5% efforts needed to exploit your own potential. A runner needs to train at his own level to improve, not someone elses.

A few years ago I was having a drink with a masters distance runner. Back in the day, he was a good solid runner at Oregon -- not even a conference scorer, but a 4:00 miler nonetheless. Without any prompting from my part he said to me, "... twenty years ago you used to tell me the same shit that you're telling me now and I didn't listen. I didn't get it. Now it's as clear as daylight to me. I get it now." I took that as a compliment. I don't think I ever was his "childhood hero" nor do I want to be one.

If you loved what you did back then (hammering), and are offended that I would call it stupid today, then I don't see how you could possibly have the psychological makeup needed to be a coach.

Fork wrote:

He has put together the greatest season time wise by an American ever. What do we know about the giants training?

No offence to solinsky the great, the fastest american born ever, but he hasn't even won a race. I think I would say that guys who won OG's like wottle and shorter had "better seasons" even though they were much slower. It's a different kind of good season, but I just thought calling solinsky's season the best ever was a major diss to guys who actually won (even if their times were a little slower).

Heyy my bad I didnt read the season time part. I thought you said outright it was the best season ever.

Wow! I loved the good times we had. I coach runners now and emphasize and force easy, recovery days on them. I take really easy recovery days myself.

I was simply asking a question about changing training methods and attitudes.

Back then, top runners (not me) had to sacrifice a lot to run as amateurs. I have a friend who was a 30:00 10K guy who spent a winter sleeping in his car to train in the south where it was warm.

We ran every day with friends and hammered our workouts and them went out and had a few beers- we loved it. I would love it equally, if today, my same friends and I were 30 years younger, training more sensibly and (most likely) racing better.

It's amazing how you come across (usually) as a very intelligent person on this message board. I am not an idiot and am not stupid. I've learned enough about training to become the winningest coach in my school's history and send more kids to college with scholarships than all the other sports combined.

I kind of just wanted your opinion (without criticism) on the changes in philosophy, attitude, whatever. But, we've seen many changes in the runner's world since the 1960's. This is one of them and you lived through it at the highest level.

You should be proud to be a childhood hero. My impression of you through magazine articles was that you were tough and very cool (by my 12 year old standards).

I know (now) there were people back then who KNEW we should take easy days (not my coach!). I just wanted a civilized opinion- SHEESH.

Hammerhead123 wrote:

Why is "hammering" everyday just stupid?! Why is it discouraged if it produces eventual results for those that can handle it. I can't stand how people always discourage running strong and training hard by putting labels on running a brisk pace like "hammering". I understand that some people like to do a ton of miles really slow but thats a boring way to train that gets a lot of runners stale, hurt, and slow. It's wrong to discourage running at a steady pace daily. Where does the animosity towards people that run fast on easy days come from? Jealousy? I just don't get it.

It tends to ruin your day if you aren't a "hammerer." I've seen way more injuries from people who hammer every day than from people who know how to mix things up when they are feeling good/bad. Some great runners run steady most days and take easy days as needed; others consolidate their training into 2 or 3 faster days (i.e. tempo runs or workouts) a week, and running the rest of the mileage easy. Wejo did it--he would run a few workouts a week, and do the rest at 7min+ per mile.

Hammerhead123 wrote:

Where does the animosity towards people that run fast on easy days come from? Jealousy? I just don't get it.

People who hammer every day, and claim it's comfortable to them, aren't trying hard enough in races, otherwise their performance would validate that pace in terms of ease. People hate that attitude, because it's someone who is better at training than racing trying to teach racers how to train.

I don't think there is a generic rule. Shorter and Rogers ran very slow recovery days. others, not. would be nice to see what Geb and Bekele do. keep in mind many great runners have fibbed in hopes of getting their opposition to do the same. i think there is wiggle room.

He who hammers every day will get hammered.

I don't get the "Badger mile" thing. Solinsky obviously knows, with a great deal of specificity, what pace he's running on easy runs (~5:40), which is a lot different than 7:00. So is the idea that he's running "Badger miles" some sort of mental benefit? If the purpose is to take his mind off pace, it's obviously not accomplishing that.

If you read his Twitter, he seems to take a lot of pride in running high mileage, and he's claimed in at least one interview to have logged 130-140 mile weeks. If he then writes that he runs "nothing but Badger miles," does that mean he's really up in the 150s or 160s, if you calculate mileage by the pace he's actually running?

The fact that Schumacher, in a rare interview, directly contradicted Solinsky's claims about mileage, without further explanation, doesn't make things clearer. Obviously this doesn't take anything away from the great performances coming out of Portland, but what seems like deliberate obfuscation can be frustrating to a curious fan.

I guess you could have a different definition of hammering than me, but I've always thought of it as hard running. There's a difference between running hard and running fast; habitual hammerers insist on making every run difficult even when their bodies are sending clear signals to take it easy. They're a pain in the ass to train with, because you'll be recovering from a hard workout the day before and they'll be one-stepping you trying to pick the pace the next day.

Fast running is of course fine, you just don't want to force it.