Yes, you can do awesomely in the US collegiate system with low miles. You can even do well internationally in a non-olympic year. For long distances if you want to win metals or set world records you need big miles. The Kenyans and Ethiopians don't do it for fun.
DS runner is not trolling. That is what he really believes. He has said it many times in the past in previous posts.
I especially likedd this lil gem from the OP:
"Solinsky is down under 100/wk average and training faster to spend *less* time on his feet. We know that this is the absolute *most* Solinsky needs to break 13' and 27'."
Yes, is down under 100/wk to run fast at the meets but the OP doesn't consider that the weeks spent at over 100 miles had any impact on Solinsky's ability to run fast times.
Come on.
Then in the same post he mentions how periodization is a factor in performance capability.
Does any of the periods involve high mileage?
dsrunner wrote:
OK, the Lydiard stuff here is getting a little old.
What works never "gets old"
Neither Lagat, Rupp, Wheating, or Manzano is running astoundingly high mileage. The reality of US distance running is that you don't make a US team on the track without <50 sec 400m speed.
Please define "astoundingly high mileage". 150+? What? They're all running high mileage.
Solinsky is down under 100/wk average and training faster to spend *less* time on his feet. We know that this is the absolute *most* Solinsky needs to break 13' and 27'.
If he is in racing season, I should hope so. Out of season, I doubt it. Regardless, how would you know?
Ritz broke through by cutting back, realizing he was overtraining. And once he began edging up the volume again, he was back injured.
Incorrect
And even Hall has cut back volume to regain form and go after a faster marathon in Chicago.
Really? He's discussed this with you, has he? Is this the same Hall who just ran the fastest time ever by an American at Boston this year?
Neither Flanagan nor Huddle were doing high volume training when setting US records.
Please quote their weekly mileage and your source. A link would be acceptable.
While I don't have time today to explain why moderate volume good quality training can work better than high volume, the short explanation is that physiological adaptations are not simply due to the duration of training.
While we don't have the time to explain to you how clearly you misunderstand Lydiard, the short explaination is that nobody ever said that duration is all that matters, least of all him.
In the future, you would do well to actually understand something like Lydiard before attempting to discredit it.
The OP is not against running high mileage but against sacrificing quality for high mileage. Why did it take almost 2 pages for people here to figure this out.
x-man liveth wrote:
The OP is not against running high mileage but against sacrificing quality for high mileage. Why did it take almost 2 pages for people here to figure this out.
Neither is Lydiard. Why did the OP not figure this out before posting his straw man?
I am 100% agreement. I had a 2:19:57 marathon runner come to me who was running well in excess of 100 miles per week (when he wasn't injured which was quite frequently). I dropped him down to mile training and he broke 2:15 within a year. Mileage and garbage don't just sound alike.
Now try accomplishing this if this runner didn't spend all that time running 100 mpw... He was able to do this BECAUSE he had run the miles before, not in spite of them.
Try finding a runner with similar talent (high school PRs the same) and make sure that he only trains like a miler. Will he run 2:15? NO!
letsrun will hype anything as long as the internet traffic is up.
this place is a monumental waste of time
I think the point that a lot of people miss is that higher mileage should allow more high intensity running.
the problem is wrote:
letsrun will hype anything as long as the internet traffic is up.
this place is a monumental waste of time
Maybe nobody told you: it's not mandatory to be here. You are free to leave it! BTW: Why did you get here?
Malcolm wrote:
I am 100% agreement. I had a 2:19:57 marathon runner come to me who was running well in excess of 100 miles per week (when he wasn't injured which was quite frequently). I dropped him down to mile training and he broke 2:15 within a year. Mileage and garbage don't just sound alike.
Seriously. Laugh. Out. Loud.
... Why do you think he was able to cut his time off with faster "mile training"? Because he was doing 100+ a week BEFORE you started him doing that. That's EXACTLY how it's supposed to work. You aren't going to run very fast WHILE doing high mileage. It's what you do BEFORE you start running fast with lower volume.
evenastupidmancansee wrote:
Webb ran 3:53 in high school. Obviously this WASN'T because of his low mileage. His body was, from birth, born just a bit different. Maybe a higher VO2, maybe his heart is a tiny bit bigger, maybe he has more xx cells or w/e. Either way his mileage had little to do with how well he performed (at least in HIGH SCHOOL). All these guys that you named ran in the 8:40's - they aren't your normal run of the mill athletes, these guys could do CrossFitting and still run sub-9.
Webb wasn't "from birth, born just a bit different." From an early age, he was in an swimming program that produced a couple Olympians. He had a huge aerobic base that few Westerners have before he switched to running in highschool.
I swam for 9 years before getting serious about running and only ran a 4:28. What happened to my massive aerobic base????
our best guys are outliers, so the training has nothing to do with it? (webb's coach had two sub 1:50 guys at the same time, in high school (richard smith was the other), yet those performances were just because they were freaks?) It seems like we should recognize that high intensity has worked extremely well for most of our top middle distance guys, as it did for Coe. Who is talking about running marathons on fifty to sixty?
HopenChange wrote:
I swam for 9 years before getting serious about running and only ran a 4:28. What happened to my massive aerobic base????
Either/or:
A. Your swim program probably wasn't an private world class development club, more likely the local YMCA.
B. You're just not that talented of a runner, a your PR would only have been 4:42 without it.
Andy Wheating ran 3:30 off 40 mpw. Maybe you were talking distance running, but Andy has been sustaining a high level at this mileage for a while now, and doesn't seem to be getting worse.
kinda but not really smart wrote:.
Ritz "broke through" largely because of his enormous base. Had he not spent those years logging the miles, I don't believe we would've seen such great performances. Money in the bank that AlSal helped him withdraw, something Brad couldn't.
Granted he was marathon training, and he was doing more miles, but it was nothing crazy high, and he is oft injured. So really, out of many distance runners, Dathan did not have a very "enormous" base. He kept having to start from scratch many times during his career. A guy like Solinsky has had mostly uninterupted training for years you could say has an "enormous base". If you're Ritz and went through periods of 6 months of training and 6 months of being injured, i would consider the guy doing a bit less milage for the entire year as having a better base.
FACTS:
When healthy and running their best.....
Paula Radcliffe - 140 mpw
Chris Solinsky - 100+ Badger mpw
Dathan Ritzenhein - 120 mpw
Mo Farah - 100mpw
Kenenisa Bekele - 120 mpw
Haile Gebrsalassie - 130 mpw
Craig Mottram - 100 mpw
Martin Fagan - 140 mpw
Brendan Foster - 130 mpw
Todd Williams - 120 mpw
Steve Cram - 100 mpw
Carlos Lopes - 120 mpw
Steve Moneghetti - 120 mpw
Moses Kipsiro - 120 mpw
Linet Masai - 90 mpw
Vivian Cheryiut - 90 mpw
Jesus Espana - 120 mpw
Jessica Augusto - 90 mpw
Don't forget me.
Mileage - 80mpw , Marathon PR: 2:45
93 mpw, 2:37 PR
101 mpw, 2:28 PR
110 mpw, 2:18 PR
122 mpw, 2:14 PR
This is in the last 7 years or so.