Alberto's Marathon Training... FLAWED

I absolutely, 100% agree with the OP. Kara's HM PR says she should be able to run <2:20. She is obviously wayyyy off of that, and it's not just her cause the same is true of Dathan. So I'm going to agree it falls on the coach and teaching them how to preferentially burn FAT and spare glycogen. You get this by learning how to run long, slow distance, and running consistently high mileage. It sounds like Alberto it trying to screw with too many unnecessary variables, when all he needs to do is apply what they did in the 70s/80s (has he forgotten??) to his much-more-highly-talented runners.

You don't burn fat during a marathon. You don't burn fat when running, it is too inefficient. That said what I was surprised by was that Salazar seemed to suggest that you could replace some easy running with underwater treadmill running. I always thought that part of the reason for the high mileage was to get used to the pounding. How will underwater running do that? What would underwater running do at all? Marginally help with aerobic capacity? Ease recovery?

half times two plus four wrote:

I absolutely, 100% agree with the OP. Kara's HM PR says she should be able to run <2:20. She is obviously wayyyy off of that, and it's not just her cause the same is true of Dathan. So I'm going to agree it falls on the coach and teaching them how to preferentially burn FAT and spare glycogen. You get this by learning how to run long, slow distance, and running consistently high mileage. It sounds like Alberto it trying to screw with too many unnecessary variables, when all he needs to do is apply what they did in the 70s/80s (has he forgotten??) to his much-more-highly-talented runners.

Successful Coach wrote:

Malmo, you might be right. Ritz may be a better 3k-10k guy. There is no doubt about that possibility. I think you're probably right (I mean the kid did run 4:05 as a pre-pubescent JUNIOR in hs... don't tell me he doesn't have wheels). HOWEVER, I would like to see him try the methods I suggested before I would be convinced. You don't need that to be convinced, but I would like to see it.

So far Ritzenhein's best distances are 3000/5000. From day one he's shown that. He's probably capable of a sub 27 10k, but i really believe, like Solinsky, both their best evemts are 5000m. The problem with Ritzenhein is that he doesn't have the wheels to get through 5000 heats in championship events. So he's stuck with the 10k.

As far as the marathon goes, Ritzenhein has run five of them over five years. Except for the Olympics, all of his races have been run under ideal conditions, and he hits the halfway mark in 1:05:30 and STILL his body can't handle it. This is ridiculous, 1:05:30 is a joke for a 27:20 10k runner.

Some people just simply do not have the physiological makeup for the marathon. The fuel problem is, for some, something that will never get licked.

If he went out and ran sub 2:07 at London I wouldn't be suprised, but I sure as heck wouldn't bet any money on it. So far, he's not looking like a marathoner. If he never runs under 2:10 Ritzenhein will still be the most overpaid marathoner in history. That's a label I'm sure we could all live with.

And you're right about his physical maturity in high school. Even though he was a year older than most HS kids in his class, Ritzenhein looked like he was 13 or 14 years old when he was a senior.

One of the things that is unfortunate about Ritzernhein is that he never got an opportunity to fully explore what his potential on te lower end of the spectrum. A 3:42 as a college freshman, I can't help but think if he was at Arkansas, or Wisconsin, or Villanova, he's have run 3:37 by now.

Surprise! wrote:

Where did anyone say a runner can only be good at one event? I think you're taking a bit of a leap there with that statement.

In college I tried the steeple a few times. Even practiced hurdling and all that. Lost by 15 seconds to a guy on my team who was running his first steeple whom I had beaten by 20 seconds in a 5000m a week prior.

He went on to win our conference as a freshman while I duked it out in the 5000m.

Instead of looking at it as "I suck at the steeple and must get better at it" I just cut my losses and ran the event I was good at. So did my teammate. Doesn't mean he wasn't a good 5000m runner, just that he was better at the steeple.

Believe it or not, Jerry Schumacher still thinks that Brandon Bethke can run the steeplechase. I've been a world class steeplechaser and have been a student/fan of the event nearly as long as Schumacher has been alive. Bethke is the poster boy for what happens when you are pushed into the wrong event.

You and I agree on that. Don't forget, if I recall it was a 3:42/1:51 double at some obscure meet, off of pure 5k training. I think Torres was right ahead of him at 3:41/1:50.

When wonder-boy Rupp ran 1:50, and then just under, LESS THEN 2 YEARS AGO, people were in awe of his speed! Ritz did that as a puny freshman!

Goucher ran what, 3:36'ish? Teg has run what, 3:34'ish? I know of at leas 3:35-37 1500 guys who couldn't break 13:40 or 1:48. Ritz could run 3:35 without a doubt.

I still would like to see him run a marathon off of longer intervals run slower.

Someone fell asleep during science class! A major aspect of marathon training is teaching your body to break down fats faster. That's why people run long runs in carb depleted states, do steady runs at 90-95% of MP, etc. If you can't burn fats during the marathon, what do you think you're burning besides carbohydrates?

Wasn't it 3:44 as a freshman at the Cardinal Qualifier?

Vinny the Microwave wrote:

Wasn't it 3:44 as a freshman at the Cardinal Qualifier?

It was 3:42, off memory. I'll look it up for you. I don't believe he ran 1:51, though.

3:42.99 in 2002. He also ran 3:43.15 in 2004.

Call it 3:43

You are wrong. Salazar is right. Marathon training isn't just about Marathon pace.

2 weeks before Paula Radcliffe ran 2.15.25 she did 6 x 1 mile on the road in 4.45-4.40 with 90 seconds recovery. This was in between long runs at around 5.40 to 5.20 pace.

Aghast wrote:

You don't burn fat during a marathon. You don't burn fat when running, it is too inefficient. That said what I was surprised by was that Salazar seemed to suggest that you could replace some easy running with underwater treadmill running. I always thought that part of the reason for the high mileage was to get used to the pounding. How will underwater running do that? What would underwater running do at all? Marginally help with aerobic capacity? Ease recovery?

Idiot alert.

Aghast wrote:

You don't burn fat during a marathon. You don't burn fat when running, it is too inefficient.

You have no idea. Fat is a very important fuel in Marathon running. The more fat you can metabolize at race pace, the more glycogen you can conserve for when it's time to start racing, at around 20 miles.

the original poster. Yeah, but the fat burning part/base. I'd assume he's aerobic and fat burning system is already there. His aerobic system is pretty good 2:11 for his last marathon. His legs just keep getting injured. I don't doubt he's sub 2:08 material if his legs stay injury free. My guess better than Hall.

OP,Everyone beats on Hall and others for not racing on the track and loosing speed. Salazar gets this, has Goucher trying to get her speed back, and then is criticized. Radcliff gets this as JO points out. I think if you read the runnersworld QA carefully, he clearly realizes that you need marathon specific work. He just wants Goucher to have enough speed to be able to do the marathon specific work faster. It was very brief in the article, but he lays it out nicely in his book. Its a very consistent philosophy. 200s don't mean anything, but if you can't do a 200 at 31s, you can't run a 400... you can't run the marathon pace you want.Other respected marathon coaches also do fast work, then marathon paced work.(daniels, for example has speed development, then marathon specific, Hansons does 5k pace work or faster early, then switches to strength etc.-I think pfits does it opposite)

Ron Clarke's track times and training both indicate he was capable of running well under 2:20 for the marathon but he never did despite several tries and running near Bikila for most of the '64 Olympic race. He later said that his stride was just wrong for a race that far.

That being said, I'd bet that if he'd REALLY focused on the marathon he could have gotten himself to 2:15 or so. But why would he given what he was capable of doing at other distances? He'd have been punding the square peg into the round hole and probably could have gotten the peg in to some extent and for what?

In a somewhat similar way, he started off as a very promising junior miler but gave that event up after he failed to make the 1956 Olympic team and decidng that he didn't like doing all the short interval work associated with racing the mile.

That's a classic case of the event choosing the runner. It happens all the time. Shorter probably could have gone under 4:00 for the mile if he'd focused on it but he'd never have had the success there that he had at the marathon.

Don't put words in my mouth! I am not saying neglect speed. In fact, I said that for my more track-oriented guys, I have them do miles and 800s leading up to the last 6-8 weeks before the taper. SO, I am NOT against speed work! 5:20-5:40 pace is much slower then MP for Paula... not sure what you're getting at.

Also, 2 weeks out from a marathon is when you're peaking. You can't take 1 workout out of context of what she was doing for the 2 months leading up to that! My guys race a 5k-10k 10 days before their marathon (if we can find one) and do 5x1k or 12x400 as well (while peaking). I also have them do something closer to V02 max ever 5th or 6th workout. You don't ever want to completely lose touch of a system.

So to give me a workout that the greatest female marathoner did, 2 weeks out from her marathon, doesn't really tell me squat.

That was from some other poster. I was at the top of the post. (don't put words lol)

Anyway, I don't necessarily think your approach is wrong, just that a lot of respected people think the same way as salazar, and have had success with it.

You don't think Ritz's ideal distance might lie somewhere near half marathon? I agree that 12:56 is his best performance thus far, but he's only run one really competitive half marathon when in top shape.

Although I suppose you could say the same about the 5k.

edumacator wrote:

You don't think Ritz's ideal distance might lie somewhere near half marathon? I agree that 12:56 is his best performance thus far, but he's only run one really competitive half marathon when in top shape.

Although I suppose you could say the same about the 5k.

The problem with this is that the Olympics (still the biggest game in town) has only a 10k or Marathon. The Marathon is also still where the money is, for the most part. If the US had more depth at the Marathon (when everyone is healthy) like the Kenyans, in others words more guys consistently under 2h10, the Ritzenhein would have to chooose (10k/Mar) much more carefully. He showed with the 12.56 that he can run with some of the best in a time-dependent Track race, whether he has the wheels to kick with other guys (as Malmo seems to indicate) from heats may be another story. Solinsky can do so, for the most part (as shown in that 26.59).

As the OP says, either Ritz (and perhaps others) learn to train for the Marathon to maximize their CURRENT potential (as opposed to what Shorter or even Radcliffe - the women are different in this respect so it's not a fair comparison - have done previously) in the climate of 2h05 runners or they should reassess their priorities and abilities. Kennedy ran 12.58 15 years ago and considered himself a 5k guy. The 5000m hasn't really gotten much faster in depth since, in general, although perhaps more guys at just under 13.00. The Marathon has gotten a lot faster, to the point where 2h10 (unless in warm championship conditions) is almost mediocre - just look at the number of guys in almost any major race now. At Toronto (hardly anyone's ideas of a major race) 10th was 2h11 (The Canadians go ga-ga over this and Coolsaet), so not even in contention for the win.

Bringing up Shorter would be like bringing up Drayton, 2h10 was great 35 years ago, it isn't anymore.