Ryan Hall tells it like it is

HRE wrote:

going going gone wrote:

something about running brings out those personalities that would rather work hard for the sake of working hard than to work to get better

No. something about running brings out people who understand the need to work hard. It also brings out the people who want to avoid working hard while still claiming that they're giving it their best.

So where's your proof that you've worked hard, big guy?

didnt Hall have a base of i dunno 5-6 years of 120 mile weeks. why you guys are tards... but yeah, probably dropping his mileage to 90 per week is what gave him that fresh feeling after he put all the f'ing work in...

really bunch of C U Next Tuesday Suckas on this board

Our best marathoner cuts back mileage to revive his career.

Once you've built a high level of general fitness over many years, it's a good idea to let your training evolve by de-emphasizing some things in favor of other things - at least at times. The same stimuli that created big gains in fitness early in a career won't normally produce the same results forever.

Just don't make the mistake of confusing "revive" with "establish."

Practice perfect steps.

Whatever Lagat say he does add 50%. Plus he's run for so many years and can probably cruise by on a bit less

Rupp easily gets up to 100 a wk. He just gave the actual average including rest/recovery wks which a lot of the 150 miles a week crew conveniently forget

Runners are usually like students who claim not to have done much studying, usually bs

he's coached by Jesus = mimialist shoes

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Whatever Lagat say he does add 50%. Plus he's run for so many years and can probably cruise by on a bit less

Rupp easily gets up to 100 a wk. He just gave the actual average including rest/recovery wks which a lot of the 150 miles a week crew conveniently forget

Pure guessing.

Conto wrote:

Marsh ran 80... in 6 days (I believe)

More like 50-60 tops.

Right on brotha.

I just hope that Hall realizes that he can't neglect the fact that it was his milage base that got him to where he is today. His thinking may be just fine for the short term, but it is not sustainable.

Same place anyone else's is I suppose.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Whatever Lagat say he does add 50%. Plus he's run for so many years and can probably cruise by on a bit less

Rupp easily gets up to 100 a wk. He just gave the actual average including rest/recovery wks which a lot of the 150 miles a week crew conveniently forget

Runners are usually like students who claim not to have done much studying, usually bs

Alberto said that he averaged 88 a week last year and his largest stretch at higher volume was 96 miles for about 6 weeks. He said that number only included days he actually ran and did not include days off.

The best thing about LR is that no matter what an athlete says, the mileage hogs always interput it to mean run more miles.

If someone says they only run 60 (yet performs well) the LRs will go through some crazy mental gymnastics that will end with the eventual conclusion that even though the elite said he didnt run 120 mpw, he really does.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Runners are usually like students who claim not to have done much studying, usually bs

Wow, I think you've just convinced me otherwise. You've given me proof that you don't need high mileage to do well. I never studied and did great.

dsrunner wrote:

"Now, when I look at a week I don’t see the necessity for mileage, I see the necessity for hard, quality workouts followed by adequate recovery..." --Ryan Hall

Maybe now we can stop the mileage madness?

Our best marathoner cuts back mileage to revive his career.

I say it won't work. If 120 mpw worked for him, why cut the mileage?

I think you guys are overthinking what Hall said.

All he is saying is to run a lot of miles, but make sure to recover from them instead of running junk miles on what should be recovery days just to hit an arbitrary number.

That doesn't say how many miles a particular person should run or any of that other stuff, just that you should remember to include adequate recovery in your training. It's a real simple point, actually.

Hall made the adjustments he made because he finally accepted that his standard training approach (as much mileage and quality running as possible)was hurting his racing performances.

Same thing happened with Gotcher. Mega-mileage worked for a time then game over -- another talented motivated US athlete in a corner physiologically, working hard just to get slower. Truth is any time you read big mileage totals, that's the absolute *maximum* that runner needed for the performance, not the least.

Hall figured that out.

Shoebacca wrote:

Take a guy like Ryan Hall. We know he has run plenty of higher mileage. We also know he has had some good speed. He has a very good background in both. So when he gets more recovery from his workouts, he has the aerobic base to back it up, is rested, and can probably go out and run some amazing times while feeling fresh. Will he be able to keep doing that for years while neglecting the mileage? No. But he can probably get away with it in some cycles and do quite well. It's very easy to find examples of people who do a lot of mileage, back off, and do well for a time.

THIS. This is EXACTLY what Duncan Kibet did when he ran 2:04.26 off of 140-150km a week

malmo wrote:

Conto wrote:

Marsh ran 80... in 6 days (I believe)

More like 50-60 tops.

"He rarely ran more than 50 miles a week"

Run with the Champions by Marc Bloom, p. 106

The more mpw you do, the more injury resistant you become. People who have never done high mileage have lower injury resistance than people who have done high mileage. Someone who has only ever done 50 mpw will probably get injured on 150 mpw, someone who has done 200 mpw probably will not get injured on 150 mpw.

Run more=get injured by running/less