Ninetonite wrote:
Coe also sucked at any distance over 3km.
He didn´t sucked. He ran a fast 15k road race once (under or close to 45min if I remember), and did a 5x1000m track session with very short rest with Tim Hutchings, and dropped Tim (or almost). 14.06 5k was an easy start of the spring -80. Also his base runs were very fast, telling he had a high lactate threshold.
my understanding wrote:I'll give my take. For what it's worth:
-Im a physician
-Have had a pretty strong interest in exercise phys for a long time
so ?
who isn't ?
offer numbers
'78
47.1 / 1'43.6 -> 2'13.3 , 3'30.3 , 7'35.8 , 13'22.9 , 28'43.2
'79
46.2 / 1'42.1 -> 2'11.6 , 3'28.0 , 7'32.3 , 13'18.5 , 28'38.1
'81
45.7 / 1'41.3 -> 2'10.7 , 3'26.8 , 7'30.7 , 13'16.8 , 28'37.2
the actual 10k potential has little change
it is speed training for 800/1500...
13:20 +/- 5 seconds. He obviously had a huge aerobic engine if he could do that on 70 mpw.
the 14:06 was an easy opener and nothing more than a glorified tempo run for the guy.
Where does it say that "Kellogism" means running 150 miles a week and running easy days at 7:30 pace? Does he actually say that? If so I was unaware. I was a Cornell runner and Rojo's training was based off of John's philosophy and he was always very clear that he never advocated "running slow". He said to run "easy". There is a difference and it is relevant to individual runners. The point was to run a pace on your easy days that you can recover at and feel good for the next day. For some people that meant 7:30 pace yes, but I'd say most were more at 7 min pace and some in the 6:30-7 minute range. Hypothetically you could run 6 minute pace for easy days if you really recovered at that pace and it felt super easy, but that's not the case for most people.
Also I think I could name maybe 4 or 5 CU runners who ever broke even 140 for mileage and they by no means did that consistently at all; it was a one or two time thing for most of them. The mileage range for guys on the team is actually huge because your progression is based on how much you did in hs, but in general it was definitely pushed that you should eventually get up to 100 miles/week and some guys topped that with maybe 110-120. But that's still a far cry from 150.
Former CU Guy wrote:
Where does it say that "Kellogism" means running 150 miles a week and running easy days at 7:30 pace? Does he actually say that? If so I was unaware. I was a Cornell runner and Rojo's training was based off of John's philosophy and he was always very clear that he never advocated "running slow". He said to run "easy". There is a difference and it is relevant to individual runners. The point was to run a pace on your easy days that you can recover at and feel good for the next day. For some people that meant 7:30 pace yes, but I'd say most were more at 7 min pace and some in the 6:30-7 minute range. Hypothetically you could run 6 minute pace for easy days if you really recovered at that pace and it felt super easy, but that's not the case for most people.
Also I think I could name maybe 4 or 5 CU runners who ever broke even 140 for mileage and they by no means did that consistently at all; it was a one or two time thing for most of them. The mileage range for guys on the team is actually huge because your progression is based on how much you did in hs, but in general it was definitely pushed that you should eventually get up to 100 miles/week and some guys topped that with maybe 110-120. But that's still a far cry from 150.
I never said anything about cornell university runners in my original post. I simply stated what was in the article Rojo wrote summarizing Kellogg's training philosophy. Whether runners at cornell did that or not is irrelevant. I am talking about training philosophies not what cornell university runners do.
If you want it straight out of the horse's mouth - here: "Our program aims to develop runners from youth to the point where they can train effectively and consistently at 120-150 miles per week by the time they reach physical maturity. Anything less than that is a cop-out and is inferior to the training used by elites around the world."
Read the full thing for yourself:
http://www.letsrun.com/jkspeaks4.phpAlso, I referred to a training podcast that Rojo and Wejo did that talked about Wejo's training, where he said he frequently ran slower than 7 minutes per mile.
kellog stated a few years back in one of his articles, that runners should be able to hit 150 miles/ week. He even stated that that former wonderkid bruce hyde hit 156 if my memory serves me correctly.
Former CU Guy wrote:
Where does it say that "Kellogism" means running 150 miles a week and running easy days at 7:30 pace? Does he actually say that? If so I was unaware. I was a Cornell runner and Rojo's training was based off of John's philosophy and he was always very clear that he never advocated "running slow". He said to run "easy". There is a difference and it is relevant to individual runners. The point was to run a pace on your easy days that you can recover at and feel good for the next day. For some people that meant 7:30 pace yes, but I'd say most were more at 7 min pace and some in the 6:30-7 minute range. Hypothetically you could run 6 minute pace for easy days if you really recovered at that pace and it felt super easy, but that's not the case for most people.
Also I think I could name maybe 4 or 5 CU runners who ever broke even 140 for mileage and they by no means did that consistently at all; it was a one or two time thing for most of them. The mileage range for guys on the team is actually huge because your progression is based on how much you did in hs, but in general it was definitely pushed that you should eventually get up to 100 miles/week and some guys topped that with maybe 110-120. But that's still a far cry from 150.
curious letsrunner wrote:
I never said anything about cornell university runners in my original post. I simply stated what was in the article Rojo wrote summarizing Kellogg's training philosophy. Whether runners at cornell did that or not is irrelevant. I am talking about training philosophies not what cornell university runners do.
If you want it straight out of the horse's mouth - here: "Our program aims to develop runners from youth to the point where they can train effectively and consistently at 120-150 miles per week by the time they reach physical maturity. Anything less than that is a cop-out and is inferior to the training used by elites around the world."
Read the full thing for yourself:
http://www.letsrun.com/jkspeaks4.phpAlso, I referred to a training podcast that Rojo and Wejo did that talked about Wejo's training, where he said he frequently ran slower than 7 minutes per mile.
Fair enough. I was legitimately asking in my post if John did say that and apparently he did so thanks for citing that for me. I guess Rojo altered things from that a bit, because he definitely didn't push for 120-150 miles. I'm definitely a believer in John's methods, but I can't say I agree with the statement that anything less than 120-150 is a "cop-out". Personally, I definitely couldn't run that much right now and stay healthy. Hopefully eventually I will, but in the meantime I don't think 100's is a cop out.
As far as what you said about Wejo, yes he has been quoted as saying he trained a lot of his runs slower than 7 minute pace. But again, he is also wrote in an article on LetsRun (I'm not going to search for it right now) that he was never trying to run "slow", but "easy". It never felt slow to him.
And to the comment above about Bruce; yes Bruce is one of the 4-5 guys who got to that 150 mark I know of.
The "Coe Model", quality training & quality rest, is the same one James Li uses on Lagat, which obviously works up to 5k.
LRC's mantra of "strength=speed" equivocates strength and endurance to a fallacious equivalence. Strength is the ability generate force. Endurance is the capacity to sustain the generation of force. LRC's mistake is thinking muscle fiber recruitment from endurance training is the same as muscle fiber improvement from speed training. Long, slow distance will help ensure you are able to use speed when tired (muscle fiber recruitment), but it does not improve your top speed and acceleration (muscle fiber improvement).
Why doesn't Usain Bolt run 100 mpw? Because long, slow distance does not improve your speed and acceleration.
Why does Lagat run 60-70 mpw at a quality pace? Because long, slow distance does not improve your speed and acceleration.
Why doesn't Lagat run 100 mpw? The same reason Geb doesn't do 200 meter repeats (regularly). Because strength (speed) and endurance fall on opposite ends of a continuum. Each event has an optimal range of the speed to endurance ratio on that continuum, and depending on how the tactics unfold, athletes will be an advantage or disadvantage based on their ratio.
This is the most succinct summary of the Coe school, and refutation of the Lydard school (that Kellog plagiarises) that I could write.
Class dismissed.
saddaytosteeple wrote:
Long, slow distance will help ensure you are able to use speed when tired (muscle fiber recruitment), but it does not improve your top speed and acceleration (muscle fiber improvement).
Each event has an optimal range of the speed to endurance ratio on that continuum, and depending on how the tactics unfold, athletes will be an advantage or disadvantage based on their ratio.
There´s a lot more than muscle fiber recruitment behind speed and endurance training, you know.
From a metabolic view:
Speed = anaerobic capacity
Endurance = aerobic capacity
It surely depends from the event and an individual how much of each is required. These capacities should be IN BALANCE with each other.
my understanding wrote:-increased myoglobin expression in muscle=substance that removes oxygen from the blood
-increased capillary density= more oxygen to you muscle
Thanks for the interesting viewpoint. I'm wondering about your opinion regarding 'ceilings' for the development of say ... myoglobin volumes and capillary density.
saddaytosteeple wrote:
The "Coe Model", quality training & quality rest, is the same one James Li uses on Lagat, which obviously works up to 5k.
LRC's mantra of "strength=speed" equivocates strength and endurance to a fallacious equivalence. Strength is the ability generate force. Endurance is the capacity to sustain the generation of force. LRC's mistake is thinking muscle fiber recruitment from endurance training is the same as muscle fiber improvement from speed training. Long, slow distance will help ensure you are able to use speed when tired (muscle fiber recruitment), but it does not improve your top speed and acceleration (muscle fiber improvement).
Why doesn't Usain Bolt run 100 mpw? Because long, slow distance does not improve your speed and acceleration.
Why does Lagat run 60-70 mpw at a quality pace? Because long, slow distance does not improve your speed and acceleration.
Why doesn't Lagat run 100 mpw? The same reason Geb doesn't do 200 meter repeats (regularly). Because strength (speed) and endurance fall on opposite ends of a continuum. Each event has an optimal range of the speed to endurance ratio on that continuum, and depending on how the tactics unfold, athletes will be an advantage or disadvantage based on their ratio.
This is the most succinct summary of the Coe school, and refutation of the Lydard school (that Kellog plagiarises) that I could write.
Class dismissed.
Thanks for the lesson ...
I'm with you to a point and that point is where you use the word slow instead of easy. Up to that point i like your explanation of speed/strength v endurance. From that point the word slow throws everything out of perspective whereas easy can put it right back in.
It can be most easily explained by saying that easy long running is an exercise in tension reduction whereas most of the other training is working in reverse of this - in adding tension.
High mileage did not help Solinsky in 2011, might have trashed a great career.