The trick is how you bring it all tougher, once you have done 12 to 16 weeks of the slower base work. Then you need to move to the harder work. And Lyidard make's it clear that this is hard hard training for about six weeks. Hard eveyother day! If you just plod along your not going to race your best, and if you base your workouts on some dumm chart your not going to be raceing your best.
Oh so do harder work. It's all clear now.
SoupNazi wrote:
Cze,
No offense to you but I would like to see some proof, if at all possible, to back up your claims.
Can you be more specific? What periods did you run "way above 150mpw". Also, I am sure you are aware 5000 per year is 104 average which quite different than averaging 120-150 for a full year.
Also, what, if any tempo/AT threshold runs did you do? And, what are your PRs and Age?
If you don't do threshold/tempo runs and you slog along at 9-10 min pace, then yes of course you will never be 2:10 quality.
-Soup
actually assuming he means a full year (12 months = 52 weeks) so he is doing about 96.2 miles a week, which just backs up your claim more.
Actually, from knowing Steve Brace quite well, he reckons it was his ability to bang on 120M weeks, year in, year out that got him to 2H10 on very little talent. Steve's opinion is that there is a BIG difference between hitting 100M or even 120M a week for a couple of weeks during marathon preparation, and being able to hold that sort of mileage for, say, 4/5 years.
My $0.02 -I am a believer in the 1.06 rule. Meaning if you have run a mile in 4:10 or better (approximately), then you could get in shape to run a 2:10 mary. Same rule applies to slower runners.
I believe all runners need to get back to doing high mileage in general. Everyone wants to get the qick results by doing a few high mileage weeks (instead of years)then pop off the fast marathon.
Just off of reading the 1979 boston thread I was thinking people were running 100 miles a week just to be the best they could be, not to run 2:10. If they could eventually improve from 2:45 to whatever, that was great. I cant run a 5 minute mile or faster, but I'm going to try to work up to 100+ a week to see, at 29 what I have in the tank. If I run great, fine- but we should be maximizing our abiility to the highest possible level, not leaving our selves to question, what if I would have bumped up to 100+ week?
Yes we have kids and it at desk jobs, etc, but it is not impossible to train like an elite at your personal level and exceed your own goals.
Obviously, Steve has some talent (his ability to hold on to a lead group at a pace that would normally feel too fast for him comes to mind), but he is not exactly a 'natural' either, and you wouldn't think of him as a double olympian from looking at him run...
The sport's wrecked him though... The cartilage in both his knees his worn out, and only pain killers seem to enable him to carry on (limited) running these days...
I re-read my previous message, and I didn't report that converstion quite accurately... Steve's point was that there is actually a BIG difference between averaging 80/90M a week consistently with 4/5 weeks at 120M, and consistently running 120M a week... Pretty much anyone with a minimum of talent (and having started young enough, watching their diet... etc) could run close to 2H20 on the first training regimen... The second one, though "only" 30M longer a week, requires a much more concerted effort... However, he is of the opinion that if a runner is prepared to make the sacrifices that go with this sort of mileage, they'd probably be able to run close to 2H10.
The problem Steve sees with this though, is that whereas in the late eighties it was possible for a 2H10/2H12 runner to scrape a living out of the sport, it would nowadays be much more difficult to do so (especially if you have to support a family). Increased East-African participation in major marathons have made it tough to get into the price money and yet, for Steve, the only way you can run at that level is to turn professional...
Of course, other talented runners have held full-time jobs and ran those sorts of times, but your average club runner with a minimum of (limited) talent, would probably need 5 years (or so) at that sort of mileage before they can hit 2H10.
Where to start? wrote:
Here is the full quote...
"If you have the opportunity to become a PROFESSIONAL RUNNER, using two sessions a day and running 120/150 miles per week, you can run 2:10." - Renato Canova
Does he really think everyone can do this? How do you go about it?
Yes, you may have a chance but only if you have the ability to run the 400m closer to 50.
If you can't break 55 you'll have trouble breaking 2:20 even if you do 1k miles a week.
In thinking about what it takes to run 2:10, I have to agree that running 2:10 or close to it is most definately a mark of some one who is talented for this discipline.
Can some one define talent in terms of running, or narrow it down a bit? (Not just listing pr's). Maybe giving examples of physical traits or measurements (weight, heights, inseam), VO2 max, what else? Can we compile a list of these runners? I know there has to be some physiologists out there that have put this together.
I don't want to appeal to the whole time issue or desire issue---those are necessary no doubt. If you don't have either the time to train or desire to train/compete, it doesn't matter if you're talented or not...you're not going to run fast.
I believe the most important determinants of talent would be: weight, biomechanics, the ability to utilize energy (digestion, energy production, etc.). I think the ability to recover is based on these things----now if I could be more specific about 'these things'......
SoupNazi wrote:
Cze,
No offense to you but I would like to see some proof, if at all possible, to back up your claims.
Can you be more specific? What periods did you run "way above 150mpw". Also, I am sure you are aware 5000 per year is 104 average which quite different than averaging 120-150 for a full year.
Also, what, if any tempo/AT threshold runs did you do? And, what are your PRs and Age?
If you don't do threshold/tempo runs and you slog along at 9-10 min pace, then yes of course you will never be 2:10 quality.
-Soup
In the end, any "proof" to back up my supposed "claims" is just going to come down to my honesty vs. your skepticism, but I'll give it a shot.
I have been running over 150mpw for the past month or so. I ran 707 miles in April. Weekly mileage totals have been 156, 203, 128 (had the flu, didn't run 2 days), 197, and currently have 170 miles this week on 6 days, planning on 25-30 tomorrow. Next week will be much lower (100-120ish) because my class will be on a weeklong geology field trip.
Which answers another of your questions. I'm 21 years old, a senior in college.
As for the 5000 in a year, that is true, AND I NEVER claimed to have averaged 120-150mpw for years at a time. I said that I'd logged several periods of mileage in the 100-140mpw range. I'll attempt some proof here.
I ran my first 100+ mile weeks when I was 13, my 8th grade year (1996-97). That winter I averaged 81mpw for a 20 week period, including a 104, 100, 112, 102, and 105 mile weeks with more than 15 runs in the 20-25 mile range.
Then, of course, I was hurt a bunch during high school when I was growing a lot and my body wasn't as durable as when I was 4'10" and 80 lbs. I still got in mileage in the 70-80mpw range when I wasn't hurt. Go ahead, call me stupid, I can take it.
Since college I've been able to handle a lot more. A string of good weeks:
97, 91, 98, 117, 94, 108, 117, 123, 127, 115, 105, 110, 104, 120, 95, 85, 91, 97, 91, 118, 111 (stress fracture)
most recently: 108, 117, 123, 130, 130, 134, 137, 110, 81, 84, 92, 110, 103, 102, 130, 95, 106, 113, 100, 127, 122, 103, 88 (2:47 marathon PR), 123, 125, 134, 139, 136, 124, 70, 107, 102, 183, 134, 151, 101, 112, 105, 108, 117, 120, 111, 134, 125, 83, 100, 109, 50 (sick), 135, 125, 129, 135, 146, which brings us up to the last 5 weeks.
I can't come up with any more proof.
Tempo runs are my favorite type of training. Almost all of my runs are "progression" runs where i start nice and slow, pick it up in the middle, and then crank down the pace the last 5 miles or so. i've done weekly 4 mile tempos at 5:30-40 pace at some points, and over the past year or so have attained the fitness to where i've been able to do some longer (10-15 mile) segments at 5:45-6:00 pace. I finish a lot of runs with a really hard last mile for me--5:10-5:30 or so. My mile PR is 4:42.
Most of this mileage has been at 6000-7000 feet on mostly dirt trails in minimalist shoes. Average pace of my runs usually comes out around 6:30-7:30 pace. 7 is a pretty good bet on any given day, i suppose.
Ok, so rip me apart or whatever, I was just trying to provide an alternative perspective. I'm nothing more than a schmuck who just really enjoys running but isn't very good at it. Where's the crime in that?
Well, I think your first post was a little misleading. I would consider you "above average by a large margin" and I definately wouldn't consider you "very slow" either. Race a marathon in 2:47 and you will finish faster than the average runner's time by a large margin. I wish I could run a slow 4:42 mile.
Pros who have shots at big city marathons and are running 120-150 mpw in addition to all the diet, altitude, and ancillary stuff are running lots of quality workouts. think three sessions a week totalling 12-18 miles at 10k race pace.
Cze:
You are an animal. Hot damn, that's some training.
Cze, how did you adapt to this volume? I have had some fractures like I see you did, but how did you prevent this during 200 mile weeks in racing flats?
Jonas wrote:
Cze, how did you adapt to this volume? I have had some fractures like I see you did, but how did you prevent this during 200 mile weeks in racing flats?
Seriously, I think it's the racing flats (H streets) that actually make the 200 mile weeks possible. I also do a fair bit of barefoot running (~30 min most days).
Mostly, though, I think I'm starting to build up a pretty big lifetime base. I've been running for 10 years now, and my first 100 mile week was over 8 years ago when I was running to and from school in junior high.
John Kellog has written about the benefits (for high school runners) of the occasional really high mileage week just for adaptation purposes. That's kind of the philosophy I'm taking now with the 200 mile weeks.
Finally, I start all of my runs really slow (first mile is rarely faster than 8 min) and only pick it up if my body feels like it, which it usually does. I'm not a big fan of structured speedwork on the track, and I really try not to go hard intensity-wise if I'm just not feeling it. But, as anyone who knows me will tell you, I've certainly seen my fair share of injuries.
hahaha ... no doubt. but, as one of the doubters, i've been shocked and awed by your ability to avoid them for the last year or so (at least serious ones). and as you might have noticed, i don't give you nearly as much crap about your mileage anymore now that you're not getting hurt. now as far as coachability goes .....
just kidding, and keep on rollin' bronze beast! with some boredom and dedication this summer, there's always a chance i'll hit the 100 mile mark more than once or twice in a summer while you crank out the duece.
carlito antonio wrote:
while you crank out the duece.
There's a disgusting alternate meaning to that phrase.
Cze wrote:
Seriously, I think it's the racing flats (H streets) that actually make the 200 mile weeks possible. I also do a fair bit of barefoot running (~30 min most days).
Mostly, though, I think I'm starting to build up a pretty big lifetime base. I've been running for 10 years now, and my first 100 mile week was over 8 years ago when I was running to and from school in junior high.
Ever thought about giving yourself 4 - 6 weeks of track and sharpening work? You might be surprised at the results.
fastfoot wrote:
Does he really think everyone can do this? How do you go about it?
Yes, you may have a chance but only if you have the ability to run the 400m closer to 50.
If you can't break 55 you'll have trouble breaking 2:20 even if you do 1k miles a week.[/quote]
I am not sure if this is true. A lot of sub 2-10 guys have shown poor basic speed at 400m. Bill Rodgers and Dick Beardsly are two that spring to mind.
Cze:
How did you go about changing from normal shoes to H streets? I have an injury right now, and when I return, it will have been about 8 weeks with 21 miles in that time (and none the last 4). The podiatrist encourages me at first to have orhthotics. I wear the New Balance 765, and have had, in the last 4 years, Achilles tendonitis, an avulsion fracture, a stress fracture, another stress fracture, a back strain, mono, a talus sprain, metatarsal tendonitis, metatarsal tendonitis again, another back strain, yet another illiac crest strain, piriformis and sciatica, metatarsal tendonitis again, and, now, a bad heel bone bruise/marrow endema in the calcaneus where the growth plate has almost closed.
As you can see, I am in need of strategies again injury. I have a 17:47 5K PR despite training much harder than sub-4:30 milers on my team because of all the injuries, and, when I am healthy, no progression.