Personally I want to see a magic system. I want to see some guy go all in on say threshold training and see where they end up
Something like
Mon- 2 x 6-10 mile easy run + sprints
Tue- AM - 4 x 8 min threshold
PM- 7 x 4 min threshold
Wed- 2 x 6-10 mile easy run
Thur- 3 x 10 min threshold
pm 9 x 3 min threshold
Fri- 8-12 mile easy run
Sat- 20 x 200m hill repeats
Sun- 20 mile long run
Thats basically the Ingebrigtsen(sp?) system isnt it? Lol
You don't understand this training because it is from before two years ago. It is immediately familiar to anyone who ran in the 80s. See, for instance, malmo's training logs or his HM training thread.
rojo wrote:
I’m assuming the irony of the title of this thread is lost on the OP.. No magic? No magic except for one thing. You must absolutely be wearing the shoe that scientist nicknamed “the magic” when they first started testing them as they couldn’t believe how good they were.
I listened to the Troop interview on the Citius podcast the other day. I left it finishing a bit frustrated as I felt there were three obvious questions not asked.
1) Troop said he though Riley was in 2:11-2:12 shape before Chicago and he ran 2:10. Was that the result of the shoes?
2) Did he think before Atlanta that Riley was much fitter than before Chicago? If he was 211-212 before Chicago, what did he rate him before Atlanta? Was he surprised he ran 2:10 flat basically on such a hilly course? I mean that’s easily a 2:08 in Chicago in my opinion.
3) If you put Jake Riley in Lee Troops shoes and have him run the same races as Troop did in 2003-2004, what does he think Jake would run (Troop’s pb is 2:09:49).
That being said, I LOVE Jake and Lee’s story. Lee’s coaching seems VERY smart. So many people try to add more or change things. After Chicago, he said, “We’re going to do the same damn thing for Atlanta. You ran great. Hopefully you are just more consistent and your body absorbs it better.”
Why is it always the shoes with you
Nike offered a pair to every single athlete competing. Some people chose not to run faster, their loss.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
rojo wrote:
I’m assuming the irony of the title of this thread is lost on the OP.. No magic? No magic except for one thing. You must absolutely be wearing the shoe that scientist nicknamed “the magic” when they first started testing them as they couldn’t believe how good they were.
I listened to the Troop interview on the Citius podcast the other day. I left it finishing a bit frustrated as I felt there were three obvious questions not asked.
1) Troop said he though Riley was in 2:11-2:12 shape before Chicago and he ran 2:10. Was that the result of the shoes?
2) Did he think before Atlanta that Riley was much fitter than before Chicago? If he was 211-212 before Chicago, what did he rate him before Atlanta? Was he surprised he ran 2:10 flat basically on such a hilly course? I mean that’s easily a 2:08 in Chicago in my opinion.
3) If you put Jake Riley in Lee Troops shoes and have him run the same races as Troop did in 2003-2004, what does he think Jake would run (Troop’s pb is 2:09:49).
That being said, I LOVE Jake and Lee’s story. Lee’s coaching seems VERY smart. So many people try to add more or change things. After Chicago, he said, “We’re going to do the same damn thing for Atlanta. You ran great. Hopefully you are just more consistent and your body absorbs it better.”
Sara Hall ran 2:22 at age 36. What do you think she is in Vaporflys rojo? 2:20? Is CJ Albertson a 2:07 guy on a flat course? Would Fauble have run 2:07 in Boston? At some point give it a rest and stop assuming the competitor shoes are 2 mins slower like they’re worse than Adidas Boost shoes.
To start:
I like Rojo's essays and dig him on the podcast, so I'm starting from being a fan of the site......
But I have to weigh in with this guy I pasted, and one on the next page, and the handful of others lurking around the Board that are not knee-jerk Nike fanatics (which includes most runners I the US).
I realize that his attitude when talking about (drum roll please...) THE SHOES is negative. In fact, he seems down on the machine that is the swoosh in general - as well he should be. I mean, they have have the head of the international Federation (I suspect Coe is not technically a Nike employee now but I don't believe he's had another employer besides them prior to getting his current job) and the US Federation is headed by a guy who is quite literally their employee (unless he resigned from TrackTown when his President job came back).
So hey, I am as non-Nike as anyone. They seem to be the only major sponsor who not only does not discourage PEDs but actively ENCOURAGES their use. Getting busted - no grey area, but flat-out caught red-handed - doesn't even lose you your sponsorship or coaching position. Bonds, A-Rod, Lance... it ain't just T&F. How about Tiger? Where there is controversy, there is Nike. There is actually a swoosh on the sign at Rosa & Associates camp! They endorse angle-shooting of all kinds and even outright cheating. The high-profile bust in Spain? Was there a non-Nike-shod athlete anywhere near that hotel room or in any way affiliated with that coach? Enough has been said about Athletics West and NOP.
All that having been said, Rojo seems to be the biggest campaigner for them and their latest shoes. Although he seems not to really approve of them and may likely agree with me in general, he continually advertises them - for free - on his own platform. We all know everyone has thought of springs, but everyone also thought there was a rule against it, and if you made enough that they actually caught on (unlike Spira) there would be a major freak-out with rules and bans. And that's true. Imagine adidas, or worse yet, asics doing it first. There would be an army of lawyers from Beaverton in Lanana's and Coe's offices by the end of the week! We all know that....unless you're the one that makes the rules, and Lanana and Coe are your puppets. They literally wrote the current rule.
So I understand Rojo's 'tude and I couldn't agree more. But I'm not sure if he realizes his never-ending claims as to their superiority simply reinforce the idea that 99% of all high school runners already have (I don't follow this Nico guy but YT recommended a video of him...and come on, we all know what brand he wears. Tuohy has worn NB - at their flagship meet. Find footage of her training and, well, don't bother looking because you know...) keep in mind that before they had any carbon shoes the unsponsored 2nd tier Americans ran in Nike. They weren't likely as good as a Saucony Fastwitch or asics Hyperspeed but whatever they considered their flagship road racing shoe a few years back was what most of the also-rans at previous Trials wore. Look at 50th place 4 or 8 years ago or whenever. There was nothing special about the Zoom such-and-such but since they'd been in Nike since 8th grade, it was the default. The swoosh is the starting point and therefore the most popular in this country anyway, and that's been true for decades prior to (fanfare....) THE SHOES.
So here's a guy who doesn't really like them unwittingly endorsing them for all he is worth. You're in THE SHOES or you're making a mistake. There are 2 kinds of runners: those who will be bankrupted if caught in them, and those in them. These tirades actually seem to me to be enthusiastically pro-Nike! Come on man, are they secretly paying you to put out 10 paragraphs a week on how they are so far superior to their competitors that it's just a given and not worth discussing? Because that's how it comes across.....
citius5000 wrote:
Thats basically the Ingebrigtsen(sp?) system isnt it? Lol
Yep.Shouldn't that be almost ideal for a marathoner?:). Maybe not the 200m hills but lets not quibble too much about a single week. Thats a lot of volume of 10k-HM paced running. Heck make it really interesting and make some of the long run miles fast (how about alternating MP and MP+1 pace for the middle 12 miles:)).
Reality is most training programs are boring as hell. The differences are really minor (you are running 5x2k instead of 6x1600? 22 mile run instead of 18?). I want some out of the box ideas and see what happens. Granted there are reasons why most people have adopted the 2 workouts/week and a long run approach....
Yes, I agree Rojo is really evangelizing the Vaporflies to an obscene level, even as he makes it sound like righteous anger. My problem with Rojo is he has his take on the 2016 Olympic Trials/Olympics and it’s totally fair if over-the-top. It is clear in those cases there was a large disparity and athletes like Kipchoge/Rupp/Shalane/Craig etc. while athletes like Goucher et al. Were at a disadvantage. Somehow, despite the years passing and the tech becoming more widespread and universal, Rojo acts as if we’re still operating in that 2016 world.
Here’s the point: Marathon running as a whole is the big change. Jared Ward and Scott Fauble are running 2:09 in Boston. A seemingly washed-up Sara Hall is running 2:22. CJ Albertson is running 2:11 on a hilly, windy course, Stephanie Bruce is running a lifetime-best marathon in Atlanta as well. We saw the old Irish guy running a crazy fast time at age 50 with his son in some New Balance prototypes. Everyone has some form of super-shoes. Are all of them equal? No, probably not. I’d suspect Nike was first, best and still hold an advantage. HOWEVER there is a lot of nuance to this point because everything is individual. Nike Next% might be the best shoe overall, but someone could be better in the Flyknits, the Sauconys, the Fuelcells, the Hokas or the Alphaflys. Way too many variables.
While lab studies might show Rojo to be right, if the general trend/wave of performances for athletes wearing every brand of super-shoes is any indication ~ the difference are not as stark as like in 2016, and one competitor’s shoe vs. another is just one of many factors. It’s maybe a shame Nike’s group of women in the marathon was so weak, because it’s allow Rojo to say the shoes were irrelevant because no top athletes wore them aside from Hasay (bonk) and Kipchoge (finished around where you’d expect if she had a decent day and Hasay/Huddle/Sission bombed).
+1
Rojo, your obsession with VF is driving me away from the site. I think the footwear dialogue is important, and I did appreciate the thread about the variability in individual response to the the shoes.
However, the approach of rejecting any time run in VF, or making an unscientific interrogation of what the performance "actually is", takes away from the excitement that comes along with following the sport. This is a fans site, and the shoe talk should be a tangential, not a primary, focus of your reporting.
aging poster wrote:
You don't understand this training because it is from before two years ago. It is immediately familiar to anyone who ran in the 80s. See, for instance, malmo's training logs or his HM training thread.
Bingo.
I was early 20s second half of the 80s, and I can confirm that describes my training.
Okay how bout no long run at all!? Unless Marathon training.
Riley in the LetsRun interview said he was in 2:08-2:09 shape. It's on YouTube with JG doing the interview.
Phil, you might want to check out Chris Wardlaw’s Complex system, which served as an inspiration to Tinman. (There’s a copy of it floating around on Google docs.) I’m by no means an expert, but Troop’s plan looks to have many elements of the Complex/Aussie marathon plan.
citius5000 wrote:
Okay how bout no long run at all!? Unless Marathon training.
There have been guys that. have done well up to the HM despite never running more than an. hour in practice. For the marathon, I am not sure you can really get away without having 1:45-2 hour runs. Not so much for aerobic development as much as getting used to being on your feet that long. The long run is really overrated.
I think the fact that the shoes ARE a big deal is a good thing--why? It's controversial, and while that might not be good in and of itself, it gets Joe Public curious about running.
Kennekuk Jack wrote:
Phil, you might want to check out Chris Wardlaw’s Complex system, which served as an inspiration to Tinman. (There’s a copy of it floating around on Google docs.) I’m by no means an expert, but Troop’s plan looks to have many elements of the Complex/Aussie marathon plan.
This might be along the lines of what you're looking for:
https://www.runnerstribe.com/expert-advice/chris-wardlaws-12-training-principles-runners-tribe/Originally from Clohessy:
702 wrote:
+1
Rojo, your obsession with VF is driving me away from the site. I think the footwear dialogue is important, and I did appreciate the thread about the variability in individual response to the the shoes.
However, the approach of rejecting any time run in VF, or making an unscientific interrogation of what the performance "actually is", takes away from the excitement that comes along with following the sport. This is a fans site, and the shoe talk should be a tangential, not a primary, focus of your reporting.
I think the "obsession" is well placed. There has never been a time in the history of our sport where it was borderline essential to race in one or two very particular shoe models made and patented by only one company.
Thanks, HRE! Good find. The original document from the man himself is available online. I don’t have rights to it, though, so I don’t want to directly link to it.
Derek Clayton broke 2:10 in practically Chuck Taylor's over 50 years ago.