To Malmo, Hodgie, and the other "greats: a few words about talent

mplatt wrote:

malmo:

can you point me to BFullem's post on hill running?

Thanks

Mike, it wasn't Fullems' post. It was my post, the result of a series of emails betweem Fullem on I which he forwarded to his experts an the subject. I just posted the unredacted results. You would have to go back and read the entire thread to follow what we were talking about. At issue was whether or not hill running was more strssful (because of eccentric loading) than flat running. Being that stress increases by the square of speed, and that no one I've ever heard of runs faster uphill than on the flat, it made no sense that hill running (uphill of course) would be mmore stressful, ergo more injuries.:

What follows is a series of emails to two the foremost authorities on achilles injuries in athletes which debunks the contention that hill running is a major cause of achilles injury. Of course you can spend untold hours arguing for proof that they are "authorities" but I trust my source, who, by the way, is a reader here at LetsRun.com.

To be fair to you, pumper, my source did say this is a common theory perpetuated in the field (to borrow your phrasing) without evidence. From my point of view it's without thought. If true, there must be studies and data to support it. There's none. If true, the physics should support it. It doesn't.

You can dutifully write down and regurgitate what is fed to you in class, or you can do a little independent thinking, say to yourself, "that doesn't make sense to me" and raise your hand. You may be right, or you may be wrong, but a least the instructor will know that the elevator goes to the top floor.

Good luck with your studies.

------------------------------------------

In a message dated 2/3/2003 8:15:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, malmo writes:

The question is, do you see evidence that hills are a major cause of tendonitis?

...Secondly, how different is that from normal loading from running on the flat? During normal stride aren't the loads eccentric at push-off? It seems to me that running on a hill, even a steep one with six percent grade, the forces would not be all that much different, even less due to the slower speed and less than full stride extension. What am I missing?

malmo

-----------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----

From:

To:

Cc:

Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 1:28 AM

Subject: Re: the physics of hill running

This is a question sent to me by a friend. Can you 2 achilles experts add some insight to his questions?

thanks

Brian

-------------------------------------------

malmo,

here is my other experts reply. These are 2 of the foremost authorities in

the world on achilles injuries athletes. I think the verdict is that there

is no scientific explanation but it has always been conjectured and

implicated (it appears wrongly) For my running patients it is almost always

faster running that leads to this, not hill work.

BF

------------------------------------------

RESPONSE #1 (Malmo's note: The issue of eccentric loading was addressed in my original query.)

Brian,

I think the main problem is that running uphill does eccentrically load your Achilles, & if you try to get up on your toes even more strain occurs. Furthermore the downhills keep you calves contracted, making them tighter to stretch. The Achilles can only lengthen 4% until damage occurs & the faster you run increases the force on the tendon exponentially, such that microtearing occurs.

Sax

-------------------------------------------

RESPONSE #2

Dear Brian

There is no scientific evidence that hill running is worse than running on the flat. The only piece of published work that I know of comes from the veterinary world, and is enclosed

Equine Vet J Suppl 2002 Sep;(34):353-8 Related Articles, Links

Biomechanical implications of uphill training on the aetiology of tendinitis.

Takahashi T, Kai M, Hada T, Eto D, Muka K, Ishida N.

Equine Research Institute, Japan Racing Association, Utsunomiya, Tochigi.

It has been reported that a small decrease in the strain in the superficial digital flexor tendon (SDFT) occurs if the toe is raised during walking. Although walking on a slope appears similar to raising the toe, it is unclear whether uphill exercise decreases the strain in the SDFT. Because the force or strain on tendons is one of the important factors leading to tendon stress injury, we hypothesised that reducing the force in the SDFT during exercise may prevent tendinitis. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of treadmill inclination on the force in the SDFT in the walking horse. 'Arthroscopically implantable force probes' (AIFP) were implanted into the SDFT of the forelimb of 4 horses. The AIFP output was recorded during walking on a treadmill inclined at 0%, 3%, 8% and then 0% again. When the inclination increased from 0 to 8%, the first peak of force in the SDFT decreased significantly, the second increased significantly, but the maximal force and the area under the force-time curve did not change. In conclusion, uphill walking on an inclined treadmill did not decrease the maximal force in the SDFT or the area under the force-time curve, however, the patterns of force were altered. Future research should focus on the force distributions of tendons and ligaments at faster gaits, because the effects of a change in hoof angle and slope may be greater at faster gaits.

Best regards, and see you soon

Nicola

Nicola Maffulli MD, MS, PhD, FRCS(Orth)

Professor of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery

Keele University School of Medicine

Thornburrow Drive, Hartshill ST4 7QB

ENGLAND

Tel: + 44 1782 55 46 08

Fax: + 44 1782 41 22 36

Is it hard for people to believe someone can start a run at a minute slower than their marathon pace and then finish the run near marathon pace? 5:00 pace = 2:11 marathon. Malmo PR = 2:12:23 = 5:02 pace. 6:00-6:15 = 1:00 over marathon pace. There is a difference between easy and effortless and something that starts out hard could become effortless and something that should be easy isn't always effortless.

Alan

This about sums it up. 'nuf said.

ON PACE (RC 402). I wanted to let you and your readers know that the second edition of Dr. David L. Costill's Inside Running: Basics of Sports Physiology is finally available. This is the ultimate argument-settler and mind-putter-at-easer for those interested in the scientific measurement of what the body does while running.

It's also the book that describes, among many other mind-blowing anecdotes, Derek Clayton running on the treadmill in Costill's lab at just about 5:00 pace while accumulating no additional lactic acid over resting levels. In other words he was running at, for him, LSD pace! (George Beinhorn)

REPLY: Didn't I just use the term "physiological freak"? Clayton, who held the world marathon record from 1967 to '81 (and was the first to break 2:12, 2:11, 2:10 and 2:09) was marvelously freakish. Marvel at what he did, but don't try to mimic it.

http://www.joehenderson.com/archive/280.html

I can't believe that people are surprised that 2:12 guys consistently run sub 6:00 pace in training. I am not that fast (32 10k) and ran 31 miles at 6:14 pace on a hilly course (in trainers). It felt pretty easy until the last five miles, when I backed off to 6:40, somewhat due to hamstring problems. I train 75-100 miles a week, mostly on trails, but have a good idea of what 6:00 pace feels like on flat roads. When I do get a chance to check out my usual run pace on a track or measured course, it is 5:40-6:00. I would've have thought that 2:12 guys train at a faster pace, and I know Khalid runs a lot of mileage at 5:00 or faster. Go watch the Endurance movie and watch Haile's typical pace. He's definitely doing 5:00 while just cruising. There are many guys in the Boston area that do most of their running at 5:30 to 6:00. I first started to focus on trying to do all my running at a solid pace when I read an article about Mark Donahue, a phenomenal master's runner a few years ago, who said all his mileage was below 6:00.

As far as the talent issue, there is such a thing. The fact that evolution occurs depends on differences in physical attributes. However, I am 28, and have been training very hard year round since I was 20, and I only now am I making significant progress with my performances. The interesting thing about my training is that I have to do workouts of a 24 minute 8k runner to run 25, and it has always been like that. I have been able to hang with guys in workouts that crush me in races, and we are in no way talking about some mental issue. I am not blessed with superior running physiology, but I am very durable. Based on that, I try to do decent mileage at a fast pace, two workouts every week, and race about 30-40 times a year. It may take me a bit longer, but I'll get where I want to be. My goal this year is to be able to feel comfortable at 5:40-5:45 pace. My opinion is that anyone should be able to run up to 100 miles a week at their marathon pace, with quality workouts in addition. I would say more mileage, but I've never had the time to do much more than 100. I would even add that this mileage could be done in 7 runs a week, as I don't have the time for two runs. Based on my own training, I am not impressed with people who run virtually full time and only do 100-110 on 10-12 runs a week while training for a marathon.

Malmo,

Your reponses have been the best sustained good points in a thread by one person since well...the last time I bantered in a thread. Excellent job there Malmo! Again, I can see why you were MVP of 2003 - you're making a strong case for MVP of 2004. Basically you have the point making ability of Flagpole Willy but with running talent.

I'm sure someone will call me a brown noser, but what does it get me to suck up to you? A big ol' dose of nuttin'. I just see the good and the bad and comment accordingly.

Again, Malmo, you've been brilliant in this thread.

Had to jump in!

1) Mileage can be increased but not at the speed and quantities most of us want. I have used 3 mile a week increments to build up mileage, and after 3-4 weeks back off 15 miles for one week. With several elite athletes I have been able to increase, SAFELY, from 60's to 100's without any problems. Amazingly, the races got faster and faster too!

2) The paces that my athletes train are all within 20 beats per minute of the anaerobic threshold (both fast work and slower training days) I can get more development from 3 medium training days of fartlek, interval, or tempo runs and a long run, than someone training fast intervals two times a week. An example being 20x1k (3:20)(:60 rest)for women training for the marathon. They also ran their long runs at 6:20 pace for 25 miles at elevation. Then they could run sub 2:30 (5:45 pace) at sea level.

3)IMHO - most runners train too slow on their distance and too fast on their interval/fartlek/tempo. They never develop the efficiency to race their event.

Just a few of my thoughts to help cloud the issue.

Flagpole, you are correct, I loathe obsequiousness. I'm surprised that you missed this bizarre thread.

FYI, if it's not already evident, Tom M has mental instability issues that requires the care of a psychiatrist and psychotropic drugs.

Read the link and you'll understand where he's coming from:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=179742&thread=178288

My simple thoughts on this thread...

To be a great distance runner, you need to run high mileage. You can't measure or predict your "natural talent" and adjust training accordingly. It's possible that you may be injury prone. Deal with it. It doesn't mean you aren't "naturally talented".

To the person who said whenever they tried to run more than 50 miles a week and got injured: Did you run too fast? Did you run mostly on pavement? Did you not stretch? Did you not eat right? Did you not get enough sleep? I'll guess as a low-mileage 4:14 high school miler, you answered yes to a few of those questions. Did you step back and take another look at your training and try to modify it accordingly? Perhaps you needed to run some miles slower to get stronger. The kind of endurance you need to be a great runner isn't "natural", it's obtained through training. My point: You can't try to run 50 miles a week in high school and because you got injured chalk it up to not having "natural endurance" or "talent". If you stayed with it and ten years later still couldn't run a lot of miles, then too bad. At least you experimented and gave it a shot. Should anyone feel bad for you? No. If I shoot free throws all day and play basketball for 8 hours a day from the time I'm 4, will anyone feel bad for me if I don't play at a Div I school? No. And they shouldn't. Not everyone can be an elite, but you sure as hell don't know if you're going to be one when you are in high school ripping off 56 quarters with 5 minutes rest like a hero. My favorite line is, "I'm more of an 800m guy naturally." No shit, genius; you run 30 miles a week...you aren't going to be a "natural" 10k runner off of that....

I only read the first part of this but it reminded me of what something asked me the other day. My friend Gabe and I went up to the HS and some young runner asked us how we ran so much without getting sore or have something hurting. The question kind of shocked me, but several other young runners wanted to know the answer too. Some of them complained to us about how there shins would hurt sometimes and there knees would sometimes hurt, so they would stop running and go ice until it got better. Later that day Gabe and I were finishing up a 2 hour run and I turned to him and asked him if anything was aching. He said "Not anything other than what's normal." I said same here, and then thought about what the kids asked us earlier that day and asked him what was aching that normal. He said something like "oh you know aching knees, shins, some muscle soreness, nothing big." Then I realized that what we think the normal aches and pains of running, are thought of as not normal to some. Dunno if this has anything to do with the thread, but I thought it was rather interesting.

sjm1368,

First, thanks a lot for posting your log on the web. It's a real inspiration.

As a runner who has been injured a lot, but who has also put in some stretches of pretty high mileage (100-140mpw), i can relate with your theory about less experienced runners just not understanding how much of a pain training can be sometimes. when i'm running a lot, the first couple miles of every run feels like absolute crap, and there are definitely some low-level aches and pains, BUT, there is also a big difference between an ache that you know you can run through and an ache that turns into a stress fracture or tendonitis.

it is likely that these younger runners are merely wussing out, but, i also think it can be hard to discern between a "run-through" pain and an "injury" pain. Personally, after not being able to run for more than 4 weeks at a time over the past 4 months, i've become a bit gun-shy.

Keep up the good work and high miles. Here's to hoping that your pain continues to be the "run-through" type and you rip it the hell up in track this spring!

Hodgie-san wrote:

Ya know, the more I ran, the more "talented" I became. Amazing.

Hodgie-san, isn't it funny how, when young athletes run badly, some people say they have no talent?

years later when those same athletes, with a point to prove, win races and run fast times, they are praised for their "natural talent".

"It became a matter of singular concentration, discipline, monomania. I had to zero in on one thing; I had to make it so nothing else mattered. I just made up my mind to work and see how good I could be. I didn't want to quit and say for the rest of my life, 'Well, maybe I could have been.'" - Frank Shorter on his decision to train with Jack Bacheler in Florida

Oh my f***in god kid! "just because you're paranoid..." is a hackneyed joke! Always told with a wink and a grin.

I said "Malmo would SEEM to deride". I know from being reading his posts for a long time that he doesn't really mean to do that, but he never prefaces his quips with that disclaimer and for people that don't read his posts with the attention they deserve, that is the message that might come through. It is a bit disingenuous to say "the harder you work, the more talented you get" but rather "The harder you work, the more you fulfill the talent you have" is far more correct in what is really happening. Training HS kids on higher mileage and have them, in spite of their bog personal improvements, can be a frustrating experience when they talk to the guys who beat them at big meets and are shocked and un-nerved to find some of them don't work as hard as they do. Many of the kids I have worked want to pull their hair out because they say "Johnny J. at East Bumblef*** HS runs 9:40 and only runs 25 miles a week, why are we running 60 a week to run 9:50?" and then they read Malmo's posts about talent being caused by hard work and don't get it because it defiew what the are observing? I have to explain to them that Malmo doesn't mean to deride their work, that they have to look at how much they have improved and will continute to improve and ignore what other people ae doing. And you also have to note that the guys running 9:10 are training like they are.

Just say shit, Your answering your own question. Yes, talent is needed, what did you think would be the answer to your question? To answer for these guys you called out in the title of your post, here goes. MOST of the f***s that post here never ran 100 miles per week because they never tried it in the first place. SECOND if you can't do or come close to what these two guys did in training from what we gather from their postings WE will not EVER have a chance to make it to the top. Plain & simple. So what are you crying about? There are never any promises or guaranties in this life, you know? I mean I wanted to be a porn star but I wasn't born with a 12 inch cock, get it? Most of us weren't. Maybe Portland Runner could put it better to you.

Kederis wrote:

But what is consequential is that Kouros and friends didn't run 170 and 190 per week for two years either. I call bullshit dunes runner.

Here we have another prime example of the typical american dumb f*** male.

I was going to share more about these runners but have no intention of sharing with any boozed up dope hounds.

Sometimes it gives me provacative pleasure to see the self chosen whining suffering of you poor ignorant creatures with no ability to think for yourselves.

TomM, I am 100% on your side.

You have flatly proven that Malmo has LIED, and he still won¡¦t admit it. Here it is, in black and white:

MALMO: ¡§Who said anything about 5:30- 6:00 pace being effortless? ¡§

MALMO: ¡§you'd know that 5:45-6:00 pace is hardly an effort at all. Culmulative fatigue?¡¨

MALMO: ¡§I stand by my words. In fact, "hardly an effort at all", would imply an effort, which is MORE THAN EASY.¡¨

MALMO: ¡§I've run in the 150-180 range many times. 5:30-6:00 is EASY. Yes it was easy for me. ¡§

Jesusf***ingchrist, Malmo. Yeah, you sure are funny. Still standing by your words??

Here is the deal on Malmo: he says LOTS of things, but try and PIN HIM DOWN ON ANYTHING, and he¡¦ll respond with one of 2 scenarios:

1. You will state that he said something, and he will respond with: ¡¥I never said that!!! Prove it to me!¡¦ Then, when you do prove it to him he says: ¡¥I know what I meant. ¡¥ Well I am glad someone does, because no one else has a clue at this point. Or¡K

2. You will try to express his running philosophy to others, and he will come back with such vague nonsense as: ¡¥I never said that. I never said ANYTHING CONCRETE. Run as much as you can, find your sweet spot, run 3 seasons if you need to/can, run 1 season if you want to, run 7:00 miles like wejo if it works, do what works. ¡¥ Gee, thanks Malmo, that is very helpful. Do what works.

Other Malmo characteristics: one day Malmo will bash anyone who brings up science to support their training methods (¡§running is not a lab experiment), and then the following day quote several science papers to support HIS points. HUH??

Here are some hardcore Malmo beliefs (but of course he will deny them, or will say something vague to disprove me, or bash science if I bring up a scientific study to support the opposite idea, or bring up science himself to support his point. Whatever suits his mood)-

?h There is 0 evidence that running all one¡¦s miles on cement is harder on one¡¦s legs than running all those miles on even grass, or hard-packed dirt trails.

?h There is 0 evidence that running up a hill puts any more strain one¡¦s calf or achilles tendon than running on the flat.

?h Racing hard 3 seasons in college should not be a problem at all

Now each of these ideas is so counter-intuitive, so anti-logical that they boggle the mind. But Malmo is SURE about them(though of course he will say: ¡¥I never said anything like that.¡¦ And then me and TomM will have to embarrass him again). Why? Because it is what he found in his own experience. Others¡¦ experiences just don¡¦t matter. And that is what this ENTIRE THREAD began with, a Malmo quote that TomM has now brought back to light, and it was (we¡¦ve come full circle now)-

¡§The human body is capable of amazing things. Just because you haven't tested the limits doesn't make your reality our reality.¡¨

And that was my whole point to Malmo: just because he tested the limits and thrived wonderfully, doesn¡¦t mean so many others that have failed did not test theirs. Their limits are just way lower than his. That¡¦s all.

And then, his great words of wisdom: ¡§Get out and run some.¡¨ Thanks loads Malmo, thanks loads. But of course now you will probably say:

¡¥I did not mean that, I never said one needs to run at all, wait, what did I mean? I mean I said one needs to run a lot, wait not a lot, that is too specific, even some is kinda specific, um..sweet spot, um¡KWAIT, I got it: take some of my DNA and become my clone, then you can live in my reality and understand it all.¡¦

Thanks Malmo. For what I have no idea. For being fast, I guess, and not knowing why.

TomM, once you come off your rage cloud, would you be willing to at least consider the possibility that people siding with malmo might actually share his views on the topic at hand and are not just kissing his ass? What would sucking up to him in this medium accomplish? If some anonymous tool like me says*, "malmo that was the funiest f***in thing I ever seen, TXANX!!!" is he going to track down my identity and send me a check for $1,000 out of sheer gratitude?

I'm sure to some degree the "celebrity" factor you note exists, but not to the degree you seem to think it does.

* - denotes transition from English to letsrunian