Agree or disagree: Kyle Merber: "The value of training partners greatly outweighs the benefit of good coaching."

Agreed that there's some good discussion here. Two points I wanted to add/emphasize:

- The importance of having good training partners doesn't just mean having training partners who are faster than you (and thus push you in training, for better or worse). Some of my best seasons came when training in groups where I was the fastest, but I still felt the presence of the group was really important. The overall gestalt of being part of a group pursuing a challenging goal can be extremely powerful, though clearly not everyone needs it or benefits from it.

- I've always thought one of the key roles for some (though not all) great coaches is the ability to attract and curate a good training group. Runners themselves often have short careers, or get injured, or move to other cities for non-running-related reasons. That means self-organized elite training groups tend to be pretty ephemeral. I've been part of several, and they can be awesome, but they tend to cohere for a year or two at most then break up. A good coach, on the other hand, can be the tentpole around which runners at a certain level and with certain aspirations gather. The individual parts may come and go, but you always know that there's going to be a good workout going down on Tuesday afternoons at such-and-such a park or whatever.

Overall take: clearly you want all the pieces to fit together, but as a mature runner who has had the benefit of good coaches in the past, I'd definitely choose a compatible training group over a brand-name coach at this point.

Thing with Ken/ETH/JAP is they throw huge numbers of athletes at the issue. Group training is great at finding the cream and have it rise to the top. However for every one who makes it there are countless who don't and of those probably a few who could have done much better with a more tailored approach where they went just chasing their faster colleagues. This approach works when you have huge numbers of athletes to work with. I've worked with Japanese runners before and if I ran my local junior club how most Japanese clubs operate I'd probably have more athletes go Div 1 but I'd also have half my junior group injured.

For a US example look at BTC. Take their performance at the last Olympics. They had silver medals from Ahmed and Frerichs and top 5 finishes in Fisher and DeBues-Stafford. However for each top 5 runner they had someone running way below potential.

If you took a country with smaller athlete pools and did the same thing it wouldn't work out at all. They don't have the talent depth to risk breaking athletes and they might only get a true world class level talent who can rise through the meat grinder of group training every decade or so.

Mediocre elites like Merber often have this opinion. Which is one of the reasons they stay mediocre. Another of the reasons? Having a newsletter.

Great point. This seems to be a tech that has slipped in under the fog created around "supershoes"

Seb Coe had his dad moto-pacing him in a car for many sessions on the roads.

Your comments are all certainly true. Ultimately, it goes to the driving purpose of the group, whether to help pull out significant improvement in as many as possible or to help the best to become their best. I took the presumption that the thrust of Merber's commentary was applicable at the pro levels. I'm certain there probably are talented athletes Vigil recruited to ASC who fizzled once they got there and plenty of notable runners in his time in Mammoth who didn't even make Olympic teams, let alone win medals. Most of the athletes who have been on roster with Hansons-Brooks are probably unknown to you and me. Is that the fault of the group or of the coaching? The chicken/egg in this isn't that apparent.

You and John are parsing the second sentence too closely and outside of all context. The statements are all from the same story, so they have to be read in context with each other. Obviously Kyle's not saying training doesn't matter at all; that would be ridiculous. Kind of like saying you boil water on fire and not ice (like, duh). But it's no stretch to say that, once you've reached minimum levels of competence in coaching and training, the value of the training partners exceeds the value of any additional training changes. I've seen two or three pro-level runners extol the value of great training partners this week alone.

Heavily agree with Kyle. I would say this is one of the major reasons most Americans quit after college. They know how to train but doing it alone is a major chore. Look at East Africans and their hundred person runs. Makes it easy to get out the door and grind.

Voted: energy of training partners

Cam Levins was recently on the sweat elite podcast and the only training partners he mentioned were his wife on the bike for longer middle threshold pace.

Training partners and having a pace train for 1mile-10k track runners I can see the value and less perceived effort. for something like a 6x800 2mins recovery@ slightly faster than 5k pace.

That podcast with Cam though just showed how unique a runner he is. He's gone back to the old Utah days of high mileage and 3 a days but is also incorporating triple thresholds.

Hearing his favorite workout as 3x5k done fast for HM effort he never mentioned a training partner just his coaches goal and his. Which was sub 14 average for all 3!!!

Wejo probably excelled as a solo competitive runner because it removed him from not absorbing the workout to always absorbing the workouts courtesy of his 9minute ez run pace but maximizing the stimulus by being at high volume.

The same could be said for Cam's recent resurgence as his really slow recovery& mid level intensity with super high volume makes him respond.

I agree with you. And your up-votes are 10 and your down-votes are 1. That answers the question.

Think of it this way: If you were dropped on a desert island for a year with your four most ideal training partners and all you could do is train and run huge miles, I bet you'd come out of that year a better runner than if I dropped you on the same island with a running coach, a weight coach, a P/T, and a nutritionist.

Personally, I ran best when I had guys sharing the reps with me. I could push a lot harder on the 9th 600m or the 8th 1000m or whatever. My coaches were good but our workouts weren't exactly rocket science.

Ideally, you should have both.

I had a national champion for coach and a lot of teammates getting me through those 12 x 1 mile repeats on cc course at 85-90% of goal race pace w/3 min recovery. And many other ridiculous workouts that without a journal I wouldnt believe I actually did them. Without those teammates, I would have certainly dropped off on the last 4 miles. What I learned is that I was better than I thought I was and it gave me great confidence going into the regional cc meet. I was an 800-1500 guy but knew cc was a big part of my development. I didnt need the teammates so much during the track season but it was nice to have one or two to work with on occassion.

I’ve been training alone for years and I got better once I didn’t have to worry about others

Stop looking for one factor explanations to your problems.

Stop looking for one factor solutions to fix them.

Keep in mind Kyle's target audience. He's building a brand, and doesn't have believe half of what he says. It's about crafting a sellable image for his product, and this "believe in yourself" stuff sells.

Having to choose one, training partners will always be more beneficial than a "good coach". Everyone wanted emulate the training groups of Kenya back in the day, and ll the groups that have grown over the years have had more of an impact then the coachs.

The people that have the biggest issue with this statement are coaches that think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Kipchoge would likely agree with Merber. There’s a reason he spends months away from his family to live and train with dozens of other world class runners. Those guys push him to train. That doesn’t necessarily mean train fast. Having a group of of guys to do an easy 10 when your beat from a previous days session is just as important as guys pushing you through hard quarters. Culture in sports is extremely important. Now a coach can help or ruin culture but the “group” is incredibly important. The X’s and O’s of running are very simple. Coaches that understand group psychology is just as important as knowing exercise physiology. East Africans get this and is part of why they’re so successful.

Chavez (who has no insight on the sport) and Merber (who should have some at least) are making it more clear every day that they are just Take Machines trying to drum up business and are not serious about analyzing the sport. What they is little more than PR that inept organizations like USATF, World Athletics, shoe companies, et al should be doing themselves.

I agree with the part about Ritzenhein's dedication to his group, but this line is a Gladwell-esque take from the depths of your rectum. Positive vibes and good methodology are both required for optimal performances. If you sincerely believe Klecker would've run 12:54 doing early 20th century Wetmore training (5:50 18-20 milers up on Mags then some 3-2-1s to get the legs turning over) but in the setting of a supportive group, you should partner with Gwyneth Paltrow and sell some Merber duck butter candles or something. You are being fatuous.

It's a model that works a la Bayless and SAS. They're apparently serious about having access and getting advertisers to open up their wallets, that's the modern media age at work. They're just better at it than the LRC bunch judging from the ads on this site. However, it could all be for naught without the safety net of a trust fund. Mind you, I'm not a fan of Citius, either.