Agreed here. Running a 1:59 (or even a 2:01) is going to invite doping accusations anyway. Better to have an out-of-the-ordinary training program to point to as opposed to shrugging and saying you did the same, just better.
Remember Lance's coach claiming his superior performance was due to his high-cadence style.
Do you remember the Nike commercial Armstrong did before everything hit the fan? There were shots of him on his bike in traffic, on deserted roads, in the rain, etc. with a voice over saying, "People as what I'm on. I'm on the bike six hours a day."
To this day, Jarmila Kratochvilova's defense is along the line of "Look into my training diaries; no one trains like I did anymore, why do you expect the same results?"
The only part I don't really believe is the 30 to 40 long run on Thursday. I can understand he does a long run but I don't buy that he runs it at 2:58 min/km, which would be 2:06 marathon pace.
Maybe he does 30k at that pace, or (more likely) it is a progression run ending at 2:06 marathon pace.
But 30-40k at 2:06 marathon pace ? No.
.
.
BTW what is the "soft trout" in the afternoon on Saturday? Something got lost in translation I suppose.
.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
That's a reasonable point but I'm going to go the other way and say that if I was he or his coach, agent, or whatever, I absolutely would share this plan, doping or not because when the doping accusations crop up I would point to this schedule and say it's the phenomenal training that does it and not PEDs. Yes, many people will look at this schedule and say you couldn't do this for any time period without some sort of PED use, but in the 60s and 70s there were guys who did even more than is on this schedule and did it for extended periods.
Agreed here. Running a 1:59 (or even a 2:01) is going to invite doping accusations anyway. Better to have an out-of-the-ordinary training program to point to as opposed to shrugging and saying you did the same, just better.
Remember Lance's coach claiming his superior performance was due to his high-cadence style.
Most likely Lance’s superior performance was due to his high-cadence style, or some other factors, but not doping.
Of course he doped, and was able to perform better because of it. He was also a dick in the manner he vehemently lied to us all. But, every single rider in that peloton was doping, some more than him. So there was no competitive advantage over his competitors. Comparing Kiptum racing the clock, to Armstrong racing others(on an even playing field) isn’t apples to apples.
Every other endurance sport (>1hr) sees occasional training beyond the distance of the event. Cycling, open water swimming, triathlon, CC skiing, (you could even say things like tennis, soccer, rowing) all regularly do training longer than their event.
For beginners wanting to finish a marathon the 'long run' is rightly limited to a fraction of the race. But why should this hold for elites? Surely for a top 1% runner the fatigue from a 30 mile run isn't so great as to offset the gain? That's less than 3h at a comfortable training pace. Every other endurance sport has landed on long distance sessions as an ideal way to build base fitness. It's strange that running has landed on such relatively short distances as a maximum.
Not only the the maximums for individual runs, but also the global training time. Most other endurance sports land on 25-35h/week. If Kiptum is doing 270k/week at a 4.5m/k that's barely 20h. A ton of volume for a runner but still lower than every other endurance sport.
Maybe the supershoes will change this phenomenon by reducing the fatigue from any given run. Maybe Kiptum is the first to make such 'over-distance' training work at a high level. Idk, but interested to see.
The other endurance sports are non-impact, or have inherent recovery intervals (cycling downhill), or allow easy refreshment during training (taking a drink to a bike ride).
I get that, it just doesn't equate to me how most elite runners are in the 15h/w range when every other endurance sport is basically double that. There's a debate possible about cross training (is it so deleterious to running output that i cancels out any fitness gains). There's also the new shoes that seem to clearly reduce impact fatigue.
As far as recovery intervals that can easily be built in, ditto for hydration and fueling. It strikes me as a "this is how we've always done it" mindset.
Maybe no one else today is training that much without PEDs, but there have been people in the past who did that sort of mileage. Shorter was doing it before Munich, don't know about Montreal, Dave Bedford did it. Fullerton State had a bunch of guys in the early to mid 70s doing it.
This is true and I've been saying it for years. It seems that American coaches like more complicated workouts with less mileage.
Look at all the easy miles he does and look at how simple the workouts are.
I often think that an American "mindset" is to justify things by complicating them.
Even at my level I had friends in the 1970's/80's who were running mega miles and running sub 30 for 10K and equivalent times for longer distances (15K-20K) and the marathon.
And that was in late 1900's shoe technology.
I could do quite a rant here but will try not to. In my work life I worked as a psychotherapist and as a psychology prof. One of the things I came across in my travels was research showing that given the choice between a simple explanation for something and a complicated one people will overwhelmingly choose the complicated one, even when the simple explanation explains the phenomenon very adequately. Ocham's Razor is evidently not as sharp as it could be for a lot of folks.
This certainly applies to running. I once was talking with Peter Snell about the value of those complicated workouts that so many coaches love. Peter immediately replied, "Their only value is that they allow coaches to justify their own existences." And just to complete my moment of name dropping, I once passed that line of Peter's to Ron Clarke who replied, "I love what Peter said."
The other endurance sports are non-impact, or have inherent recovery intervals (cycling downhill), or allow easy refreshment during training (taking a drink to a bike ride).
I get that, it just doesn't equate to me how most elite runners are in the 15h/w range when every other endurance sport is basically double that. There's a debate possible about cross training (is it so deleterious to running output that i cancels out any fitness gains). There's also the new shoes that seem to clearly reduce impact fatigue.
As far as recovery intervals that can easily be built in, ditto for hydration and fueling. It strikes me as a "this is how we've always done it" mindset.
Agree that it just might be that Kiptum is able to survive and thrive doing high volume due to a number of reasons. Some of these were not available in the past and he has been able to successfully put them all together now like no one else.
-Youth. At only 24 years old recovery, adaptation, almost everything is easier. Few preconceived notions and less fear. Confidence. Why not attitude.
-Chasing a high bar that is quickly moving higher. Worlds fastest marathon was 2:05 when he was born. 2:03 when he first became a more serious runner. He knows a man ran a marathon in under 2:00. Unlike 1969-1981 and 1988-1998 during which the marathon record did not change, he knows the record has been broken much more regularly in the past 20 years.
-Depth at the top. He can see that 100 different men ran a marathon in 2:06:55 or faster in 2023. He can see that 22 of the fastest 50 marathoners in 2023 are from Kenya like he is.
-Supershoes. Faster training pace at same effort equals more overall volume at same effort. Less impact fatigue. Faster recovery.
-Pacing in training. Has other fast runners to pace him. May be paced by people on bicycles. Helps keep training pace higher.
-He is the focus. Seems to train mostly alone. Not restricted or limited by others. Is not in a group following some other big dog leader. It all revolves around him. He sets the limits.
-Support during training. May have vehicles accompanying him during long runs, providing encouragement, feedback, fluids, nutrition, added safety on roads. Makes long training runs easier/faster.
-Sponsorship and rewards. Unprecedented sponsorship, appearance fees, prize money now. Everything is covered and has a coach and agent to negotiate/plan all of it. Simple lifestyle means the $ goes a long way.
-Fluids/nutrition. We know more now than ever before. There are so many energy drinks, gels and other products out there now that did not exist before. Using these during training.
-There is no "Wall". Has done enough training volume, and long runs near marathon pace, uses fluids/energy so that there is no "Wall" for him. May have never encountered it or heard about it.
-Focused spartan lifestyle. Away from family and distractions. Run, eat, sleep, repeat. Has a home base and is not traveling to altitude camps, warm weather camps, tracks.
-Rest. You only improve and adapt when resting. His lifestyle allows him to rest. He gets a higher volume of rest than others.
-Marathon focus. Not running World XC, trying to make the team in the 10k too, chasing prize money in shorter races.
-Simple training plan. Just run. Run a lot. Quickly in big chunks. Just. Run.
-Altitude. Born, grew up, lives, trains at altitude.
-Talent/genetics. He has it, others not so much.
-Chasing a high bar that is quickly moving higher. Worlds fastest marathon was 2:05 when he was born. 2:03 when he first became a more serious runner. He knows a man ran a marathon in under 2:00. Unlike 1969-1981 and 1988-1998 during which the marathon record did not change.
Do you remember the Nike commercial Armstrong did before everything hit the fan? There were shots of him on his bike in traffic, on deserted roads, in the rain, etc. with a voice over saying, "People as what I'm on. I'm on the bike six hours a day."
To this day, Jarmila Kratochvilova's defense is along the line of "Look into my training diaries; no one trains like I did anymore, why do you expect the same results?"
If can train like the Kenyans, you can run like the Kenyans. True statement, no exaggeration. Also applies to Cold War Eastern European countries.
HRE, you have a ton of knowledge about the runners of yore and I respect that a lot. But were guys then really doing 30-40k at close to marathon pace plus two other quality days on a weekly basis and still hitting mileage like this? I don’t doubt those guys trained hard and ran mega mileage, but if this Kiptum schedule was to be true (it probably isn’t) it would be the combination of both volume and intensity that makes it so ridiculous.
Did anyone do exactly what's presented here? Probably not. Did anyone do things that could seem comparable in terms of both volume and intensity? Definitely. Shorter and Jack Bacheler were doing that kind of mileage in Vail before Munich with intervals two or three times a week. Derek Clayton was doing that kind of mileage with no intervals but at really fast paces. He and Ron Clarke usually did an 18 mile run on Thursdays that dropped everyone who started with them fairly early in the run. "Everyone" here included guys who were Olympians. On Sundays Clayton usually ran a fairly relaxed 17 miles in the morning with Ron and his group and then in the afternoon, according to Ron, Clayton did a 20-25 mile run at a much faster pace than in the morning run. Did a lot of guys do this sort of thing? Heavens no! But a handful did.
HRE
Interesting you reference of these guys along with Bedford their training volumes and intensity were as intense as Zatopek's maybe more so.
SJ Look at Clayton"s training Kiptum's is not that far off.
This is true and I've been saying it for years. It seems that American coaches like more complicated workouts with less mileage.
Look at all the easy miles he does and look at how simple the workouts are.
I often think that an American "mindset" is to justify things by complicating them.
Even at my level I had friends in the 1970's/80's who were running mega miles and running sub 30 for 10K and equivalent times for longer distances (15K-20K) and the marathon.
And that was in late 1900's shoe technology.
I could do quite a rant here but will try not to. In my work life I worked as a psychotherapist and as a psychology prof. One of the things I came across in my travels was research showing that given the choice between a simple explanation for something and a complicated one people will overwhelmingly choose the complicated one, even when the simple explanation explains the phenomenon very adequately. Ocham's Razor is evidently not as sharp as it could be for a lot of folks.
This certainly applies to running. I once was talking with Peter Snell about the value of those complicated workouts that so many coaches love. Peter immediately replied, "Their only value is that they allow coaches to justify their own existences." And just to complete my moment of name dropping, I once passed that line of Peter's to Ron Clarke who replied, "I love what Peter said."
You said that so much better than I did and you had concrete proof.
These coaches think they have to justify their existence.
As an example- I know so many hobby joggers who pay $60-$80 a month to have someone who took some course online and got a certificate.
The workouts are so involved and complicated I don't know how they actually remember them.
If I ever took money from someone for coaching, I wouldn't expect to get paid until after they achieved positive results from my workouts.
Why American coaches don't look at what the Kenyans and Ethiopians are doing is beyond me. Keep It Simple Stupid.
When I started noticing that online coaching was becoming a thing that you could make money by doing I thought about having a go at it. On the "do it" side, I looked at biographies of a lot of people doing it and saw they hadn't been around the sport nearly as long or as extensively as I'd been and had slower times than me, (not that I think faster times and better coaching ability correlate perfectly). Obviously some of them had been around for as long or longer than I had.
Then I went to the "don't do it" side. A big argument for me was that if I really made online coaching a real business, i.e., one that paid for the groceries and the running shoes, I would need to measure what I thought a runner should do against what I thought s/he would be willing to do because if I tried to get them to do too much that they didn't want to do I could lose them and the money they paid. The other "don't do it" argument that came to me was that I have no entrepreneurial sense at all and would never really get a business up and running.
So I let go of the idea. I have coached people now and again, most who somehow tracked me down on the internet, sometimes from people who knew of me from here in the days when you could leave a link to your e mail, and a couple who are local and knew someone who referred them to me. But I've never asked for money. Now and again someone has given me a gift card and I've always appreciated it.
But whatever I did with anyone, I always kept things simple, try to get them to run enough miles, do some hill reps if they have hills nearby, do some simple interval sessions, usually reps of the same distance and recoveries, a time trial here and there. It's all tried and true stuff, the kind of things that worked for the big names from "my" era as well as loads of serious local runners. Maybe it wouldn't work for Kiptum or Kipchoge but it will worked just fine for Lydiard's guys, for Squire's guys, and it will work just fine for someone looking to qualify for Boston or do well in their age groups and it's something I can understand and evaluate. I'm not really smart enough to think up the kinds of sessions I read about now.
There was another thread here a few weeks back where the subject of "scientific" training came up. I don't recall what the thread was or how it got to that subject. But I said that as far as I could tell, the demise of western running began about the same time western runners became fascinated by science.
Someone replied by mentioning the Ingebrigstens and the success they've had by incorporating a lot of science into their training. It was a good point but my answer was that yes, here and there you can find someone who uses a lot of physiology to create their training but there are not nearly enough success stories from them to offset the overall competitive demise of western running. I think my closing sentence was "the fastest runners on earth pay almost no attention to science."
I really don't understand why we aren't doing the same. But I kind of suspect it's because as Snell told me, a lot of coaches need to sell themselves to runners and athletic directors and the simple kinds of sessions most of us did forty or so years ago just don't seem sophisticated or flashy enough anymore.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.