Sam Ruthe, a 16 year old from New Zealand, ran a 3:53.83 mile on a windy day and 3:48.88 the very next week at his first indoor race. The fastest in the world under 18 and already fastest New Zealander in the mile. The time itself is mind-boggling and causes an existential crisis, but what’s crazier to me is his training. His dad said in the interview that he only runs 80-90km (50-56 mile) per week and never does doubles. When Jakob dominated the field as a teen or Kiptum ran crazy marathons back-to-back-to-back despite his young age, it kinda made sense because they’d been training like a machine since they were like 12 or something. They put in insane time and effort on top of their phenomenal talent and environment. But this Kiwi kid right here trains like a normal high schooler and is crushing the aerobic game (he also ran his first 5k in 13:40 about a month ago while focusing on the 800m-mile). There are literally tons of high school or collegiate runners all around the world who run way more than he does and never touch a 4:00 mile, let alone 3:50.
Because mileage is not the only thing , if it was all those fat 'ultra running weekend warriors' would be world class. It is the qualitry of what you do. Some just have the ability to do that quality plus mileage, thus blurring the cause
Mileage is just a way to make up for some decreased quality for the untalented. True worldbeaters will be doing both high mileage and a ton of speed/quality work. Their will be nothing we mere mortals can do to equal the speed of their quality work or the amount of it while staying healthy. We can match their mileage, but that only goes so far.
Some day some phenom will run like 3:45 mile on 25ish miles per week, all speedwork.
You don't get to speak for Ovett and Coe. You, on the others hand, are clearly having an exiatencial crisis, as you tall poppy syndrome shows.
You don't find it interesting that a child is now running the same times those former world record holders were achieving in their prime - and he's doing it on far less training?
Super spikes, bi carb, Nomio, nutrition, recovery devices probably an altitude tent
I don’t understand why posts on Sam Ruthe get deleted but then this guy gets to make any post he wants on Phanuel Koech.
Why do the same brigade posters constantly say guys like Ruthe and Cooper look “old” but then turn around and tell us a guy who is an obvious liar about his age, Koech, is a kid? Puh-leez!
.....
So WHEN DID not looking a certain age CERTIFY that they aren't actually said age?
His longest training run is reportedly no further than 10 miles. So what is the "hard training" for a conditioning base? Or doesn't he bother with that?
He's 16. He doesn't need an adult training load because.... well because he's 16.
And because he's 16, he has adapted more quickly to the training he has been doing. That is training appropriate to a 16 year old.
Your obsessive feelings of insignificance can't be allayed by posting incessantly.
What does it mean that because he's 16 he "doesn't need an adult training load"? Doesn't need it or can't achieve it? The latter may be true but the former is a nonsense because it effectively says a 16 year old can perform to an adult level on inferior training - in which case there is no gain in adulthood. The facts are that a 16 year old, who is yet to fully mature, doesn't have the physical capacity of an adult. So if they aren't yet able to train to an adult level they should not be able to perform to an adult level. If they can, it invites some very interesting questions.
You won't be the only one having an existential crisis. Ovett and Coe will be. They both ran 3:48 when they were breaking the world record, but not on schoolboy training and recovering from jet lag.
Neither of us can speak for Ovett and Coe but both John Walker and Rod Dixon have been nothing but complimentary in their comments about Ruthe.
Have they explained why an athlete who is still only a legal child is faster than they were on far less training? It would be interesting to know.
And? It's all about talent. Training barely matters when it comes to becoming elite. If your ceiling is subelite, you can train all you want and never be elite.
Also, if your ceiling is truly elite, you can train haphazardly and be the top of your country.
All top elites are talented. They margins between them are very small. That is why training matters. No one at that level gets away with "haphazard".
Sam Ruthe, a 16 year old from New Zealand, ran a 3:53.83 mile on a windy day and 3:48.88 the very next week at his first indoor race. The fastest in the world under 18 and already fastest New Zealander in the mile. The time itself is mind-boggling and causes an existential crisis, but what’s crazier to me is his training. His dad said in the interview that he only runs 80-90km (50-56 mile) per week and never does doubles. When Jakob dominated the field as a teen or Kiptum ran crazy marathons back-to-back-to-back despite his young age, it kinda made sense because they’d been training like a machine since they were like 12 or something. They put in insane time and effort on top of their phenomenal talent and environment. But this Kiwi kid right here trains like a normal high schooler and is crushing the aerobic game (he also ran his first 5k in 13:40 about a month ago while focusing on the 800m-mile). There are literally tons of high school or collegiate runners all around the world who run way more than he does and never touch a 4:00 mile, let alone 3:50.
Because mileage is not the only thing , if it was all those fat 'ultra running weekend warriors' would be world class. It is the qualitry of what you do. Some just have the ability to do that quality plus mileage, thus blurring the cause
What exactly does it mean to say miles are "quality"? How is longer mileage of lower "quality"? Are you simply saying if he runs fewer miles he runs them faster? How is that higher quality for achieving endurance? Arthur would like to know.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
Mileage is just a way to make up for some decreased quality for the untalented. True worldbeaters will be doing both high mileage and a ton of speed/quality work. Their will be nothing we mere mortals can do to equal the speed of their quality work or the amount of it while staying healthy. We can match their mileage, but that only goes so far.
Some day some phenom will run like 3:45 mile on 25ish miles per week, all speedwork.
Then you are simply proposing runners go back to Bannister's training.
You don't find it interesting that a child is now running the same times those former world record holders were achieving in their prime - and he's doing it on far less training?
Super spikes, bi carb, Nomio, nutrition, recovery devices probably an altitude tent
They may make a difference at the margins - but, no.
He's 16. He doesn't need an adult training load because.... well because he's 16.
And because he's 16, he has adapted more quickly to the training he has been doing. That is training appropriate to a 16 year old.
Your obsessive feelings of insignificance can't be allayed by posting incessantly.
What does it mean that because he's 16 he "doesn't need an adult training load"? Doesn't need it or can't achieve it? The latter may be true but the former is a nonsense because it effectively says a 16 year old can perform to an adult level on inferior training - in which case there is no gain in adulthood. The facts are that a 16 year old, who is yet to fully mature, doesn't have the physical capacity of an adult. So if they aren't yet able to train to an adult level they should not be able to perform to an adult level. If they can, it invites some very interesting questions.
It means that your feelings of insignificance can't be allayed by posting incessantly.
What does it mean that because he's 16 he "doesn't need an adult training load"? Doesn't need it or can't achieve it? The latter may be true but the former is a nonsense because it effectively says a 16 year old can perform to an adult level on inferior training - in which case there is no gain in adulthood. The facts are that a 16 year old, who is yet to fully mature, doesn't have the physical capacity of an adult. So if they aren't yet able to train to an adult level they should not be able to perform to an adult level. If they can, it invites some very interesting questions.
It means that your feelings of insignificance can't be allayed by posting incessantly.
The only feelings of insignificance will be with you try-hards who can't match a child who does about half of your training. I'm not competing with him or anyone - so, am I bothered? Nah - not bovvered.
It means that your feelings of insignificance can't be allayed by posting incessantly.
The only feelings of insignificance will be with you try-hards who can't match a child who does about half of your training. I'm not competing with him or anyone - so, am I bothered? Nah - not bovvered.
But at least I understand that my feelings of insignificance can't be allayed by incessant posting because I accept the reality that there have been teenage phenomenon runners for over 50 years. Why can't you?