Exactly. Like you, I ran loads and loads of miles when I was younger and don't regret it for a second. I wanted to see what would happen. But if I'd had a life that didn't allow for that sort of commitment I'd have drawn inspiration from the sorts of athletes ghost mentions here rather than giving up the sport.
2 words...Jim Spivey. Search the threads for his posts regarding his training philosophy, workouts. He was still running PR's at age 36 or 38. His mileage was consistently in 50-60 per week, and this included a long run of 90 minutes and morning runs 3 or 4 times per week. He could run 2830 min 10ks off of this.
To Boom:
I don't know many 14:00 - 15:00-16:00-17:00 5k runners who trained like olympians. I've only met a few who have put together some years of 90-130 miles a week to "only" have run 14:00 - 15:00+ for 5k and 31:00-32:00 10Ks.
Most of the runners that I know have trained once a day, running mileage in the range of 50-65 miles consistenly for years and yet have only been able to produce marks of high 14's to low 16's.
If ghost wants to show or prove that with moderate training we can come very close to our top potential, then why doesn't he post a real training schedules or training logs of local road runners who have improved from 20:00 5Ks to 15:00-14:00 5Ks and from 40:00 10Ks to 32:00-30:00 10Ks?
If Ghost's motivation is to help the average runner then why doesn't he talk or discusses the training that works for the average runner with family obligations and work instead of talking about Nortpoth, who certainly wasn't your average runner because he was much more talentend than most who post in here.
Nortpoth did what he did because he was very talented. Ghost seems to ignore that fact but maybe I am wrong.
>> don't know many 14:00 - 15:00-16:00-17:00 5k runners who trained like olympians. I've only met a few who have put together some years of 90-130 miles a week to "only" have run 14:00 - 15:00+ for 5k and 31:00-32:00 10Ks.
You obviously never trained on a average D1 team.
Word, yo. wrote:
>> don't know many 14:00 - 15:00-16:00-17:00 5k runners who trained like olympians. I've only met a few who have put together some years of 90-130 miles a week to "only" have run 14:00 - 15:00+ for 5k and 31:00-32:00 10Ks.
You obviously never trained on a average D1 team.
I highly doubt there are may D1 colleges and Universities in the United States who have annual averages in the range of 90-130 miles per week.
If I am wrong, provide the proof with real numbers please.
Does anyone have any links to good pictures of Norpoth? I've tried googling but haven't found any pics that show him very well. The best is one of him finishing 2nd to Schul in the 64 Olympics but even that is pretty small and hard to really make much of.
I want to see exactly what his body build and stride looked like. I'm 6'1.5" and weigh between 135-140 lbs. An old Hungarian dude said I looked and ran like him, I didn't really think much about it at the time(barely knew who Norpoth was) but this thread intrigued me.
you guys... "herewego again"
is just hammering those slow pitches you're throwing at him... you need to start throwing some hard inside fast stuff...
o.k carry on
I enjoy what ghost puts here. I'd rather read about Norpoth or the Holt brothers than some local road racer that I've never heard of. A guy getting very modest success of off modest training is not nearly as interesting to me as a guy getting tremendous success off of modest training.
Doug Padilla 60-70mpw
Jim Spivey 50-70mpw
Jose Regalo 1h a day
Shalane Flanagan 70mpw
Henry Marsh 30-50mpw
Bernard Lagat 60-70mpw
Noah Ngeny 50mpw
..
and low mileage=modest training???They go to the edge but by pushing the intensity instead of the volume.
Actually I ran basically the same stuff as many National level guys for several years but was only a 16, 33, 2.40 guy.
Plenty of the guys in the training groups I frequented ran 140-180kms per week for years but never made it past good club level. That's fine when you are a 20 something and single but, at some stage you are gonna have to look at the value of it. If you have been cranking out that stuff for 5 years and you are only running 30mins for 10km or 2.20 for a marathon, then (in Australia at least)you aren't gonna earn a brass razoo. Once you are married with kids, mortgage etc. it might be time to back off and find a less demanding approach.
Alright mopak, I got your message. You just might not possess the talent to be a runner. Granted, your times are allright, but nothing spectacular.
Having said that, what times are you running now of off your limited training? If you are faster than before when you ran 140-180km/w than you made a good choice. If you are slowlier, then you are just confirming my words- you do not possess any real talent for running. It happens.
Jim Spivey, 28:30? don't remember him ever running a 10k.
mopak, isn't part of the reason you ran so much is that you predominantly socialized with the running/running club crowd; ergo, the bulk of your identity revolves around running. That 2 hour Sunday run was as much about socializing as it was about mileage. That is why it can be so difficult to quit running; because all your friends do it. Later, you discover game/women so that your social life broadens. A fair assessment?
coach kritter wrote:
Jim Spivey, 28:30? don't remember him ever running a 10k.
10k road.
...q...,I'm not sure I understand your point.
No, I had no real talent. I had a lot of fun and great experiences finding out just how little I had. But by the time I was late 20s it occurred to me that it was time to move on. I still wanted to run competitively but had other things becoming more important to me. Basically cutting the volume in 1/2 cost me about a minute and a half over 10kms. I could still keep up with most of the guys in training, could still race and not look like a goose -well not anymore so than I normally did!
I think this is a common scenario even for far more talented runners. They bust a gut for years and don't make it to the top level. They love the running scene and racing but know they have to cut back to balance other priorities. They don't expect to be as good as before, but want to still be as good as they can within the restraints of the lifestyle choices.
Reality is that this is basically the choice most runners make. Be as good as you can without prioritising running above other things you believe are more important.
These days I'm just an old fart who still enjoys the sport after 30 plus years of it.
desert rodent, yes. As I said above I have been running for more than 30 years. Why quit just because you are not as fast as you were, or as fast as you wish you were?
My reason for enjoying these type of threads is because I can see how someone has found success while training at a volume and frequency I can relate to in my present circumstances.
I think sometimes people find it insulting that Norpoth etc. could run fast without doing the "right" training.
But often there is more to learn from those whose ideas and practises differ or contradict our own.
So perhaps those who crack the shits about Ghost's posts should just read through them more closely and see if there is anything to learn.
Born with talent