Hey Pete Gilmore/BroJos (re: front page quote)

h4 wrote:

Geb worked 2 years on his form since he felt his track form did not carry over to marathoning. It took him (of course along with his always hard training) from a sub2:06 guy to a sub2:04 guy. People shouldn't have so much tunnel vision with "just do more miles" it's not as easy as it sounds and doesn't apply to everyone.

WHAT THE F*** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

"Gebrselassie has attempted to alter his running style slightly, striking the ground with his midfoot instead of his forefoot, to prevent his calves and Achilles' tendons from growing tired or injured. But ''it is a work in progress,'' said Jos Hermens, Gebrselassie's manager."

''That's my only little concern,'' Hermens said.

Pete Gilmore is not an "old timer". He ran his first Olympic Trials in 2004.

I experimented and tested everything twice. It all came back to one thing: Running...Lots of it. It got me some 2:15's.

I'm glad a lot of you "New Age" goons are successfully making a nice profit on the next new thing until your followers realize the correctness of Gilmore's statement, but the truth will purge your crap from the sport eventually and you can take your crap somewhere else: Maybe the Triathlon market (for awhile).

crushman wrote:

Pete Gilmore is not an "old timer". He ran his first Olympic Trials in 2004.

I experimented and tested everything twice. It all came back to one thing: Running...Lots of it. It got me some 2:15's.

I'm glad a lot of you "New Age" goons are successfully making a nice profit on the next new thing until your followers realize the correctness of Gilmore's statement, but the truth will purge your crap from the sport eventually and you can take your crap somewhere else: Maybe the Triathlon market (for awhile).

RIGHT ON! Gimore just showed us what a fool he is!!!!!!

Of course the "little things" do matter, especially when you're pushing your limits. But they are no substitute for putting in the miles, and that's the thrust of the quote.

It's like cyclists who try to "buy watts" by trimming off a few grams from their equipment. They're known as "weight weenies." Obviously riders will accelerate better and climb long, tough hills better on 17-lb. bikes than they will on 32-lb. bikes ... but, see, Andy Schleck would still clobber me on the Tourmalet if he was riding a bike that could double as an anchor for an ocean liner and I was riding a 17-pounder with a granny chain ring for those tough pitches. Why? Because he's an infinitely better rider who can produce nearly twice my watts per kilogram. Duh. Weight weenies are the kind of FREDs that keep hoping a newer helmet plus latex tubes plus clipless pedals plus a lighter water bottle cage will somehow turn 250 watts into 400 watts without their having to ride more than the 5 hours per week they do currently. Those things might buy them about 10 watts, but in the end, it hasn't made them any fitter. And for virtually every one of these wannabes, training more to become fitter (and simultaneously achieving the ideal weight) would garner more watts than tinkering with equipment ever would. Plus, the guys who ride 20 hours per week are probably already using the better equipment anyway, so the 5-hour-per-week weight weenies won't really move very far up the pecking order by purchasing a possible 10 watts.

Does this mean no attention should be paid to aspects other than physical training? False. Good equipment and a lifestyle conducive to serious training can have a significant impact. For example, a light bike (or easier gearing) will often help somebody train more in hilly terrain without risk to knees, quads or IT bands, allowing the rider to get in better shape. In running, the proper fit of shoes, good mechanics, touching on top-end speed from time to time, decent eating/sleeping/hydration habits, etc. will often make the difference in taking training to the next level. But that next level involves that extra training and (if it's to be done drug-free) it can't be cheated. That d!#k ain't gonna suck itself, people. You've got to put in the miles.

Not so fast.... wrote:

Kevin Hanson wrote:

Great quote of the day. I could not agree more. Pete nailed it.

He sure did.

And mileage alone isn't his point. Ever see the plethora of threads on this site where people talk about how eating "healthy" and "organic" foods make you faster? It's all nonsense and has never been proven to do a damn thing. Run, run and then run more and everything else pretty much takes care of itself.

You're right. Who needs to eat healthy? Feeding your body right is a myth. Your body can take anything you give it and it will treat it all the same and give you just the same amount of energy. Be it cheeseburgers, salad, rat poison... oh, wait.

Seriously, though, what kind of "proof" do you need to eat healthy? A bunch of lab tests that show such and such a food has such and such an effect? That doesn't say a damn thing about diet, and it would be impossible to test the plethora of different diets a person can use and how it affects running performance. If you run just the same one way as you do another, chances are you have the wrong idea of eating healthy. When I give my body a chance to cleanse itself and eat only healthy, cleansing foods, I am rewarded with energy and feeling good. How can you say the fuel you use makes no difference? It's intuitive and should be obvious to you that you need to feed your body right so that it runs at full capacity. The problem is that almost everyone feeds their bodies in a pretty harmful way and thinks that the way they feel is the way they are going to feel no matter what. It's simply not true. "Organic" doesn't mean a thing, it's what you actually eat that makes the difference. Organic is usually better, but if you're eating a few organic things with a host of other unhealthy foods, your results aren't going to change much.

If I remember correctly billy ran a race against an old roommate of his named burfoot (Sounds familar). He ran the race in torn khakis and an old t shirt with holes everywhere. Soon after quiting smoking. Now thats a real trooper.

He sure did.

And mileage alone isn't his point. Ever see the plethora of threads on this site where people talk about how eating "healthy" and "organic" foods make you faster? It's all nonsense and has never been proven to do a damn thing. Run, run and then run more and everything else pretty much takes care of itself.[/quote]

the way that you imply that there is really no need to pay attention to anything but your actual running is contrary to what the truly great runners do. The truly great runners are guys that run 2:04, 26:30, etc.

Lawrie Whitty, Australian 2:14 marathoner who beat Deek to win the 82 Aussie XC Champs-described as having the form of a dying duck. But boy one hell of a gutsy runner.

Nice blog Peter. Ditto what Jason Mayeroff commented on this thread- If I run higher mileage with minmum emphasis on hard workouts there's less of a chance in getting injured. Further when I ran my pr (2:33) years ago it was done off consistent 90-100 mile weeks.

Conversely when I lost the plot for 10 years and ran like a dog, that perod coincided with more modest mileage and harder sessions.

I'm now trying to replicate the training I did when I ran my best times and I'm confident of running a marathon pr even though I'm in my early 40s.Although it may take a couple of years to do so.

When you have a moment please could you post some of your training that led to your marathon pr? Thanks

And how the hell can you train for a marathon just 3 times a week???

Yes, I agree. High mileage gives you that much more time to work on your mechanics.

In running, you have Economy, Vo2max, Anaerobic Threshold and Aerobic Threshold and I put Economy first.

Saying to only focus on the physiological adaptations of running and not THE MOVEMENT THAT IS RUNNING is not working for too many people to continue saying that by just running, your form will get better. You can take a square stone, roll it for a long enough period of time and yes, the corners will round off, but it will crack in half long before it becomes a perfect circle.

We spend months upon months before the age of 2 years old learning how to move in a bipedal manner. That is a serious amount of time dedicated to learning how to move. It is a skill. We stop running and then try to pick it up later and we have lost the skill. If you compare the mechanics of any 20 month old child on any continent to another, you will see little deviation from one to the other. If you compare these children's mechanics to the best African runners, you would still see little deviation because the elite African runners reinforced the mechanics and the skill they learned at a young age. If we compared these children's mechanics to American runners, we would see a huge deviation in the way they move vs. the way we move and this is the underlying difference in performance between African and American runners.

Incidental point but:A few years ago I was waiting tables at a restaurant that was a major race sponsor for an event that brought over a few Africans. Race director knew me, so I waited on the group of about 5 guys and 5 women a couple times that week. That said, I was amazed to the table of guys eating Buffalo Chicken pizza and fruit smoothies with tons of whipped cream the day before the race. Earlier in the weak they'd been doing pastas and salads with steak, and usually asking for additional oil to go with the crappy fat free salad dressing. The women were eating less and generally less starches. I'm only telling this because 1. it was interesting to see what these guys/women actually ate while preparing for a race 2. it was interesting to see how it didn't/didn't conform to what one would expect. None of them liked the processed fat free dressings...but the guys had no problem with putting down giant buffalo chicken pizzas. They were ordering with the help of an interpreter, but it seemed clear that they weren't subscribing to some sort of nutrition "plan" and were eating what they wanted. Maybe one fattier meal, but for the most part...balanced stuff that made sense, including going for real fat. I'm only mentioning this because I honestly don't think the majority of Africans would look at food in the same way as North Americans. The culture is different; and I would imagine they have a much better concept of "food for fuel" by NOT dwelling on what every expert says than your typical weekend warrior.

it's just a bunch of has-beens trying to inflate their achievements with 'uphill both ways in the snow' kinds of stories. LRC merely takes anything these guys say insofar as it verifies what they believe

in 20 years people will tell stories about how geb drank gasoline to stay hydrated, ate only what he could catch with his bare hands, smoked a pack a day, and ran 200 mpw

I have no doubt that what you witnessed was true. On the other hand, it's not like ugali, maize, and goat's milk is offered on your typical American menu. And high-mileage Africans generally don't have career longevity, though there are notable exceptions.

Speaking of Ahmed Salah, the Djibouti marathoner who medaled at the Olympics and World Championships, I remember reading somewhere that he ran up to 50k a day sometimes. So, there are no shortcuts, no doubt about it. What's interesting is that, in looking at his bio, with the possible exception of 1988 when he got the bronze and ran his 2:07:07 at Rotterdam, he generally only ran one marathon per year until later in his career. But the bio may be incomplete. If it's not, I think there's a lesson there as well.

Sorry, I think you are the IDIOT. Most people who are not familiar with african style training neglect to notice they do tons of strides, drills, and stretching. The are truly full-time athletes. So to think that we can get away with not doing them (for athletes who don't have good form) is not really realistic.

Go and talk to people who have lived or trained over in Africa (either Ethiopia or Kenya) and on top of doing just mind boggling training they also do a lot more drills and strides. Not weightroom stuff, just things that can be done easily before and after runs.

The reason that many of the runners don't last long is that after they 'make it' they can go back to Kenya or Ethiopia and start a life. I have a lot of Kenyan and Ethiopian friends, for some running is a quick way to gain access to funds to start a business, farm, etc. If you didn't have access to bank funds or education like in a western world, this is a way to do it. I guess I am really shocked at how so many have such poor insight into the motivation of many of these runners. If you didn't have a 401K or retirement set up by a company you need some sort of steady income for your lifetime...that is a lot easier in business/farm/etc than it is in running for the long term. The reason they don't last is they move on much quicker in their lives just like runners of the past like: Snell, Elliot, Clark, etc When you couldn't make a living off of running most didn't stick with it.

This is, no doubt, correct as well. But all of this is anecdotal. I've never seen a study on how many Africans fail for the ones who succeed (I'm sure it's lopsided), how many retire early due to the toll of high mileage and racing, and how many of the very successful ones pack it up to move on with life. I'm not sure such a study exists. By the way, there is a virtue in realizing that one must move on with life, that running is merely a means to an end. For all but the very luck lottery winners, running, at best, is a means to an education, and, beyond that, personal fulfillment.

Agree with you on the drills and strides, but running makes the runner and not the other way around. Admittedly, Africans also grow up with "minimalism." probably makes a difference in being able to handle high mileage.