Alberto's Marathon Training... FLAWED

malmo wrote:

And you're right about his physical maturity in high school. Even though he was a year older than most HS kids in his class, Ritzenhein looked like he was 13 or 14 years old when he was a senior.

Not to nitpick, as I agree with the general point, but Ritz was not an "old" HS kid, at least by 2001 standards. He turned 18 in December of his senior year - two+ months after Ryan Hall and about 2 weeks before Alan Webb. I realize there was a time where this would be considered abnormally old for a HS kid, but beginning with kids in the early 70s, a September or October cutoff for starting school is pretty normal. I graduated in 1995, and with a November bday I was certainly on the older end of things, but was in no way unusual.

Aghast wrote:

You are misinformed. You do use fat during the marathon however for fast runners the vast majority of energy comes through glycogen stores and lipid metabolism plays a much smaller role....However, they compete at such high running speeds, that CHO oxidation (also highly adapted) may be the exclusive source of energy while racing.

....All classes of energy substrates participate, but carbohydrate, not lipid, is the primary fuel for marathon running.

[/quote]

Well I'll be damned. :/

Bud, this is a no brainer and common knowledge in Biochemistry. Of course you are primarily using CHO, but to say it "may" be the "exclusive" source suggests it's only untested theory. That wouldn't make sense at all, as it would be like saying the energy metabolism for the 100m dash is the same as for a marathon, which is most definitely not true. What sets apart the great marathoners from the good marathoners is that they've trained long and slow (plus lots of miles = glass always half-full) to upregulate the enzymes for fat metabolism through Krebs. Sure, they are running fast, and of course utilizing CHO as the primary fuel source, but if you properly train and teach the body to utilize an extra 2% fat metabolism, that will make a huge difference the last 10K for an elite.

When he set his PR (London 2009), Ritz went through halfway around 1:03:30 or a little faster - and even that was more reasonable than his pace over the first five or 10 kilometers. The early pace that day was crazy, with Wanjiru and co. starting out at sub-2:02 pace and throwing off the second pack and their pacemakers. 2:08:30-2:09:00 might have been in the cards for Dathan if the second pack hadn't gotten carried away like the first did.

Also, what content does the statement

contain other than "Whatever his result, I'm going to claim I predicted it afterwards"? So you don't think Ritz is a marathoner? Then admit your surprise when (if) he runs a great marathon! I think a lot of people here would think more, not less of you for admitting you're not infallible in your pronouncements. I'm sure you don't care about that, but it's true.

Aghast wrote:

You do use fat during the marathon however for fast runners the vast majority of energy comes through glycogen stores and lipid metabolism plays a much smaller role. Training allows you to become more efficient at storing and utilizing glycogen.

Yes. Not only does fatty acid oxidation play a smaller role, FAO is almost entirely repressed at elite marathon pace (as an aside, the rate at which FAO occurs is relatively untrainable compared to the rate at which carbohydrate oxidation can be improved). AlSal is doing an admirable job of training middle distance runners to run the marathon.

Well bud what evidence do you have for your contention that what seperates marathon runners is that good marathon runners have upregulated the enzymes for fat metabolism through Krebs? It seems your only "evidence" is you claiming it is self-evident. It is possible to completely separate whether long slow distance improves marathon performance and whether it does that through altering fat metabolism. Even if the two are correlated that doesn't mean it is causative. Please come back when you learn a little something about basic scientific reasoning. You seem to lack that knack for how to think like a scientist instead of a student.

half times two plus four wrote:

Aghast wrote:

You are misinformed. You do use fat during the marathon however for fast runners the vast majority of energy comes through glycogen stores and lipid metabolism plays a much smaller role....However, they compete at such high running speeds, that CHO oxidation (also highly adapted) may be the exclusive source of energy while racing.

....All classes of energy substrates participate, but carbohydrate, not lipid, is the primary fuel for marathon running.

Well I'll be damned. :/

Bud, this is a no brainer and common knowledge in Biochemistry. Of course you are primarily using CHO, but to say it c. That wouldn't make sense at all, as it would be like saying the energy metabolism for the 100m dash is the same as for a marathon, which is most definitely not true. What sets apart the great marathoners from the good marathoners is that they've trained long and slow (plus lots of miles = glass always half-full) to upregulate the enzymes for fat metabolism through Krebs. Sure, they are running fast, and of course utilizing CHO as the primary fuel source, but if you properly train and teach the body to utilize an extra 2% fat metabolism, that will make a huge difference the last 10K for an elite.[/quote]

Biochemist, please step back from the board and take a class in physiology for a less reduced view of life.

so bolt can be great at the marathon if he just trained hard at it? give me a break.

I think he is say saying this applies within a reasonable range. For instance, Bolt good be great at the 100 or the 400 and maybe the 800. Ritz good be great at the 5k or the 10k and maybe the marathon.

Kevin3310 wrote:

so bolt can be great at the marathon if he just trained hard at it? give me a break.

bobby e, we're all aware that Ritzenhein was 1:03:33 at the halfway mark at London 2009. Obviously, that was not one of the races in which he "and he hits the halfway mark in 1:05:30 and STILL his body can't handle it."

My statement about him running sub 2:07 is straightforward. I feel sorry for you that you cannot see it an only chose to attribute other motivations for it. As I've said so far, he has not yet shown he is a marathoner, because he has difficulties in the 2nd half of the race - even when he's hitting a very conservative 1:05:30s. Obviously by running 2:10:00, and also finsihing 10th in the Olympics, we is a marathoner. Please don't parse and magnify the contradiction - we are talking about, and alwasy have been talking about, the marathon relative to his strenghts, the 3000-5000.

altoroad wrote:

It worked for Frank Shorter.

I am not sure exactly what DR is doing, but Shorter ran very high mileage as well (lots of slow miles in addition to his fast track sessions).

Aghast wrote:

Well bud what evidence do you have for your contention that what seperates marathon runners is that good marathon runners have upregulated the enzymes for fat metabolism through Krebs?

Ask the marathoners who have gotten within half times two plus 4-6 (myself included) how they did it. I think you will see a commonality. And, there is enough research through PubMed to back up the glass being half full. I strongly disagree that the energy metabolism for 100m is the same for the marathon.

I still love this quote from Gebremariam

"The training for the longer marathon distance didn’t faze Gebremariam much. He’s a family man, remember, and he hints that the move to 26.2 miles is economically driven. And he makes it all sound so simple. 'In training for the 10K, I would do one hour. Now, I do two hours. It’s easy.'"

I appreciate your metaphor Malmo. I wonder though if a case could be made for Ritz not having enough good opportunity to demonstrate where his "real"potential is in the marathon vs other events given the infrequency of the samples in the marathon vs shorter events. ,

malmo wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with his marathon coaching, per se. I'm sure that Alberto has been around a lot more marathoners than you will ever in your imaginary lifetime.

The problem that I see with Alberto is that he's got an unlimited budget and is able to poach already successful track runners, and is trying to force them out of their best events. At some point he's going to have to realize that the events choose the athlete, the athlete does'nt choose the event. It's 2011 and he still hasn't figured that out, I wonder if he ever will.

You can't have thoroughbreds pulling beer wagons and you can't put Clydesdales in prize races.

Exploit your strengths, mitigate your weaknesses.

half times two plus four wrote:

Ask the marathoners who have gotten within half times two plus 4-6 (myself included) how they did it. I think you will see a commonality. And, there is enough research through PubMed to back up the glass being half full. I strongly disagree that the energy metabolism for 100m is the same for the marathon.

Alberto is 0 for about 30 in this department. Hansons have several athletes that have done this.

So lets say we go along with the theory that Ritz and Goucher are 3k-10k runners and not marathon runners - quite likely true for Ritz, but can we really say that a woman that ran a sub 2:26 debut is not a marathon runner - and as 3k-10k runners they are never going to break american records, let along world records in the marathon. However, if Salazar is such a great marathon coach, then regardless of his runners best distance, shouldn't they still be improving in the marathon?

Kara coming third in Boston 2009, fewer seconds behind the winner than her previous marathon, doesn't count as improvement when the race was won in 2:32:16. That is the nature of sit and kick races, the top runners are closer at the finish, but you don't get any extra points for finishing third in 2:32:25.

Berlin just had me shaking my head in amazement - they have anti gravity treadmills and the cryosauna, but they can't find a drink that Kara can keep down in a marathon.

But don't worry... they've going to be using a HydroWorx underwater treadmill, so Kara's going to get in an extra 20 miles a week running on that... and she is going to be "ready to compete for the win" in Boston.

http://racingnews.runnersworld.com/2011/01/a-brief-chat-with-kara-goucher-and-alberto-salazar-2.html

You can't make this stuff up.

Like the OP said, he's done a great job from 5k to Half Marathon.

Good art wrote:

I appreciate your metaphor Malmo. I wonder though if a case could be made for Ritz not having enough good opportunity to demonstrate where his "real"potential is in the marathon vs other events given the infrequency of the samples in the marathon vs shorter events.

I'm all with the probabilistic influences on opportunity. Even if everything goes right in training, conditions on race day might not be optimal, or close enough, to really test your limits. Even if the conditions are right, the human body is a very complicated machine. Bio-rhythms might be at a low and no matter what the athlete can't seem to produce.

The marathon itself is a hit-or-miss proposition. When things go bad, they go really bad in a marathon.

Ritzenheins dilemma is that he's had five opportunities, and all but one of them he's had nearly ideal conditions for marathoning; and the Olympic marathon, was not nearly as bad as people wanted to make it to be.

Ritzenehin is a 27:30 runner who ran NYC twice. Perfect running conditions for each race. In both races (2007, 2010) he was 1:05:35 and 1:05:20, finishing in 2:14:01 and 2:12:33. A 27:30 guy who runs conservatively on perfect days for running should be able to run faster than that if he has talent for the marathon. I tend to believe he is out of his effective range.

Contrast Ritzenhein's two runs in New York with mine. One with a strong headwind, 1:04:56 (2:13:29), and the other on a warm day, 1:03:55 (dnf 19 miles, 3rd place). In both of those races I felt like Fred Flintstone, dragging my feet becasue it felt so slow. I could only imagine how slow it felt for Ritzenhein to be running 1:05:30, yet he still was unable to finish the deal in either race.

TO put things in perspective, Ritzenhein is probably not even the top 30 Americans to run in New York.

bobby e. wrote:

Also, what content does the statement

malmo wrote:

If he went out and ran sub 2:07 at London I wouldn't be suprised, but I sure as heck wouldn't bet any money on it.

contain other than "Whatever his result, I'm going to claim I predicted it afterwards"? So you don't think Ritz is a marathoner? Then admit your surprise when (if) he runs a great marathon! I think a lot of people here would think more, not less of you for admitting you're not infallible in your pronouncements. I'm sure you don't care about that, but it's true.

I don't think any of us would be surprised if Ritz dropped a 2:07, and he probably would've run much faster in London had he not opened in 14:37 for his first 5k. However, with the possible exception of the Olympics, which became a race of attrition for most, Ritz has never managed to overcome his fuel/cramping issues at the end of the race.

Even if he does "pop" one, there's no indication that he'll be able to replicate the feat. Frankly, I think Malmo has this right on. Ritz's best performance has come over 5000, and, yet, the 10,000 is probably his best opportunity in the Olympics as Malmo already asserted. Also, Ritz's track PRs came after a consistent, healthy stretch of training like a marathoner under Hudson, and I'm not sure those performances should be credited to Salazar, other than the benefits of the altitude house.

Ritz gets another chance in April, if he's not a DNS. And while I think he should be faster than 2:10:00, he's not until proven otherwise, but I think he has the capability of delivering another eye-opening track season later this year off his marathon base. Hopefully that will refocus his attention for 2012. He can chase the $$$ after that by being an American name in American marathons. Also, he will be 33 by the time Brazil rolls around. Not too old to run another Olympic marathon.

As I thought, you have no evidence but your own opinion. I already explained to you as simply as I can. Whether or not running a lot of miles at an easy pace is beneficial for the marathon (it is and I also have gotten within half *2 + 6) it has nothing to do with whether the actual mechanism for this effect is through lipid metabolism. It does not logically follow. And pointing to pubmed is not evidence.

half times two plus four wrote:

Aghast wrote:

Well bud what evidence do you have for your contention that what seperates marathon runners is that good marathon runners have upregulated the enzymes for fat metabolism through Krebs?

Ask the marathoners who have gotten within half times two plus 4-6 (myself included) how they did it. I think you will see a commonality. And, there is enough research through PubMed to back up the glass being half full. I strongly disagree that the energy metabolism for 100m is the same for the marathon.

Funny... back when Ritz ran his 8:11 two-mile, it was "roughly" in line with his 5k PR at the time, depending on which conversion calculator one uses. To date his 12:56 is his best performance. His 1:00:00 in the half is almost equally impressive and converts somewhere to around 2:05:30 +/-, again depending on which calculator one uses. He's nowhere close.

I do respect what Salazar has been able to do with Rupp and both Gouchers on the track, all but briefly resurrecting Adam's career, but I think tinkering with form is a huge mistake.