Be retired 5 yrs ago
Be retired 5 yrs ago
setting a PB of 3:23
What Could Be? wrote:
Just read via an older twitter post that Lagat does 70-75 MPW. It's a widely known fact that Coach Li doesn't implement high mileage, but one can only wonder what could Lagat have run if he was doing the mileage of Mo Farah? He would more than likely have a shorter career, but what could he achieved? Just curious of some of the times across the board you guys think he could run.
More Intensity!!
Lost in Translation.
One of the problems with this discussion, besides the unfounded assumption that higher mileage is always beneficial, is this: some of the posters here don't realize that for a supremely talented runner who has actually done some useful training, 4:50/mile is not really all that intense.
And most days, Lagat is actually more comfortable running 4:50/mile than 9:50/mile. And 70 miles/week at something close to 4:50/mile overall works out to about 6 hours of running/week at most. I think most of can agree that for Lagat, an hour run at 4:50/mile is far more useful than twice the duration at half the velocity.
It is not the presence or absence of intensity which assures him the results but where on the velocity continuum (and in what quantities and variations) he chooses to expend that intensity.
Coe himself said he ran 100 mpw.
You're calling him a liar.
Hi ventolin^3 wrote:
Coe himself said he ran 100 mpw.
You're calling him a liar.
Idiot.
When did he say he ran 100 miles per week? Is there a video of him saying this? If there a transcript of the conference in which he was asked. Is there a reputable source documenting that he said this? Or is it just some anonymous LR idiot making sh!t up.
Seb said to Mariuk Bakken he ran 60-70 miles per week in the winter of 1980/1981 when he was at his best and doing the most. Peter also said this. Additionally, Marius also has copes of Seb's training logs.
Yet you idiots insist that he ran 100 miles per week. There's no convincing you morons.
Imbecile.
From the respected poster "Tinman":
Tinman wrote:
I have said it many times, when I listened to Peter Coe at the 1983 Kinney Midwest Regional meet answer questions about training he said, "I don't count any running slower than 6 minutes a mile as real training." So, 4 or 5 times a week his son runs 5 miles in the morning at 6:10-6:20 per mile and doesn't count as mileage for the week. Seb runs a 14-15 miler in the winter base phase but Peter only counts it as 10 miles because the first 5 miles were slower than 6 minutes per mile. Peter doesn't count the warm ups or extended cool downs that Seb does before and after speed sessions because they are slower than 6 minutes per mile. I remember Peter also saying that he prescribed 2 laps of 90 seconds a piece or better for immediate cool down after 200m reps (presumably to be at least at the 6:00 per mile pace so that it would count as "real training"). Seb probably ran more distance, but slower, after than that did not go in the logbook.
I should probably state that when questioning what times he could have run, I meant solely in the longer distances. Obviously his 3:26 speaks for itself. Also, this is a hypothetical question. I don't question the training Lagat has done at all, it has clearly worked, so I'm not trying to say he's doing it wrong. I like to think Lagat could be in the mid to low 12:4x's at his peak, but hey I could be completely wrong.
Yeah you're right. What the heck does Legat know about his own body? Of course he would have been faster! 3:15 mile maybe?
Come on man, I think he has figured out his sweet spot. Let him be.
The Animal Within wrote:
Yeah you're right. What the heck does Legat know about his own body? Of course he would have been faster! 3:15 mile maybe?
Come on man, I think he has figured out his sweet spot. Let him be.
I think you missed everything I just said. I didn't make this thread to belittle what he has done or say that he could have done things better. I was just asking people's opinions on what could Lagat have run under a higher mileage system (more specifically for the 5k).
The jury is in wrote:
From the respected poster "Tinman":
Tinman wrote:I have said it many times, when I listened to Peter Coe at the 1983 Kinney Midwest Regional meet answer questions about training he said, "I don't count any running slower than 6 minutes a mile as real training." So, 4 or 5 times a week his son runs 5 miles in the morning at 6:10-6:20 per mile and doesn't count as mileage for the week. Seb runs a 14-15 miler in the winter base phase but Peter only counts it as 10 miles because the first 5 miles were slower than 6 minutes per mile. Peter doesn't count the warm ups or extended cool downs that Seb does before and after speed sessions because they are slower than 6 minutes per mile. I remember Peter also saying that he prescribed 2 laps of 90 seconds a piece or better for immediate cool down after 200m reps (presumably to be at least at the 6:00 per mile pace so that it would count as "real training"). Seb probably ran more distance, but slower, after than that did not go in the logbook.
The 90'' cool down laps ARE logged. Check in the back of Better Training For Distance Runners. He mentions doing 2 laps at 6' pace after his workouts. So multiply that by 3, and add in some mileage for warm ups, say 2.5 miles or so and you get an extra 10 per week that he didn't count. I'm not buying this story about not counting easy runs in the morning. Marius asked Peter about this very subject directly. He told him what I've already repeated in this thread multiple times. Additionally he asked Seb himself. And he also looked at Seb's training logs. If neither Seb nor Peter said to him that he ran undocumented miles in the morning every week day and did not count that in his log then I'm calling bullshit.
Seb DID do morning runs and they WERE documented in the book Running for Fitness published in 1983, as well as in other books. He did not run 100 miles per week FFS. Even in the recent BBC documentary Seb talks about this. Stating his father didn't believe in "bashing out mile after mile on the road without a whole lot of thought behind it" contrasting the difference between his and Peter Snell's training.
glitchmob wrote:
longjack wrote:how many mile per week? time to throw that one in the garbage. there is so much variety in the quality and counting methods that it makes no sense.
try this 70 mile per week schedule. - build up
--------------morning--------------------------
3 miles in 15 min. every day except sunday
then 6x150m easy/brisk strides walk back recovery
------------------------------------------------
=================afternoon==========================
monday
7 miles at 5 minute pace on grass and hills (run moderately hard).
tuesday
10 miles in 50 minutes on hills
wednesday
10x800 in 2 minutest flat with 90 second recovery.
thursday
7 miles fartlek
friday
5 miles easy - go party a bit.
saturday
6 x 1 mile in 4:20 - 2 minute recovery
sunday
12 miles on the hills. plus 1 hour running on the spot in the swimming pool.
run 6x150 strides and walk back. stretch and do calisthenics 30 minutes after morning and every workout. vary routine morning and afternoon.
after a nap on tuesday and thursday afternoons, hit the gym for 90 minutes intense core work / specific / support muscles.
=======================================================
2 x evening yoga an hour.
morning workouts = 3*6 = 18 miles
afternoon workouts = 7+10+5+7+5+6+12 = 52 miles
warm up jog and stride outs are not counted girls!
great schedule huh? you betcha.
Yeah if you want to completely burn out and ruin your career, here you go.
you are right, that schedule will kill the non-lagat type person. that is the point. 70 miles a week like stated above provided you can handle it, will make you a hell of a lot better 10k runner than 130 miles per week at 6 minutes with a couple of tempo runs thrown in.
john walker and rod dixon routinely ran 10 to 12 miles at 5 minutes most every day with a 22 miler once a week at the same pace. walker said in hindsight, he'd have thrown a bit more speed and raced a bit less. that is where the repeat 2 minute 800s come from. coe dieted on the 800 repeats too.
even herb elliot's schedule was not so different from the one posted, though herb and coach cerutti were not schedule people, and training was generated from principles and implemented via athlete's spirit of the day.
of all the old coaches, cerutti's methods are closest to those of peter coe, salazar, etc.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/10/10/1223145635865.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKqMRpv7ygchttp://torunistolive.blogspot.com/2012/01/herb-elliott-on-training.htmlhere is steve scott's 80-90 mile weeks. and DO UNDERSTAND THAT MOST RUNS ARE AT 5 MIN PER MILE PACE AVERAGE. WALKER AND SCOTT CHALLENGED EACH OTHER ... MAKING SOME DAYS REALLY KICK ASS.
21 September, Monday: Drove back to Tempe.
AM ran 5mi. Evening track
workout. Felt good. Ran from house, did 3x
(330-220-440) felt good all at 60-under
pace. 15mi
Tuesday: Very hot and humid. AM ran 5mi. Evening ran
5mi. 10mi
Wednesday: 5mi run in morning. PM ran up to school
did 220 in 27 then 880 in
1:50. Felt good, under control. Ran back home.
15mi.
Thursday: Fly to NY. 5mi in AM. 5mi.
Friday: Ran the course and a little more in the AM.
PM ran Central Park loop
hard with John, Tom, and Ray. Nice run. 10mi.
Saturday: 5th Avenue Mile. 3mi in the
morning. Jogged warmup. Got 7th
3:53.8. Felt okay till last 400. Ran CP loop for
7mi. 15mi.
Sunday: Walker and I ran 10mi in CP in the morning.
Ran 5mi in the evening.
15mi.
Week: 85mi
28 September, Monday: 15mile run up and down
hills. Cool and clear.
15mi
Tuesday: 5mi in the morning. 5mi
Wednesday: 5mi in the morning. Evening ran out to
the golf course and some more.
15mi
Thursday: Ran 5mi in the morning. Very cold and
rainy. Ran 10mi down to the
park. Easy. 15mi
Friday: 5mi in the morning. PM Ran 10mi with Tom.
Good pace. 15mi
Saturday: AM 5mi, very slow. Felt awful. Ran 10mi in
the evening. Felt better.
15mi
Sunday: Central Park 5k. Jogged to start of
race. Ran 13:50 for 5km around
park. Jogged around the park after. Ran 6mi in the
evening. 17mi
Week: 97mi
Dude, why do you keep claiming that Coe is a liar?
HE SAID HIMSELF he would get to 100 mpw when it was all added up.
Sorry the truth doesn't match your agenda.
Coe and company love how you believe the BS. He ran a lot.
This is getting old wrote:
HE SAID HIMSELF he would get to 100 mpw when it was all added up.
Source? Easy, you don´t have one. The other guys do.
The source was posted earlier in the thread. Try reading it.
Huh??? wrote:
The source was posted earlier in the thread. Try reading it.
BS
Of course the logs say 60-70 mpw: he didn't count the easy mileage.
But he still ran it...
right, on top of the 70 quality mile schedule i quoted, you can jog 20 extra miles and count the warm up miles and bingo you have 100 miles.
but again, so what?
who cares about miles? this is the entire point,
consider that total miles means exactly nothing, or more accurately, very little.
but if you are nutty about numbers, you can make your own scoring tables (see iaaf) - points for quality of work outs and duration. put in your pb's for various distances and normalize the iaaf tables to 1000 points. for example the factor would be for an 800 pb in iaaf tables is 1028 points.
multiply all the entries by 1000/1028 and you have the relative effort.
in the build up phase, you would want more aerobic volume points, in the pre race schedule, more intense aerobic and anaerobic work.
guru-numbers coach can invent his own scheme to use the adjusted tables to make sensible quality numbers for the weeks work.
you'll need to adjust for distance as a 900 point 100m cannot have the same value as 10k at 900 points...of course.
and how many points would you give a 400m repeat workout. say with 400's in 56 seconds.
you'll need to figure in recovery time. the 400m repeats with 30 seconds recovery is entirely different than 3 minute recovery.
and how about the salazar workout 70 second laps (30+40 second 200m's) for 30 minutes?
you'll need some sophisticated formulas to come up with good numbers, however, i think it can be done.
if you don't go overboard, i'm thinking that assessing work out quality numbers might make people more aware of what they are really doing and why.