The Myth of the Mark Allen Sub 2:20?

luv2run wrote:

that fast dude wrote:

Even in 2004 there were too many hobby joggers on letsrun.

I read through a lot of responses and then check the dates.

How the hell does a 12 year old thread get resurrected anyway?

Maff hysteria

Marky's Mark wrote:

Mark Sisson ran 2:18, but that might have been before he did triathlons.

True. He did that during Tri training, could have gone faster. Super talented man.

Anyway, he saw the light and he BUFFED up. I am sure his wife appreciates that, too.

Most runners end up SCRAWNY/SKINNY in there 50s/60s, but Mark is the posterchild that shows everyone it's possible to get big and SHREDDED, even as you're getting older.

Sisson promotes Maffetone training now. Great minds come together.

CrossFit_Guy_The_Real_One_1 wrote:

Marky's Mark wrote:

Mark Sisson ran 2:18, but that might have been before he did triathlons.

True. He did that during Tri training, could have gone faster. Super talented man.

Anyway, he saw the light and he BUFFED up. I am sure his wife appreciates that, too.

Most runners end up SCRAWNY/SKINNY in there 50s/60s, but Mark is the posterchild that shows everyone it's possible to get big and SHREDDED, even as you're getting older.

So Sisson is the best marathoner of all the athletes doing other sports. Interesting.

CrossFit_Guy_The_Real_One_1 wrote:

Marky's Mark wrote:

Mark Sisson ran 2:18, but that might have been before he did triathlons.

True. He did that during Tri training, could have gone faster. Super talented man.

YMMV wrote:

2:20 is expected, but 29:59 surprises me, if it was off tri training.

First, something some do not understand, is that what you THINK is MAFFETONE training actually corresponds to the base period of it. After the base is built, MAFFETONE recommends adding some "anaerobic work" (~15-20% of the total).

Second, in 2002 Paula RADCLIFFE ran 30:01 in 10000m in August, and later the same year 2:17:12 in marathon.

From JONE's paper, you learn that Paula was running most of her training in the 3:20-3:40/km range in 2003:

The 3:20/km corresponds to 5:20/mile, and was a pace at or a bit below her aerobic threshold (if we take it as LT1 = the speed above which blood lactate rises above base level, and use figure 8 of the paper to estimate it), so by running a lot in the 3:20-3:40 range you can consider she was actually doing a training compatible with MAFFETONE guidelines (most likely without being aware of it of course).

Besides, her MAF pace of 5:20/mile or a bit lower seems to match reported ALLEN's MAF pace at his best (5:15-20), and thus could probably have expected Mark ALLEN to also run a 2:17-15 marathon as his PB, IF he had focused on this event at his best, and trained specifically for it.

Why ALLEN did not achieve 2:15-17 can have many reasons, maybe he tried it too late (after retirement from ironman and a year off), and/or did not train specific enough for the event.

However, in the general case, following MAFFETONE's guidelines CAN be compatible with specific marathon training, if you choose your "anaerobic" part of training wisely, as Paula's achievements and training has shown.

YMMV wrote:

2:20 is expected, but 29:59 surprises me, if it was off tri training.

First, something some do not understand, is that what you THINK is MAFFETONE training actually corresponds to the base period of it. After the base is built, MAFFETONE recommends adding some "anaerobic work" (~15-20% of the total).

Second, in 2002 Paula RADCLIFFE ran 30:01 in 10000m in August, and later the same year 2:17:12 in marathon.

From JONE's paper (link in my previous post) you learn that Paula was running most of her training in the 3:20-3:40/km range in 2003.

The 3:20/km corresponds to 5:20/mile, and was a pace at or a bit below her aerobic threshold (if we take it as LT1 = the speed above which blood lactate rises above base level, and use figure 8 of the paper to estimate it), so by running a lot in the 3:20-3:40 range you can consider she was actually doing a training compatible with MAFFETONE guidelines (most likely without being aware of it of course).

Besides, her MAF pace of 5:20/mile or a bit lower seems to match reported ALLEN's MAF pace at his best (5:15-20), and thus could probably have expected Mark ALLEN to also run a 2:17-15 marathon as his PB, IF he had focused on this event at his best, and trained specifically for it.

Why ALLEN did not achieve 2:15-17 can have many reasons, maybe he tried it too late (after retirement from ironman and a year off), and/or did not train specific enough for the event.

However, in the general case, following MAFFETONE's guidelines CAN be compatible with specific marathon training, if you choose your "anaerobic" part of training wisely, as Paula's achievements and training has shown.

I ran with him in boulder when he was at his peak.

He was a plodder by national class standards.

He wasn't anything for running that's for sure.

I have a friend who was a world champion at Hawaii as an age grouper. Could have gone pro, and been seasonably successful, but went into business instead. His best Ironman marathon is around 3 hours, and best open marathon is 2.28, and he was likely a notch or so behind the very best runners in the sport.... so at guess, I would have put Mark Allen somewhere in the 2.20's.

TriDude wrote:

I have a friend who was a world champion at Hawaii as an age grouper. Could have gone pro, and been seasonably successful, but went into business instead. His best Ironman marathon is around 3 hours, and best open marathon is 2.28, and he was likely a notch or so behind the very best runners in the sport.... so at guess, I would have put Mark Allen somewhere in the 2.20's.

Yes, around 2:29:59

Yes, but people were doing this 40 years ago, before Maffetone. So all he has done is take something from the past and claim that he created it.

Then his cult disciples come along and claim that there are principles, and that the elites are doing it.

And to compound your fantasy you say that Allen could have done this or that. Well he didn't. And to say that he didn't train in a specific way, ie. outside your principles of training, negates the whole thing.

I was a decent local runner who occasionally found himself as the runner's representative of a good-runner-versus-world-class-triathlete race. We only met up once, but I had no trouble beating "macca" and that scary-looking British guy from a few years earlier with the big knuckles. The long course guys were particularly easy to beat, since they were training for an 8 hour race.

The only triathlete I knew who could run and tri at a top level was Carol Montgomery who made the Olympics for Canada in both sports. If memory serves, she was in 5th or so on the bike and crashed. She could run far faster than those others, so I would have predicted a medal behind the swiss epo girl and the aussie, Jones.

I think The Grip could have run 2:20-low if he'd focused on it.

Talk is You wrote:

I ran with him in boulder when he was at his peak.

He was a plodder by national class standards.

He wasn't anything for running that's for sure.

I didn't write this. It's someone else's opinion based on the physical reality.

I have the video of that move. IT was super smart.

Speak with Mark regularly.

His PR is his 2:40 from the IRONMAN.

He does believe that had he raced the marathon individually and was in a race with good weather, he may have been around 2:25. However that is speculation.