7:59, 13:48, 28:39, 2:16 on 50-60 mpw

Could the only slight difference in PRs by the bros be attributed more to genetics than anything? It is funny how everyone wants to dismiss the gene card when talking about running potential. As if, since my mum and dad are big fat Americans, it doesn't mean I can't be a great runner! It looks like these twins owe being fast more to their good genetics than anything. I'm sure this has opened up a can of worms and I am awaiting your responses...

I don't know if the Holts are identical twins or not. If they are, genetics can't be the answer. The differences in their times are so slight that I don't think you can count them as statistically significant. If they aren't identical twins, there might be some slight difference in innate ability, but you still can't disregard expectations, motivation, character, etc.

On another note, my point about the "all or nothing" mindset is sort of directed at people who say we aren't getting decent performances out of our distance runners because there's "nothing" for post-graduate runners and so they just give up. The Brits mentioned here are proof that a runner with some ability can run well, perhaps not maximally, but well, on modest, doable training.

HRE wrote:

I don't know if the Holts are identical twins or not. If they are, genetics can't be the answer. The differences in their times are so slight that I don't think you can count them as statistically significant. If they aren't identical twins, there might be some slight difference in innate ability, but you still can't disregard expectations, motivation, character, etc.

On another note, my point about the "all or nothing" mindset is sort of directed at people who say we aren't getting decent performances out of our distance runners because there's "nothing" for post-graduate runners and so they just give up. The Brits mentioned here are proof that a runner with some ability can run well, perhaps not maximally, but well, on modest, doable training.

I can't speak for the track times, but the differences in their marathon times...did they run them in the same race? If they did, then I assume they had the same conditions, but in a race that long with so many variables (and you can't run nearly as many marathons as 5K races), it's amazing that their times are so close.

How about this? How many miles did he have under his belt when he pulled those performances off?

ghost,

Those times are definitely good for the "little" amount of work he did, but the other posters have a great point in saying "How good could this guy have been had he done 'X' mpw?" They are probably right, but in same regard to all the posters out there sometimes it comes down to what your body can handle. For example, I know that Adam Tenforde whose run 13:39/28:23 has done that off of only 55-60 mpw with the occasional 65M week tossed in there. He's tried the higher stuff (i.e. 85+ mpw) and he just ends up getting injured so for him, it is to his benefit to run lower mileage. It just goes to show a lot can be done with the talent you have off little mileage, though for most people higher mileage is the key.

too bad there is no such thing as proper XC training and is basically based off each individual..

Jose Regalo, 3 Track Sessions + 3 Runs (max.60mins) per week, no doubles---->13:15.

Obviously some subjectivity but the 5k is weak by both methods.

Ghost: Its hard to understand what your point is. The stories and information is very interesting and a good read but your implication very worrying. Do you assert that all you need to reach potential is 50mpw and a few easy sessions? If so, this is damaging.

If you're right (and i dont think you are) then most of us have already reached potential. I couldnt cope with knowing i'm not going to improve.

BUT, i dont think this assertion is correct. Gebr could run just 50mpw from age 20 and still be a world class athlete. Maybe noy 2xOly champ but certainly surrey and southern champ material and he'd certainly still be beating the holt brothers.

The best athletes in teh country during the Holts time were advocates of high mileage

There is too much evidence against this 'low mileage' assertion.

1/ NZ athletes - Lydiard's crew and the 70s/80s gang of Dixon/Quax/Walker all had 100mpw as standard

2/The 70s flying finns

3/The Aussie distance school - Clarke, Deek, Mona, Benita

4/US/UK marathoners in the 70s/80s - too many to mention

5/All East African programmes

An Aussie runner by the name of Steve Austin was a fairly low mileage man 60-80mpw. He ran 3.57 ml, 8.23 2ml,13.22, 27.55 and ran 15th in the world xc. He was a very consistant runner over many years and was still running around 29 for 10k at 45 off about 50mpw.

He had a large family and worked full-time as a bricklayer so probably didn't feel like running 160mpw.

Jack Foster also ran around 60-80 and ran 2.11 at 40, 2.15 at 45 and 2.20 at 50 (off 50-60 mpw).He also rode 100mpw most weeks.

John Farrington ran 2.11, 2.12x3. He usually only ran 30min twice a day mon-fri. 6ml in 30m at lunchtime and a dozen 400s after work. Longer runs and races on the weekend. He had done about 150 mpw in 1969 and ran 2.21. Foot problems and work caused him to cut back and he ran the 1st of his 2.12s the next year then 2.12 the next 2 years then a 2.11 in 1973.

Would they have all been faster off continuous hi-mileage? Maybe, but more likely they would have written themselves off.

Yeah, there's always this when times are quoted of someone who does lower mileage. Oh, but they could've run faster with more mileage. Well, they could've run slower with that different training schedule too.

Find what works best for you.

And respect what other people do.

It's what it's made up of though.

Group of people running 40 mpw all steady state same running vs group of people running 100mpw all steady state same running - correlation of mileage and performance WILL be high. But good runners do not train like this. If you look at the training of Coe, Mutola, Holmes etc - it's very different to the high mileage advocates in what it's made up of. I do think high mileage is necessary for marathon though, I get fed up of being slated for my mileage for 1500m!

You are correct, I feel. An 8/15 runner needs to look at so many facets of their training. In this respect its harder to get it right and reach optimal performance in these events. There is simple so many variables that need to be addressed (aerobic capacity being just one).

Coe, Mutola, Holmes are good examples of athletes who didnt push the mileage and succeeded. There are others that did - Walker, Snell, ElG. Find out what works for you, in volume terms that could be very low for an 8/15 runner.

Could Coe, Mutola, Holmes have recorded even a respectable 5k time? By today's standards probably not, but I know thats not the point.

I work in London, have a similar daily routine to the aforementioned Bob Holt, Originally I lived centrally and walked to work, 5-10 minutes and did the odd 3 miler a lunchtime, probably covering about 70 miles per week, most of it in the evenings. I then moved house, about 8 miles from work, in order to save money and to try and improve my running I started to run to and from work, incorporating timed efforts and fartleks with one session per week on the track, either repeat 1k's, miles or 2k's. I had been doing the same sessions for 3/4 years and was running about 14.50 5k and 31 flat 10k. I DID NOT CHANGE ANY SESSIONS or any specifics, all I did was start running to and from work, bumping my mileage up to about 95/100, because I had to adjust to higher mileage my runs slowed down, probably from 6.20's to 6.50's. I improved within a year to sub 30 and close to14 flat, and I continue to improve.

I think all Ghost is proving is taht there are exceptions to the rule, there are no Kenyan distance men running 50/60 miles per week, nor are there any Ethiopians, tehy are the best runners in the world, the most naturally gifted but they still work extraordinarily hard, theer are no short cuts.

I would imagine Bob raced virtually every week in those days, aht was the done thing in the UK, if he was racing 10 miles here, half marathons there then his week on week work was atually pretty tough. I cannot think ofa single athlete who has achieved world class aove 5k on less than 80 miles per week... but I can think of numerous people with little athletic talent who achieved far more than many thought possible by dedicating themselves to their sport.

Bob Holt was a good runner but he lived in a different world, the world of work has changed, anyone working in Central london these days would be very lucky to finish at 5 or 5.30, he probably had far more time to relax and recover than people with similar lifestyles today.

well put Cilla!

Close to 14mins is exceptional time for a woman especially one with your dentures.

Learn to think for yourself.

Don't be so narrow minded.

Bob and Dave Holt were identical twins...........they both had thick rimmed glasses and kind of resembled Olive from "On the Buses".

This is an interesting thread, there doesn't have to be a point to it........it's just great to read about these kind of old school English runners.

Ghost.....do you have a picture of the Holts?

The Holts were identical twins, to my knowledge (If I'm wrong, maybe one of you Brits. could correct me).

Ok - so identical twins have the same genetics and potential. Dave ran an extra 20-25 miles a week (because he always ran a 5 miler at lunchtime) compared with Bob, who was a "once a day man."

Yet- Bob was faster than Dave in every event from 1500 - to the Marathon....but not by much (Dave had a few seconds faster than Bob in the 10 miles).

So one of my points is that once you do a certain level of training, and you find that to be a good one for you, tacking on more miles will not necessarily make you improve. With some it does - with others (like Bob) it does not reap dividends.

The extra 20-25 a week Dave ran, did not help him run faster than Bob.....

You might have thought that the extra mileage would have given Dave a psychological boost....but that did not take place either.

One can surmise, therefore, that Bob had a higher pain threshold and tolerance compared with Dave, resulting in better results for Bob.

When you get to a certain level, the psychological part is so important.

We have all seen runners who can do great sessions on the track with the best athletes, but when it comes to the race on the weekend, they finish minutes behind.....

You are right about the world of work changing and becoming more stressful, but it does not have to be like this.

When living in London a few years ago, I used to bump into Dave Taylor (Herne Hill/Blackheath) rushing to work on the "tube" (subway). He had a full day at work, and would do a three mile run at lunchtime in Battersea Park.

Despite this hectic schedule and a fulltime job with a lot of responsibility, Dave has run 13:53 for 5000 as a 42 year old last year!

So even with long days at work, the times can be achieved. Running has a huge advantage over other sports in that most of the training is done at considerably lower than maximum pace and intensity. In other words - you can achieve very high results by only doing about 10/15% of your training at high intensities and qualities.

So, for example, people often have the advantage of being able to do the bulk of their training by running to and from work. Or running at lunchtime during their lunchbreaks.

It's a question of organization and regularity.

The overall standards in Britain were much higher when I used to run for Hercules Wimbledon. I used to run in the 52-54 minutes range for 10 miles and did 1:50.49 in the Finchley 20 (April, 1978) - but at the time I was considered nothing more than a useful "scrubber" in the club. These days - the times I ran win many races in Britain....and quite frankly I cannot fathom why the quality has diminished this much?

Flashback to another idol of mine - Dave Clarke. He was also a clubmate at Hercules Wimbledon. Dave ran 27:56 for 10.000 track in Florence, Italy (I think it was in 1978...but not sure..) and his training was pretty simple. He used to do a "3" in the morning (He lived on Magdalen road, Earlsfield). Then breakfast. Then off to Borough road college. His evening training was usually a "7 miler." He did most of his "sessions" in Richmond Park....doing things like repeat "1000's" on grass......

Dave Clarke then went on to run higher mileage.....and we all know what a great cross country runner he became. He even ran a 3:39 for 1500 and a 3:56 mile, which was significant, because Dave, by his own admission, was not a pure speed runner.

Also interesting to note was that running was not the first love of Dave in sports. He used to play rugby and cricket (he went to a Private school), and once told me that his lifelong ambition would have been to play cricket for England.

I recall Dave in some of the world cross country championships - in which he has finished in the top 15 on a few occasions. He would try so hard in those races, against the Africans, that it would bring tears to my eyes. An incredibly brave runner....blessed with phenomenal cross country strength....not a "natural" track runner, you might say...but still achieved very commendable times - 13;22/5000, 27:56/10.000. Dave also ran his debut marathon in Chicago (2:15), and then went on to win the Stockholm Marathon (2:13) toward the end of his career.....

He was pretty tall (like Alan Culpepper) and perhaps did not have the efficient biomechanics to run a super marathon time (2:08/2:09).

Forgive me for my digressions - but those were my heroes....and they still are.

Sorry to sound cynical...but these days when one sees fast times being achieved by certain people, one wonders whether they were really achieved legally. One cannot help to think that way.....and it has damaged the sport a lot....the drug issue, that is.

If you guys don't like running, then why are you runners?