Not "big mileage" but simply mileage. But when a runner is able to achieve 3:48 off a low mileage - 10 miles max is nothing at that level - it goes against everything we have seen in the sport since the '60s, that there is no real endurance without a conditioning phase in training. That was Arthur's discovery.
I don't like watching nearly every single thread on this site devolving into a pissing match, so, if we can keep this debate, a debate, that would be great. Saying that, here is my counter argument.
That was "one of" Arthur's discoveries and yes, a big one that he was at first mocked for.
He also made the sequential process of base, hills/strength, anaerobic, consolidation and taper, in that order a thing.
And his hill phase was particularly different, as was his entire approach about feeling based training, only the athletes knows when they are done etc etc....there were a number of discoveries he made.
There are outliers and exceptions everywhere.
The general principle about mileage was that it had to be significant in the conditioning phase to develop endurance. I don't dispute the other elements of training he also incorporated in his method. But low mileage or simply interval training, which was the norm before him, was not seen as being as effective in developing endurance as substantial aerobic conditioning. The exact mileage could vary from athlete to athlete but it needed to be more rather than less in that phase.
Not "big mileage" but simply mileage. But when a runner is able to achieve 3:48 off a low mileage - 10 miles max is nothing at that level - it goes against everything we have seen in the sport since the '60s, that there is no real endurance without a conditioning phase in training. That was Arthur's discovery.
I don't like watching nearly every single thread on this site devolving into a pissing match, so, if we can keep this debate, a debate, that would be great. Saying that, here is my counter argument.
That was "one of" Arthur's discoveries and yes, a big one that he was at first mocked for.
He also made the sequential process of base, hills/strength, anaerobic, consolidation and taper, in that order a thing.
And his hill phase was particularly different, as was his entire approach about feeling based training, only the athletes knows when they are done etc etc....there were a number of discoveries he made.
There are outliers and exceptions everywhere.
On the topic of Kenyans Arthur once said they may not need a base phase or at least not an extensive one because their way of life gave them very high aerobic fitness. They were training from the time they were walking but didn't recognize it as such. His base phase was supposed to do for non Kenyans what normal life did for Kenyans. He'd tell you that there were some non Kenyans who didn't need extensive base training because they, like Kenyans, somehow developed naturally high aerobic fitness.
I don't like watching nearly every single thread on this site devolving into a pissing match, so, if we can keep this debate, a debate, that would be great. Saying that, here is my counter argument.
That was "one of" Arthur's discoveries and yes, a big one that he was at first mocked for.
He also made the sequential process of base, hills/strength, anaerobic, consolidation and taper, in that order a thing.
And his hill phase was particularly different, as was his entire approach about feeling based training, only the athletes knows when they are done etc etc....there were a number of discoveries he made.
There are outliers and exceptions everywhere.
On the topic of Kenyans Arthur once said they may not need a base phase or at least not an extensive one because their way of life gave them very high aerobic fitness. They were training from the time they were walking but didn't recognize it as such. His base phase was supposed to do for non Kenyans what normal life did for Kenyans. He'd tell you that there were some non Kenyans who didn't need extensive base training because they, like Kenyans, somehow developed naturally high aerobic fitness.
Like Horwill, he was an intensity “quality-over-quantity” guy.
He was until he said he wasn't.
Regardless of whether Coe increased his total mileage as an adult, he always seemed to place emphasis on quality-over-quantity. I don’t think you can cite one reference where Coe claims the contrary to that.
For example, from an 28 October 2019 Athletics Weekly article,
Coe senior was ahead of his time in recognising the considerable demands that middle distance events have, not only aerobically in terms of cardiovascular response but critically on the lactate (anaerobic) energy system.
“Long, slow distance running creates long, slow runners. If speed is the name of the game, then never get too far away from it,” is the way Coe senior put it.
When I remind Seb of this philosophy, he concurs that: “Quality and intensity are key.”
Talk about reading comprehension and getting off track.
That is the major point, because if one goes back and re-reads this thread, they see ‘certain parties’ derailing it by stating Coe ran bigger mileage* than what he claimed. What is the implication of that? That one can conclude possibly Ruthe is being deceptive in his training, as well? (*Note, these ‘certain parties’ did not provide any evidence that actually shows Coe was running more mileage than what he claimed for his teenage training.)
Talk about reading comprehension and getting off track.
That is the major point, because if one goes back and re-reads this thread, they see ‘certain parties’ derailing it by stating Coe ran bigger mileage* than what he claimed. What is the implication of that? That one can conclude possibly Ruthe is being deceptive in his training, as well? (*Note, these ‘certain parties’ did not provide any evidence that actually shows Coe was running more mileage than what he claimed for his teenage training.)
BTW, my purpose here is not to claim Coe’s training was superior to another method, like Double-Threshold; (who knows whether a different form of training for Coe, with less volume of intensity, would have helped him be more successful, particularly in longer events like the 5000m?) But that’s a different subject.
The subject of the thread was Ruthe anchieving incredible results from training that did not involve building a big base of running miles. (Maybe he will eventually need more mileage to get through competition rounds, although strictly for the 800m, Donavan Brazier claimed to not be running more than 30 miles/week.)
Talk about reading comprehension and getting off track.
That is the major point, because if one goes back and re-reads this thread, they see ‘certain parties’ derailing it by stating Coe ran bigger mileage* than what he claimed. What is the implication of that? That one can conclude possibly Ruthe is being deceptive in his training, as well? (*Note, these ‘certain parties’ did not provide any evidence that actually shows Coe was running more mileage than what he claimed for his teenage training.)
So quotes from Coe to that effect don't do it for you?
That is the major point, because if one goes back and re-reads this thread, they see ‘certain parties’ derailing it by stating Coe ran bigger mileage* than what he claimed. What is the implication of that? That one can conclude possibly Ruthe is being deceptive in his training, as well? (*Note, these ‘certain parties’ did not provide any evidence that actually shows Coe was running more mileage than what he claimed for his teenage training.)
So quotes from Coe to that effect don't do it for you?