To Malmo, Hodgie, and the other "greats: a few words about talent

it's obvious if he improves his basic speed he will improve all increase his potential at all longer events.

basic speed development/maintanence is one of the keys to reaching your potential.

hey so how often do you think people SAY they are doing 60, or 80, or 100 miles per week, but are actually doing 3/4s or less of that?

never underestimate the human capacity for sloth/stupidity/mendacity/optimism. now ask how "unfair" it is that people running only 25 mpw are running faster than you, when in reality they are running 35 mpw, and your 60 is 40, and they have a positive attitude and you don't...

same thing for workouts, worse!

trackhead, gimme a break!

Here's the guys PRs again:

400: :73

800: 2:26

1500: 5:00

mile: 5:17

5k: 18:38

10k: 39:00

half: 1:30

Since the 73 for 400 is also his pace for 800, do you really think that it's a true 400m PR? Really? You don't think that maybe he might never have ran a 400 in his life and is maybe just taking the time he went thru the first 400 of his 800?

And you know, whether he is, or isn't, does not matter. The point is (and it seems to have gone ski-high over your head) is that his 400 PR is NOT 73. And we don't really give a rat's what it is! So why are you jumpoing right in and telling him he needs to cut some time off it?

And what's this other nonsense about his aerobics being good? Anybody who needs to slow up 43 secs between his mile PR and his 5k PR has damn poor aerobic ability. And if he fixes THAT it's gonna be holy-moly here's some 5k-10k-Hail Mary PRs...

I wonder about you sometimes... You post all the damn time yet you've only got 2 songs in your whole repertoire: lifetime mileage and improving basic speed, and then you come out with this stuff. Plus, you come on again and defend yourself.

Give it a rest. Go and read another book. And find a better one this time. Better still, throw out all the books and go and run far enough and long enough until you learn what works, and what doesn't. Because so far you cannot help this guy one bit.

Goodnight.

Hodgie-san wrote:

Ya know, the more I ran, the more "talented" I became. Amazing.

You know, talent has nothing to do with anything. Anyone can be as smart as Einstein or as fast as Geb; people are just not trying hard enough. We are all born with identical talent in all fields of life. Some people just choose to try harder than others.

I had to go back and check my PR in the 400m because you guys are right, it can't be 73....it is 68 seconds. That was a full-out 400m in an all-comers meet, but I had run the mile before that.

Sadly, most of my training looks like what malmo wrote above:

"The problem I see today is that many runners train for the sake of training. It's predictable: One long run, one tempo run and one 10 x 800, or 5 x 1 mile workout. Week after, never ending week. And they never improve and never compete."

Except I would compete.

I've always been willing to do the work, but I've never seemed to find a way to get faster....

Dunes runner, speak for yourself, I've run in the 150-180 range many times. 5:30-6:00 is easy.

2slow wrote:

Sadly, most of my training looks like what malmo wrote above:

Doesn't suprise me. This is cookeie-cutter stuff. No hills no short stuff. You can't get faster until you start ....well...running faster. Bet you don't do mornings either?

No, I did mornings, sometimes..at least during the summer. Generally not in the sub-zero, dark as hell cold winters we have here. I'd be up around 60mpw, but the core workouts were those you listed...6x800m, tempo, long run, the rest was generally filler, 7-8 mile runs, up to 60-80 mpw. I would occasionally do 5 milers in the morning, then 7 at night, etc.

Never did much shorter stuff (maybe some strides), and hills are hard to find around here. I'm all ears.

So your ability to want and focus on something is not a talent then?

dunes runner. check out the link.

ViaD??? I don't think I have posted with that in 3 years. May as well call P. Diddy "Puff Daddy".

Let's take it out.I guess you missed the part of my post that said, "not bad." Not great, but not terrible. Certainly better than our friend a few days ago who ran 1:48/4:29mi.Tell me why if he improves his quarter, his times at all other distance will not improve? Why not?Here is a stamina performance chart, comparing elite, nat'l/collegiate, HS/developmental athletes and our man on this thread.

As you can see he's certainly behind national/collegiate athletes when it comes to aerobic fitness, but better than your average high schooler. So again, he's not great, but not bad either (given the limitations of his quarter). Improve that quarter adn apply those same stamina factors = faster performances.

Where's the BS?

The path of excess leads to the tower of wisdom.

William Blake

Thanks everyone for their posts. I knew it might come off as whining, but it was not meant to be. A few key points/clarifications:

1. ?Long time listener?, & ?Ferris: you understood me just about perfectly (as did some others). Thanks for your intelligent post

2. To the guy who thought I was saying that I was more talented than any runners on this board. I did not meant that at all. The post was mainly sent to Malmo, and to Hodgie a bit (and others who believe what they they do)

3. WHAT WAS THE MAIN POINT OF THAT LONG POST??? (and Hodgie and Malmo missed it of course) It was: I know I have read in the past they they stated that they were not that ?naturally gifted? or ?talented? as youths. Why would they think that? Because their 800or mile times were not that extraordinary. And that is part 1 of my point: 800 or mile natural leg speed is NOT the most important talent a LONG distance runner can have. No, no, no. The greatest talent a long distance runner can have? As I said, the ability to withstand hard, heavy training, and come back for more. The Timex quality: take a serious licking, and then come back ticking?..and come back ticking even faster than before! I should have added: like all talents, this one needs to be nurtured, and if you are lazy or unmotivated, it will never truly be utilized to its max. So give major props to the Hodge/Malmo for testing their limits and finding them. But many, many, many other runners have tried what they have tried, and found they did not have that same inherent ability to ?keep on ticking.? That is what they are missing (and others. Of course Portland Runner took the easy way out and bashed the complainers on this board. Status quo). Others have ?run more and more? and did not necessarily ?become more talented? as Hodgie sarcastically said happened to him. It does not always happen to others. And just as Hodgie and Malmo are, I am sure, quick to point out the natural ability of an Alan Webb, they don?t want to see the great talent they had: a high training threshold. Not everyone?s is high as Hodgie/Malmo.

Hodgie-san say: just go out and gradually run more and more and later faster and faster.

Beautiful, simple, and for SOME?.true. For others? NOT so true(I wish life was as simple as Hodgie often likes to portray it. It would be easier that way). For those that it is true for? Be thankful that you too (as much as more than the distance guys with the great 400 speed) were born with a great talent. The talent to withstand and thrive off of intense training stimuli.

NoSuchThingAsTalent missed the point completely. He wrote: ?Steve Prefontaine was considered an unremarkable runner in his first year. Thank god for him that his high school coach wasn't as narrow-minded as the person who posted the above..? THAT?S THE POINT. Jim Ryun AND Gerry Lindgren ALSO did not appear that gifted when they first ran some races off of very little training. BUT?.once they started training hard, suddenly they were awesome. Now what about others that trained nearly as hard as those guys but just broke down or never came close to their performances??? Clearly they were not able to get as strong and fast off more and more intense training as the stars did. THAT IS THE POINT. More and more and harder and harder does not always = faster and faster and faster. For some it does(Hodge and Malmo, etc). For others?.. So you gotta try, but it is no guarantee of success. Hardly.

?Guest? also missed the point. He wrote: ?This simple point is, even those of us with little talent can run some respectable times.? Who says you don?t have some talent??? YOU?? Because you did not run that fast in HS??? Your training 90+ miles per week now. NOT EVERYONE CAN DO THAT. Some would have broken down long before that or just not improved much(didn?t you see the guy who runs 80 MPW and runs a 39:00 10k ??) . Thank the lord you have a DURABLE body that responds very favorably to hard training. THAT Is the talent I speak of. It is NOT ALL WILLPOWER. Do you get it?yet???

Talent is not all about leg speed as a youth. I?d trade that for durability and a high training threshold any day of the week.

i think if implemented properly, anyone can train at that kind of volume. you may be fragile than average, but that can be taken into consideration.

This is crazy. The one time I bumped my mileage up to an average amount (70/week), I dropped 60 seconds off my 5k. I really don't understand the confusion. If you want to be your best, take the chance and run a lot of miles. Run way more than I ever did. Who cares what your talent level is. If you obsess about it, it can only hurt you. Chances are that you won't be elite, but hard work can get you semi-elite at worst.

Very last thing.

Hodgie, I know it?s cute to pick out a famous quote and drop it, but shall we analyze your little quote? (and I know you are a guy who likes aphorisms[its that Zen thing about you], and who hopes he can says in 10 words what it takes others to say in more, but?.life can not be defined in 10 words. )

Does excess always lead to wisdom? Do drug addicts and alcoholics find wisdom always? Do training-addicted runners always find wisdom? What wisdom did Lindgren and Salazar find? They found they were great runners who can take punishment. That was certainly worth finding out, I agree. They accomplished a lot. But what else did they learn from their excesses?? Did they learn that they may have cost themselves gold medals because of training excesses (both certainly had the potential to win one)? Did they learn that they cost themselves possibly many years of happiness because of their excesses?? (Lindgren abandoned his family and was a recluse, Salazar went through YEARS of depression and terrible running. He was a joke in the running community for awhile and ran like a cripple. He said he hoped at one time he could lose a leg in an accident so he would not have to keep trying to run anymore). Did they learn the wisdom that more is not always better and that there is such a thing as too much training or too intense training? This was already known. Maybe they should have listened to their bodies and others advice more, and they would not have had to learn these hard lessons through excess.

Here is a quote for you ( & Malmo, and trackhead) that you might like:

?To generalize is to be an idiot. ?

William Blake

Sure. Everone on earth is capable of running 200 miles a week. You just need to build up gradually, and take into account that some are more fragile than others. But other than that, it's a no-brainer.

P-Diddy is reading this thread right now and salivating about the prospect of 160 miles weeks and a trials qualifier.

Just do it.

I sad that Malmo knows me so poorly, after all these years:

"whenever I edged my miles above 50 per week, I would get hurt or sick. Hamstring, shins, knees, foot, etc, etc, etc. If I did some really intense training"

What I would ask first is what sort of pace did you try to run all these weeks? When I upped my mileage, I had to slow it down. I run my easy days much slower than some people I beat, but I have found through experimenting that I get fitter and race better at all distances running 80-90 in singles with 80% of it a 7:00 pace (or whatever pace "feels" right - I am not really sure what it is) than I did when I ran 70 a week trying to run all my easier days closer to 6:00 pace. This isn't going to be true for everyone, but it is something to consider in finding "right" mileage as Malmo puts it. I experimented with 100+ mile weeks for 2.5 years and I think I am not as durable as other people (it never got easier on my joints and skeletal structures) but I also am open to the idea that some sort of reapportionment of how I laid those weeks out might have alleviated the problem somewhat. I ran no PR's during that period, I am quite sure I got fitter cardiovascularly, but the cost which never abaited to my bones and joints offset those gains. Currently I am running 85-90 a week in mostly singles and running well after a summer injury, but I am sure I will give the higher miles another try in the future. I know I am less durable than most people from years of experience, but I am willing to consider that in part this may indicate a need for a rearrangement of the mileage scheme rather than throwing the whole concept of searching for a higher mileage plateau in the trash. Perhaps I am someone who can only run limited periods of these higher weeks or need to incorporate regular down weeks to find the right formula that will work best for me.