Dumbfounded wrote:
Who's George Malley?
Not sure what is sadder. Someone who doesn't know fast runners of the past or someone who doesn't know how to use google
George Malley is aormer American record holder in the steeplechase and half marathon (1:01:43). He is also a 2:12 marathoner. In short he is a guy who has walked the walk.
(It is also the name of the character John Travolta played in Phenomenon but I don't think anyone ever accused of malmo using telekinesis.)
I really am a noboby, but all you so called experts are whacked if you think there is a single absolute answer to this. I ran 45 miles last week and my long was 20. That plan IS best for me. I am trying to build up endurance for my first marathon. I certainly can't get up to 100 miles (i.e. 20%) to get to a 20 miler and certain would not think of running a marathon without several (planning 5) 20 milers.
Attempting to run a marathon on 45 miles a week is what is whacked.
If you want to build up your endurance, build up your weekly mileage. It is the running solid mileage frequently that builds up endurance. Not tiny mileage with one absurdly long run per week.
A nobody wrote:
I really am a nobody, but all you so called experts are whacked if you think there is a single absolute answer to this. I ran 45 miles last week and my long was 20. That plan IS best for me. I am trying to build up endurance for my first marathon. I certainly can't get up to 100 miles (i.e. 20%) to get to a 20 miler and certain would not think of running a marathon without several (planning 5) 20 milers.
I wonder why you are a nobody? If you are running 3:30 plus what makes you think you know dick about training? What makes you different then every single other runner?
I consistently run 45-60 miles per week with a long run of 25-35 miles every 10-14 days. I placed top 6 at a mountain marathon and would have been 3rd if I hadn't run off course.
The 20% weekly long run, the 10% weekly increase in mileage, etc. are NOT golden rules.
If endurance comes from weekly volume and/or long runs it would seem that runners with low volumes would most need the long, 20 mile runs for marathon endurance.
gg wrote:
If endurance comes from weekly volume and/or long runs it would seem that runners with low volumes would most need the long, 20 mile runs for marathon endurance.
It does not come from long runs. It comes from weekly volume. Runners with low volume most need high volume.
Runners with low volume need more volume. If you're running 40 miles a week and you're doing a long run of 20 miles you probably need to run that 20 at an ungodly slow pace and even then it's going to be very stressful for you becuase the other six days are not doing all that much to improve your fitness.
Yes, you can cover that distance and yes there is the occasional outlier who can even cover that distance at a decent pace. But most runners at that level would do better if they shortened that 20 by, say 5-6 miles, took those 5-6 miles and doubled them, then added them to the other six days of the week. Or something on those lines.
That's exactly my point. Given that virtually everyone here is anonymous, with some rare exceptions like malmo, everyone should strive to support their opinions with facts, or reasoned arguments. Without support, they should be held with a little skepticism.I would even say that the exceptions, like malmo, should also strive for the same. (Which, in my opinion, he does). After all, it would be too presumptuous to say that all successful, talented athletes know why they succeeded.PS: With all due respect, I didn't know of George Malley before letsrun. I guess he was a good steeplechaser, but he's also one of the better posters here.PPS: Even the "real" "Wizard of OZ" in the "fictional fairytale" was a fake. Oh the irony -- I'm getting dizzy.PPPS: I liked Dean Martin. Was he a good runner?
Dean Martin wrote:
Barring facts, proof, etc, the only thing that gives an opinion weight is the identity, accomplishments and reputation person stating it.
Everyone knows that Malmo is George Malley. That is not in question, even though he posts as "malmo." Being George Malley, given what he has accomplished, his opinions about training carry far more weight than yours, mine and the Wiz's put together.
Someone has tried to put forth Coach K as someone whose opinion should also matter more. Yet when pressed as to why, they pulled a disappearing act. Since Coach K has not been shown to be anyone other than just another LetsRun poster, his opinion carries no more weight than anyone elses.
(I am pretty sure that the Wiz does not expect anyone to think that he is the real Wizard of Oz since that is a fictional character. Likewise, I did not expect anyone to actually think I was the real Dean Martin, primarily since Dean Martin has been dead for years. I sincerely hope you did not think otherwise)
This thread is a howl. All you people that get on your knees and worship those who have done well and assume because they have that makes them the knowers of all things. The one thing all you asskissers miss is that when it comes to running there is no one size fits all. These people you idolize so much whether it is Malmo (ouuuuuu!) or Coach K (ouuuuuu!) seemed to find what worked for them and maybe a few others that they may have coached but that doesn't mean those methods are going to work for every runner in the world. Get a grip people. All advice should be considered but it's up to the individual to determine what training works for them through trial and error. And what distance is best suited for their particular running ability. A great marathoner can suck at a 400 etc and vice versa. And some may benefit more from longer runs etc than others. Again there is NO one size fits all.
Pey wrote:
This thread is a howl. All you people that get on your knees and worship those who have done well and assume because they have that makes them the knowers of all things. The one thing all you asskissers miss is that when it comes to running there is no one size fits all. These people you idolize so much whether it is Malmo (ouuuuuu!) or Coach K (ouuuuuu!) seemed to find what worked for them and maybe a few others that they may have coached but that doesn't mean those methods are going to work for every runner in the world. Get a grip people. All advice should be considered but it's up to the individual to determine what training works for them through trial and error. And what distance is best suited for their particular running ability. A great marathoner can suck at a 400 etc and vice versa. And some may benefit more from longer runs etc than others. Again there is NO one size fits all.
Pey wrote:
This thread is a howl. All you people that get on your knees and worship those who have done well and assume because they have that makes them the knowers of all things. The one thing all you asskissers miss is that when it comes to running there is no one size fits all. These people you idolize so much whether it is Malmo (ouuuuuu!) or Coach K (ouuuuuu!) seemed to find what worked for them and maybe a few others that they may have coached but that doesn't mean those methods are going to work for every runner in the world. Get a grip people. All advice should be considered but it's up to the individual to determine what training works for them through trial and error. And what distance is best suited for their particular running ability. A great marathoner can suck at a 400 etc and vice versa. And some may benefit more from longer runs etc than others. Again there is NO one size fits all.
The thing about a guy like malmo (or any other guy who has reached the top) is that they not only have succeded themselves, but they have trained with, and spoken to, legions of other top runners, so they have a clear picture of what it takes to become successful.
perform
Here are some good rules to go by.
Long Run as percentage of weekly milage:
if running 7 days a week on singles: 20-25%
if running 10-13 times a week: 18-20%
if running 4-6 times a week: up to 30%
A regular long run of greater than 30% of your weekly mileage will amke you significantly more prone to over use injuries.
even so wrote:
Wednesday
AM 7 Miles
PM 3 WU 6*800 @ 2:00 with 2 minutes rest @ Phoenix 5 Mile CD
Night Run 5 Miles
Total For Day - 23 Miles
Is this workout for real? Did Wejo actually run 6x800 @ 2.00 with 2 min rest. A typical 3k workout but I would expect more like 2.08s.
Mr. Ray wrote:
PS: With all due respect, I didn't know of George Malley before letsrun. I guess he was a good steeplechaser, but he's also one of the better posters here.
A good steeplechaser, one of the best in the world.
1977
1 Michael Karst FRG 8.14.05
2 Dan Glans SWE 8.16.3
3 Bronislaw Malinowski POL 8.16.94
4 Eshetu Tura ETH 8.21.0
5 Henry Marsh USA 8.21.55
6 James Munyala KEN 8.21.59
7 George Malley USA 8.22.54
8 Ron Addison USA 8.22.83
9 Eberhard Weyel FRG 8.25.4
10 Euan Robertson NZL 8.25.5
1978
1 Henry Rono KEN 8.05.4
2 Bronislaw Malinowski POL 8.11.63
3 Patriz Ilg FRG 8.16.92
4 Ismo Toukonen FIN 8.18.29
5 Michael Karst FRG 8.19.01
6 Douglas Brown USA 8.19.29
7 Krzystof Wesolowsky POL 8.19.53
8 Paul Copu ROM 8.20.41
9 George Malley USA 8.21.72
10 Henry Marsh USA 8.22.5
Yearly stats from Brinkster.
http://trackfield.brinkster.net/Main.aspsigh... wrote:
gg wrote:If endurance comes from weekly volume and/or long runs it would seem that runners with low volumes would most need the long, 20 mile runs for marathon endurance.
It does not come from long runs. It comes from weekly volume. Runners with low volume most need high volume.
Of course some of your endurance for the marathon comes from the long run or else we would not be discussing the optimal length of the long run for marathon training. I have read no coaches who advise a 60 mile week consisting solely of five runs of ninety minutes. I would love to learn from study evidennce that performance would be enhanced or at least not diminished by such a strategy.
My questions and by the way I am the original poster without my middle initial, go to how best one should train for the marathon within the realities of wife, kids and job.
Putting in an average of an hour per day of running can be quite a challenge especially in light of aging - I am about to turn fifty. Running higher volume is not an automatic option especially as injury susceptibility comes into play.
Many posts on this thread state with quite a bit of confidence that long runs well under 20 miles are plenty good for the marathon but that idea is in general controversial if the Hanson threads on this board are any indication.
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
LetsRunner in Crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Shhh!
Lif of Brian wrote:
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
LetsRunner in Crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Shhh!
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! The idea of a message board on Letsrun.com is not to discuss running and training strategies. Rather, it is spot on to hang around and read the message board then declare that the sharing of information is of no importance because we are all different. God forbid that you would actually enjoy the conversaton for its own sake.
Shhh!
gg wrote:
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! The idea of a message board on Letsrun.com is not to discuss running and training strategies. Rather, it is spot on to hang around and read the message board then declare that the sharing of information is of no importance because we are all different. God forbid that you would actually enjoy the conversaton for its own sake.