Greg McMillan

[quote]stupid argument wrote:

Now tell the truth, did you actually listen to the interview?

[quote]Ö wrote:

"stupid argument", that is meant for me I assume? Try to be more appropriate.

Okay I can tell you "the truth" though this has nothing to do with my point, I didn´t listen the interview, but I did read it and this sentence tells it all;

"My belief is that for our runners to be successful in the marathon, they need to be able to run between 120 and 150 miles a week."

Running is much more complex than just miles. I´m getting tired with this preaching.

You guys ran me over, so I'm reposting FWIW:

To borrow a quote, "It's dejavu all over again." McMillan is merely recycling John Kellogg's training ideology posted as a fixed link on the front page of letsrun (it's been here forever) and doing it in a place that Wejo "put on the map." Good for him, all of them.

http://www.letsrun.com/jkspeaks.php

What I don't get is, why does it have to be one or the other? The runner who sustains 120-150 miles per week year-round risks a short, stale, injury-curtailed career, albeit with a few, perhaps, brilliant performances mixed in. And he gains in running economy what he couldn't possibly with just 90 miles per week.

On the other hand, why not vary the macro and meso cycling during the year and maximize all potential stimuli and adaptive physiological mechanisms? That is to say, why not spend the summer logging big miles and long tempos in prep for a fall marathon, rest, then drop the mileage, sharpen, and kick ass on the track or in cross at shorter distances. Or do it how Ritz did it last year -- prep for a spring marathon, sharpen for a late track season?

This approach would seem to maximize longevity, minimize stalness and injury, and improve performance at all distances. I wish Hall would "get back to the track." I fear he won't even factor at the 2012 trials at the rate he's going.

I do believe it to be true that two hours of running per day at elevation is different than two hours per day at sea level. Mark Nenow used to log roughly 150 miles per week, and he was running two hours per day in Kentucky. The guy was amazing at 10k, but never seemed to put it together for the marathon.

Downz wrote:

Just to make sure we are all arguing on the same level. We keep throwing out the number "120 mpw" but what does actually mean when it comes to training? Our bodies only know Time vs Intensity. (figuring we all have around the same turn over). 120 a week could easily be seen as less than 2 hours a day for elites. If easy days were 6-6:30 pace and workouts were well below. (MP being 5:00, Threshold around 4:45, and speed at 4:40-4:30)

So 130-150 a week would be between 1:50 and 2:10 per day.

And the point is? You still shouldn´t expect 2hours per day training FOR EVERYONE. Miles or time, doesn´t matter.

listen first, then critique wrote:

Stupid argument took the words right out of my mouth. O, I think you should listen to the whole interview rather than take quotes from the LR front page and highlights page out of context.

"My belief is that for our runners to be successful in the marathon, they need to be able to run between 120 and 150 miles a week."

You could try again with a little more coherence. Or are you saying that is beyond you?You could try addressing some of the confusion you caused, e.g. did you mean LT, velocity at LT, or a different definition of LT?You could also explain why Marius would be a good source for marathon training. Did he produce any sub 2:10 runners with abnormally long careers? Was he even talking about marathon training?

rekrunner wrote:

That was your attempt to make it "EASY to understand"? Sorry but I didn't understand you at all.

Ö wrote:

I´m not surprised rekrunner. What can I do with it.

rekrunner wrote:

You could try addressing some of the confusion you caused, e.g. did you mean LT, velocity at LT, or a different definition of LT?

The confusion is in your head. LT, velocity at LT, poteto, potato. Don´t try to ask a question without nothing to ask.

rekrunner wrote:

You could also explain why Marius would be a good source for marathon training. Did he produce any sub 2:10 runners with abnormally long careers? Was he even talking about marathon training?

The quote from Marius was only to back up my statement about the real lactate threshold intensity, moron.

I knew you knew nothing about the real LT, and I was expecting you to show your lack of knowledge.

Ö wrote:

The confusion is in your head. LT, velocity at LT, poteto, potato. Don´t try to ask a question without nothing to ask.

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

I knew you knew nothing about the real LT, and I was expecting you to show your lack of knowledge.

[quote]Ö wrote:

I knew you knew nothing about the real LT, and I was expecting you to show your lack of knowledge.

One sentence does not tell it all. Where does MacMillan or anyone you're debeating say that running 120-150 mpw is all there is to running fast marathons? You're taking one simple part of a program and treating it like it's the whole program.

HRE wrote:

One sentence does not tell it all. Where does MacMillan or anyone you're debeating say that running 120-150 mpw is all there is to running fast marathons? You're taking one simple part of a program and treating it like it's the whole program.

Back to inappropriate posts HRE.

McMILLAN is taking one simple part of a program as a rule for EVERYONE.

so what's your plan?

Incorrect.

In two days some of your questions will be answered.

You're jumping to conclusions over-interpreting too few facts.He didn't say it was a rule, but only his belief of an athlete's capability, based on his observation of nearly all the best.And he qualified it with "You have to be smart in how you do it...."Try to be more open-minded, before jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Ö wrote:

Back to inappropriate posts HRE.

McMILLAN is taking one simple part of a program as a rule for EVERYONE.

Wet Coast wrote:

Incorrect.

In two days some of your questions will be answered.

Incorrect.

I don´t have any questions.

traditional wrote:

so what's your plan?

What´s yours?

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

And he qualified it with "You have to be smart in how you do it...."

[quote]

So what, the point is that you don´t have to necessarily run that kind of mileage at all.

You and guys like MPR, HRE and Wet Coast just cannot face the fact that your way (high mileage) isn´t the only way.

Try to be more open-minded, before jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Ö wrote:

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

And he qualified it with "You have to be smart in how you do it...."

[quote]

So what, the point is that you don´t have to necessarily run that kind of mileage at all.

You and guys like MPR, HRE and Wet Coast just cannot face the fact that your way (high mileage) isn´t the only way.

Try to be more open-minded, before jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Since your handle is the letter "Ö", i guess you´re from Scandinavia, eller har jag helt fel?

Low mileage, high intensity have been fashionable for a long time in Scandinavia, and we all know how pathetically lousy Scandinavian marathoners are.

Or you could be from Turkey, and the same thing could be said about Turkish marathoners.

This is about to degenerate into one of those "Did too/did not" sorts of arguments that no one can win so I may be done after this post.

If I say that I took two hours off my marathon time by getting my mileage up to 120-150 mpw, finding hilly courses to run on, doing at least half of those miles at whatever pace I wanted to hold for the marathon and racing weekly in the month, leading up to the race, I've listed four things that I did that I believe lead to my improvement. If we talk in more detail I'm going to say that course ofyou can't just take anyone who's been running even 100 mpw and send them out to cover 120, but that I think that's the sort of volume someone needs to do eventually.

And I'm not going to have time to get into every little nuance. Yes, I know about the Jack Fosters and Tony Simmonses of the running world. I know they ran very well on far less than I'm advocating. BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT A GENERAL BELIEF AND OBSERVATION. We know that cigarette smoking shortens lives. But you can find a reasonable number of heavy smokers who live past ninety. That doesn't mean that smoking doesn't shorten lives.

When MacMillan started his program and was not getting much in the line of results there were many people here criticizing him. Nothing irritates a person's critics more than any substantial success that particular person has. I would assume that people here who were slamming Greg in his early days are not happy that he isn't failing and will clutch at any straw they can to continue criticizing.