Matt Fitzgerald's new book 80/20 Running - Rojo what can u tell us about this book since you wrote the foreward

Thanks, Jonathan. That helps a lot.

good ol bob wrote:

By what means has Fitzgerald ascertained that the brain is capable of determining the efficiency of a single stride? Is this strictly theorizing on his part or does he have some actual neurologically based studies that support this?.... Quite frankly, it sounds like he's talking out of his ass.

This does sound speculative, but your conclusion seems unfair. I know nothing beyond the most basic rudiments of exercise physiology, but it sounds like Fitzgerald might be incorporating the recent neurological work on 'brain plasticity' that is all the rage now. Given these theories about the plasticity of the brain in terms of routine tasks, it makes sense that there might be some sort of gestalt coordination in the nervous system that improves through repetition. It may not be currently quantifiable, but that doesn't mean he's talking out of his ass.

But this sounds more like the beginning of a conversation, rather than the end of one. Rojo, I'd love to hear a podcast on this. I mean, "each stride constitutes a small experiment"... that is pretty cool thinking.

good ol bob wrote:

By what means has Fitzgerald ascertained that the brain is capable of determining the efficiency of a single stride? Is this strictly theorizing on his part or does he have some actual neurologically based studies that support this? 'Efficiency' is an abstract concept bound to predefined parameters and can vary depending on what constitutes 'efficiency' from a given perspective. Somehow the brain would have to be dialed in to the exact intercellular metabolic processes within muscle cells and actually ascertain the relationship of ATP production to glycogen depletion to oxygen consumption, all within a single contraction cycle and draw comparison to a set of previous collected data, resulting in an evaluation of whether a single stride is more or less 'efficient' than another. Quite frankly, it sounds like he's talking out of his ass.

He has a study that supports that runners run more economically when they aren't consciously thinking about the movements of their body or their breathing.

I don't know if he explains how the brain is capable of determining efficiency. I'm looking at the chapter in question right now (Chapter 5) and don't see a study that explains it.

I've read Daniels. In fact, I just read his 3rd edition last week. I actually agree with the 80/20 rule. And when we're talking "quality" we're not necessarily talking "R" pace or even "I" pace. "T" pace is also "quality," whereas "M" pace and "E" pace are not. Anything that reaches the lactate threshhold can be viewed as "quality." But I do think a LOT of pros are doing significantly more than 20% Q, but probably not much more than 30% Q. Now from the Runner's World article link I posted, it says that Sally Kipyego, 2nd place in the 2012 Olympic 10K to Tirunesh Dibaba, runs a lot of her mileage at 8:30 per mile. And it reports that Brenda Martinez does a lot of her easy running at 9:00 per mile! Of course, when they hit quality, they hit it hard. But on the other hand, we have Mo Farah reportedly running his pre-marathon training easy days at 7:00 per mile, which is obviously just coasting along for Farah. THEN, Salazar begins coaching Farah to run marathons and instructs Farah to speed up his easy days to 5:30 per mile. So if that's true, then Farah would be doing a lot more than 20% of his running at LT pace or better.

The concepts of brain plasticity are nothing new, it has existed as long as the phrase 'practice makes perfect' has. There is plenty of merit to the idea that one can develops more efficient stride mechanics and neuromuscular coordination through lots of repetition, which by definition center on the brain. I have no issue that such can be learned at both conscious and subconscious levels by either incidentally or deliberately altering mechanics over a given workout. Stating that this is a selective stride-by-stride process is strictly speculative.

I agree with another poster that it is a "common sense" idea. In any sport, practice makes perfect. Through proprioception, the brain learns to "perfect" it's control over very minute body movements. It can your favorite quarterback hitting the receiver perfectly in stride for a touchdown, or being just a little off, giving the defender a fingertip deflection of the ball for an incompletion. It can be the difference between a perfect score in a firearms competition and being just a tiny bit off and scoring a 98/100. Why should running be different, especially at a very high level? If you run a track season with all of your training on a smooth track, your stride, foot placement, etc. are "perfected." Then lets say that one day your coach says that you'll be running your speed work around a large grass field. Suddenly your "perfect" proprioception isn't so perfect anymore. Now your brain has to deal with a softer, less even surface. Your stride feels off. Your foot placement is off just slightly. Things just don't feel smooth or efficient. But come Fall, when you train for cross country, your brain's proprioception helps you to become very smooth on that same grass surface through repetition. Practice makes perfect, and even minute changes, repeated thousands of times during a simple three-mile run, are somehow calculated by your brain without you even having to concentrate on it. Makes sense to me. Is there a study on it? Well, even if there isn't, sometimes we learn our own truths.

"T" pace is also "quality," whereas "M" pace and "E" pace are not.

Anything done well and according to plan is 'quality'. The pace is irrelevant.

"Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect"-Vince Lombardi.

Jonathan Gault wrote:

He has a study that supports that runners run more economically when they aren't consciously thinking about the movements of their body or their breathing.

I don't know if he explains how the brain is capable of determining efficiency. I'm looking at the chapter in question right now (Chapter 5) and don't see a study that explains it.

I'm sure your first statement is true. Thinking about movements would certainly introduce clutter. My driving would suck if I started thinking about what angle and rate of change I should put into my steering wheel.

The second part I would argue that we would be guided towards what is easier, but this doesn't by necessity guide us to what is more efficient, or more effective for that matter.

I just have an issue with this whole 'stride by stride' thing. It's unlikely that running would grant such feedback at that resolution, unlike something like plucking a guitar string that is essentially instantaneous. That's all.

Fitzgerald has zero scientific credentials and regularly demonstrates his lack of skills when commenting (and invariably overextending) on the literature. As someone mentioned earlier he is a very competent writer and story teller so he achieves good sales and coverage in the popular literature.

There is really no need to spend any time reading this book.

Lydiard is God wrote:

"T" pace is also "quality," whereas "M" pace and "E" pace are not.

Anything done well and according to plan is 'quality'. The pace is irrelevant.

"Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect"-Vince Lombardi.

It's all relative. But if we're talking Daniels, and we're talking about a line at lactate threshhold, then we have somewhere to start in our conversation. Otherwise, what point is there in the 80/20 discussion?

Shawn H wrote:

Lydiard is God wrote:

"T" pace is also "quality," whereas "M" pace and "E" pace are not.

Anything done well and according to plan is 'quality'. The pace is irrelevant.

"Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect"-Vince Lombardi.

It's all relative. But if we're talking Daniels, and we're talking about a line at lactate threshhold, then we have somewhere to start in our conversation. Otherwise, what point is there in the 80/20 discussion?

I just dislike this obsession with calling every bit of fast running 'quality'. Shouldn't everything we do be quality, regardless of the pace. All the ancillary stuff like strength, mobility, core etc is quality if done correctly. So is getting a life, so I'll leave it at that.

Lydiard is God wrote:

Shawn H wrote:

It's all relative. But if we're talking Daniels, and we're talking about a line at lactate threshhold, then we have somewhere to start in our conversation. Otherwise, what point is there in the 80/20 discussion?

I just dislike this obsession with calling every bit of fast running 'quality'. Shouldn't everything we do be quality, regardless of the pace. All the ancillary stuff like strength, mobility, core etc is quality if done correctly. So is getting a life, so I'll leave it at that.

You can call it whatever you want. The discussion, though, is about the 80/20 principle, which simply put is that you should run 80% of your mileage at a relatively easy pace and your actual "quality" running totalling about 20% of your overall mileage. I think people can have success with slightly more or less than that. I do agree with Sebastian Coe, who stated, "I believe that long, slow distance produces long, slow runners." But as I read somewhere, when Coe and his coach figured his mileage they typically didn't include all the warm-up and cool-down mileage that he was actually running, which was significant. Are there runners who can actually get by with, say, 50% easy and 50% quality? Maybe, if they are biomechanically near-perfect and all they do is run, eat and sleep like many of the top Kenyans do? But again, it's all relative: If your "hard" quality training is sub-4:30 pace, your "easy" training might well be 5:30 to 6:00 pace. When I was in high school tack, we ran almost every workout on the track, and almost all of it was "quality." I got really fast, but I repeatedly got injured. What if I had simply followed the 80/20 rule, running my quality work really hard, but letting my body fully recover during 80% of my other running? Would actually being able to compete rather than spend so much of my time hobbled or on the sidelines be better? I think so. Maybe Seb Coe could get by with more quality, but I sure couldn't. If I had it all to do over again, oh the success I might have had!

Gault,

Does that make an argument for those who train with headphones that theoretically allows music to take the brain somewhere else? Because I hate those db's.

good ol bob wrote:

By what means has Fitzgerald ascertained that the brain is capable of determining the efficiency of a single stride? Is this strictly theorizing on his part or does he have some actual neurologically based studies that support this? 'Efficiency' is an abstract concept bound to predefined parameters and can vary depending on what constitutes 'efficiency' from a given perspective. Somehow the brain would have to be dialed in to the exact intercellular metabolic processes within muscle cells and actually ascertain the relationship of ATP production to glycogen depletion to oxygen consumption, all within a single contraction cycle and draw comparison to a set of previous collected data, resulting in an evaluation of whether a single stride is more or less 'efficient' than another. Quite frankly, it sounds like he's talking out of his ass.

I think this is a good point. Not to say there is no value in this book (I haven't read it), but this part sounds like a load of crap. Exercise science is a bit soft anyway, so it's relatively easy for an author to make stuff up and, as long as it sounds "science-y" enough, most of the time they won't get called out on it.

Really, I'm having a hard time getting excited about the "80/20" concept. It seems like it's just taking an idea that has already been established - i.e. a relatively small fraction of a runner's weekly mileage is done at a hard pace, for the simple reason that that's about all they can handle - and makes it sound like some kind of new invention. I think it's a pretty common experience among runners of all ability levels to have trained in such a way that you run about 2, or occasionally 3, hard runs in a week, and just easy mileage the other days. Bingo, 80/20. I just didn't have a name for it when I was running track/XC.

First off, I have to give your book reviewer guy Jonthan kudos for doing your book reviews.. Thus far, he's done a good job on this book and Nick Symmonds's book. With that said, I've read and bought all of Matt Fitzgerald's books. Have I read or agreed with all of them? No, I only read certain parts or all of them if I am really interested (sorry, life is too busy but if the book grabs me then I will find time to read it all)-- that goes with any book I buy. Anyhow, Rojo-- I thought you said you didn't have anything to do with the last part of the foreword, or at least that's what I read a couple days ago on this thread. If you actually did, it did seem silly coming from you. Sounded too fake.

I also agree with the poster who said Fitzgerald is a good writer and knows how to sell a book. Why not and wouldn't you if you had that talent?

The poster who wrote about the possible "doping" situation and how he couldn't agree or follow their regime, I can understand and probably agree. I would never emulate an elite who is faster and beyond my reach, but I can learn about some aspects of their mindset and training.

Finally, I agree with Shawn H. I think this book is for older runners and also believe 80/20 is not a new concept like others have stated. Fitzgerald did recognize Dr. Seiler in the book and I appreciate the poster who gave the link to his seminar which was great. Thanks.

Overall, I like reading books that were written by authors I am familiar with, but if this is not the case then books that still caught my interest will only enhance my knowledge. If nothing else, at least I feel like I am supporting the running community. Just my humble rambling..:)

The server was down yesterday. The video is back on line:

http://www.canal-insep.fr/fr/training-periodization-deep-root-cultural-heritage-and-innovative-paradigms-2013/ei_13_10_va_pr_stephen_seiler-mov

LetsRun.com wrote:

We edited the title of the thread. It initially was "Rojo what can u tell us about this book."

Ah, that would explain your misspelling of "foreword." Ivy Leaguers, my eye.

Seriously, there has to be an unemployed English major out there who'd be willing to work on catching stuff like this.

...although, to be fair, a couple years back LRC took a major step toward approximating standard American English. I don't know what you did, but the improvement was obvious. So thanks for that, but don't rest on your laurels.

I was fortunate enough to spend a good deal of time studying and training in Iten, Kenya a few summers ago, and I can say with confidence that recovery runs are extremely important and slow for many of that region's elite runners. For example, David Rudisha, Abel Kirui, Asbel Kiprop and even the Robertson Twins all jogged with me at what was probably 8:00min/mile pace for over 40 mins. 20 sub 2:13 marathoners started our long run at what was a painfully slow progression that took 15 minutes to even hit 7:30 mile pace. The entire town's community of runners used Wednesday, Friday and Sunday as strict recovery days, meaning that they would either run an hour at a slow jog or take off completely (off days were usually reserved for Sunday. Iten is predominantly Christian, so the Lord's day of rest was taken quite seriously). From my perspective and observations, it seemed that recovery runs were an integral part of the running culture around the Rift Valley, both in practice and in talk. Kenyans runners at least acted in a way that suggested they truly understood what it meant to listen to their body, were comfortable about doing and discussing a running pace called "poli poli" (meaning very slow in Kalnejin) and were not plagued by some irrational fear that if one's training isn't moving forwards, it must mean that its moving backwards.

We need ISO standards for running terms A lot of discussions here are prompted by people using different terms for the same thing, or the same term for different things.

For instance, the term easy. Someone says that Mo runs MP + 2 on easy days and interprets that to mean that we should do what most books call easy runs at MP + 2.

I would interpret easy days as rest or recovery days not easy run days. In fact we should scrap the term easy altogether because it's the most confusing term in choosing.

Let's call them, aerobic runs and recovery jogs, like God intended.

Choosing = coaching.