Senior,
My personal bests are average at best - I must admit to less than stellar genetic running talent. 2 miles at 11:54, 10k at 42:43, and a 10 miler at 69:56, all set in my early 30s.
Senior,
My personal bests are average at best - I must admit to less than stellar genetic running talent. 2 miles at 11:54, 10k at 42:43, and a 10 miler at 69:56, all set in my early 30s.
325 Richard Gibbens Austin TX 39 48:39.20 49:11.20 00:32.00 7:56/M
Funny...I always thought that having little talent meant you had to work that much harder to compete, not that you should work less. If you don't have talent, that's nothing less or more than giving up.
For the record, this D3 guy ran 5:55 for 1600m as a junior in HS in an XC time trial. By LetsRun standards, that's below average for a girl. Even by standards that make sense, that's little more than average. So did I train three days a week because I had average talent? Hell no! By the end of HS, I was running 60 mpw and had run 4:54, despite terrible training assigned by my track coach in season. (Yes, it was terrible -- 25 or 30 mpw at most. Lots of stupid intervals. I actually gained five pounds during that season.) I didn't race much this year, and was probably the worst distance runner on my D3 team, but I'm buliding up my training to the 80s and doubles this summer so that I can have a shot at being among the best on the team next year. And from there -- who knows?
I've never been injured enough to keep me out of running for more than a couple days, so I'm certainly pretty durable, and that's partly a natural gift, I admit. But I'm not talented in the usual sense. I just have half a brain, which is all it takes to realize that I'm not going to beat many people by training three days a week. And that's what I like to do -- do things I'm not supposed to be able to do. Beat people who are supposed to be faster.
In your comments about running injuries on your website...you mention nothing about the effects of running form in your article. I am assuming this is because the study you are using to prove a point also does not take that into account. Do you feel running form even matters in regards to whether someone with excellent biomechanical efficiency can handle more mileage than someone with poor biomecanics could?
Wait.......Sorry, had to cease my quaking with laughter there.
Four pages of debate WITH A 42:43 10K RUNNER?!?!?!?!
Let this crap end...this guy not only has not a shred of evidence to support his nonsensically laughable claim, but, when applied to himself, HE CLAIMS "genetically lacking"!!!
CLASSIC!
Senior,
The injury studies didn't address running biomechanics so I didn't have any data to reference. I do think it's reasonable to believe that biomechanics play a role, perhaps a prominent role, in how much mileage any particular runner can handle.
Folks, why not take it to the proper forum:
How can you consider the studies valid in explaining running related injuries if subjects are not even given a biomechanical evaluation? Please explain?
Senior,
The goal of the studies was to measure correlation between training and injury, not biomechanics and injury. The authors wrote, "Intensity of training has been mentioned often as a contributing factor in the indcidence of injury and attrition, but specific documenation on the effect of frequency and duration of training is lacking. Thus, the need for more qualitative and/or quantitative information on the effects of endurance training on rate of attrition or incidence of injury is needed." The studies explore the rate of injury based on particular frequencies and durations. Establishing the particular biomechanics that may be associated with injury is left to other researchers, but doesn't invalidate the results of these studies.
but you need to check biomechanics so you can have one variable...this is 5th grade stuff.
Smelly,
If you think there is a significant error in the study methods, you might contact the various groups of researchers who conducted the studies and let them know your thoughts on this.
I suppose we disagree again...I do feel that biomechanical efficiency can not be left out of a study focusing on injuries related to running. This is the problem with almost every running related study, there are just to many varible's that invalid the tests.
Senior,
Perhaps you might consider it like this. There were initially quite a few studies linking smoking to an increased risk of cancer. These studies didn't tell us why certain smokers got cancer while other smokers didn't get cancer but they clearly showed an increased risk due to smoking. Would you say these studies were invalid since they didn't tell us what physiological processes were involved that resulted in some smokers getting cancer and others not getting it?
Maybe "invalid" is not the best word to describe the studies, however my point is that the only useful information that I draw from the study is that it is incomplete at best and it explains very little about the correlation between running volume and injuries. Do you understand what I am saying?
Richard-
You and I have a few things in common. One being an interest in exercise science research (I'm a PhD ex phys) and the other being pedestrian running PR's.
I think that the literature you cite doesn't answer THE question as it pertains to elite/sub-elite training. Specifically, I'm not aware of any study that addresses whether adding intensity to a high volume of training would be superior to just performing low volume/high intensity training. This is a more appropriate question as the previous studies simply address whether intensity is superior to training volume. Again, examining most programs and you'll find tempo, reps, intervals interspersed in the high volume of training, at least for a structure period.
A good example is my own humble running performances. I was subjected to much of the literature you cite all through my graduate studies. Like you, I promoted "quality over quantity" and thus my training was around 30-40 miles a week. I did this all through my 20's and ended up with stellar PR's of 3:33 in the marathon and 40:50 in the 10k. After experimenting with a high volume approach (usually average mileage in the 70's) in my late 30's, my current PR's are 3:10 and 39:33. Again, rather pedestrian (especially for this crowd) but I think it's ratherinteresting that my "quality" training didn't change but my number of "junk" miles increased by about 30/week.
Why does this happen? I think that some of Holloszy's current work might ultimately lead to an explanation. If calcium is a trigger for increasing mitochondrial density then a prolonged increase in intracellular calcium could ultimately prove to be the mechanism explaining why high volume training works. Maybe not, but it's a fun theory to kick around.
Finally, I think we in exercise science need to be careful about the respect we accord to practitioners. I truly believe that if low volume training worked, runners would flock to embrace it. After all, results are more important to them than they are to us.
Sorry for the long post.
I was ready to give this guy some serious thought until I saw his pr's. How in the world can he claim this works when his pr's are absolutely horrendous?
From his own site:
"I've continued to employ this approach since exiting the military in 1996, with the same excellent results."
Well, if you consider low to mid 40's for a 10k excellent, then this program is for you.
Richard, I suggest you peddle this over at runnersworld or coolrunning where the joggers hang out. They're always looking for shortcuts. Not that this is much of one, but it keeps them from running a lot and gives them an out for not having to. You're not going to get anywhere with it here nor, from the appearance of your pr's, does it belong here.
bibMouth wrote:
Richard, I suggest you peddle this over at runnersworld or coolrunning where the joggers hang out. They're always looking for shortcuts.
He already peddles it at both places. For the most part, even the joggers there don't seem to pay him much mind anymore, except to give him some well-deserved ridicule. I guess that's why he comes here.
Macker,
I'm not aware of any studies that address that question either. If I ever win the lottery, there are a few studies I'm going to fund...
"Finally, I think we in exercise science need to be careful about the respect we accord to practitioners."
I agree. I work very hard to be respectful and considerate of other posters and work hard to not engage in personal attach/insult battles.
You make a good point that if low volume worked, runners would flock to it. My personal bias is that increasing volume works (note the title and subject of my latest article), if you have the genetic ability to recovery from it and avoid injury. Based on the injury research my bias is that there is a bell curve for recovery and ability to handle high weekly mileages (though I acknowledge that ability to withstand increasing mileage increases with training), so it seems logical to me to personalize training for each individual.
I'm curious about your training at 40 and then at 70. Do you mind anwering a few questions about it? If you are receptitive shoot me an email at
.
Best regards,
Richard, I have a question. I'm not trying to belittle you in any way. I'm just curious why you think this works so well when your pr's aren't very good. I'm willing to have an open mind about your training philosophy, but I don't see it working for you.
Richard_ wrote:
If I ever win the lottery, there are a few studies I'm going to fund...
I can see it now: "Ten blind senior citizens (mean age = 91.3) with end-stage renal failure and chronic active hepatitis and ten healthy young males (mean age = 25.1) who were former NCAA All-American cross-country runners each completed a three-week endurance-training regimen. The first group averaged 11 miles a week of slow running, the latter 2 miles a week of windsprints. At the conclusion of the training period, the latter group significantly outperformed the former not only in a 5K run, but in bare-knuckle boxing, Grand Theft Auto, and high-speed cunnilingus."