YMMV wrote:
So you are saying that she is even more slow-twitch than Thorvaldson. Could be.
Yet she ran the 2:12 800 leg. Not crazy fast, but I would think fast enough to drop her mile time.
YMMV wrote:
So you are saying that she is even more slow-twitch than Thorvaldson. Could be.
Yet she ran the 2:12 800 leg. Not crazy fast, but I would think fast enough to drop her mile time.
Yeah, it's not a 5 mm. It's holding a slightly under 6 mm pace.
12 m is pretty tough as a workout.
But once a week? Seems fine for someone with her form and strength.
Not that "insane."
Tough kids with relaxed form can handle it.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
If you only run 20 miles per week and your longest run is 5 miles, it does make it a “long run.”
It absolutely does, and Jack Daniels training guide agrees with me. 20-25% of your training for the week is the long run. Your math checks out perfectly (5/20 = 25%).
Do you know how few people can actually run for 90 minutes? How few people could put in that mileage safely?
the real macdaddy wrote:
Lenny Leonard wrote:
If you only run 20 miles per week and your longest run is 5 miles, it does make it a “long run.”
It absolutely does, and Jack Daniels training guide agrees with me. 20-25% of your training for the week is the long run. Your math checks out perfectly (5/20 = 25%).
Do you know how few people can actually run for 90 minutes? How few people could put in that mileage safely?
So if you did five runs per week all of the same length, they would all be long runs?
I don’t know what else to tell you. If the person is not running for close to 90 minutes or more, they aren’t doing long runs, physiologically speaking.
If Taylor ran her 12-miler at 7:30 pace, it’d be a long run.
MPW is a pretty pointless training metric, for what it’s worth.
[quote]the real macdaddy wrote:
It absolutely does, and Jack Daniels training guide agrees with me. 20-25% of your training for the week is the long run.
[quote]the real macdaddy wrote:
I agree and an often overlooked issue with long runs, however far that may be for an individual, is how much training do they reschedule for the long run? Do they taper a few days before and after to accommodate a long run leaving them with just 1-2 days per week other than rest? Do they do the opposite and hammer right on through and end up dinged up? There is nothing wrong with a 12 mile run at 6:00 pace for a girl of this caliber IF it is positioned and treated correctly in the context of all other training.
FastTuohy wrote:
YMMV wrote:
So you are saying that she is even more slow-twitch than Thorvaldson. Could be.
Yet she ran the 2:12 800 leg. Not crazy fast, but I would think fast enough to drop her mile time.
Not really, I have coached a woman who ran under 4:30 for 1500, with good leg speed, but didn't break 2:12 or 60 for 400. She was a true miler, never broke 17:00.
Ewert's numbers are not outrageous, considering her XC strength. I would have expected a breakthrough track season for her above all the other girls. We'll probably have to wait for 2021 to see her real abilities.
ohio guy wrote:
[quote]the real macdaddy wrote:
It absolutely does, and Jack Daniels training guide agrees with me. 20-25% of your training for the week is the long run.
[quote]the real macdaddy wrote:
I agree and an often overlooked issue with long runs, however far that may be for an individual, is how much training do they reschedule for the long run? Do they taper a few days before and after to accommodate a long run leaving them with just 1-2 days per week other than rest? Do they do the opposite and hammer right on through and end up dinged up? There is nothing wrong with a 12 mile run at 6:00 pace for a girl of this caliber IF it is positioned and treated correctly in the context of all other training.
You agree? Is this an April Fool’s joke?
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!
FastTuohy wrote:
something still does not add up. She can do this, and excel at XC, and ran a 2:12 leg on a 4x800 last Spring but cannot break 4:50 for a mile?
Her PR is 4:48 from NBNO last year. That was on Sunday after winning the steeplechase on Saturday. I believe she also ran the 4 x 800 on that Saturday. Most if not all of her miles are part of doubles and triples. At Millrose she ran a 4:50 about 3 hours after winning the women's race walk.
Perhaps that is it, something just did not add up.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
You agree? Is this an April Fool’s joke?
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!
Your attitude is everything that is wrong with online communication, trolling or not.
You know damn well the previous guy and I are using the term long run in context of someone's overall mileage. In fact the previous guy stated it matter-of-fact.
Yet you feel a need from the bowels of your keyboard to belittle in a perceived effort to feel vindicated that you are right and all others are wrong. Face-to-face I suspect you would be a sniffling non-voice in an intelligent conversation.
Stay on the subject or take your semantics back to the kids table and let the adults talk!
FastTuohy wrote:
Perhaps that is it, something just did not add up.
As someone who has seen her race many times, she is a weak runner. Weak in a non-power, slightly flailing sort of way. This shows even in her 800 relay legs where power is most easily seen. Her aerobic strength is obvious and impressive, but her form is not yet concise like most national level collegians and pros. Once she improves physical strength and related power off the track she should improve intermediate distances. To me, this means there is still room for improvement in that area and Arkansas has had much success with this. I thought this was an excellent college selection for Ms. Ewert.
ohio guy wrote:
FastTuohy wrote:
Perhaps that is it, something just did not add up.
As someone who has seen her race many times, she is a weak runner. Weak in a non-power, slightly flailing sort of way. This shows even in her 800 relay legs where power is most easily seen. Her aerobic strength is obvious and impressive, but her form is not yet concise like most national level collegians and pros. Once she improves physical strength and related power off the track she should improve intermediate distances. To me, this means there is still room for improvement in that area and Arkansas has had much success with this. I thought this was an excellent college selection for Ms. Ewert.
This is in line with her genetics/muscle fiber setup (primarily slow-twitch) and training (lots of race-walking, which is a steady, aerobic effort at very high volume).
She seems to target XC races and the longest track events she is allowed to run. Her kick at NXN was MASSIVE due to her aerobic strength, she beat a lot of other goats there including Thorvaldson and Starliper and dangerously threatened Tuohy's win (she made her work hard for it).
ohio guy wrote:
FastTuohy wrote:
Perhaps that is it, something just did not add up.
As someone who has seen her race many times, she is a weak runner. Weak in a non-power, slightly flailing sort of way. This shows even in her 800 relay legs where power is most easily seen. Her aerobic strength is obvious and impressive, but her form is not yet concise like most national level collegians and pros. Once she improves physical strength and related power off the track she should improve intermediate distances. To me, this means there is still room for improvement in that area and Arkansas has had much success with this. I thought this was an excellent college selection for Ms. Ewert.
Ewert is in a strange situation. I think her training in high school was disproportionately aerobic and she never developed fast twitch muscle fibers that will be crucial at the next level. I hope it's not too late for Arkansas to correct that. If it's too late then she will end up more like Anna Rohrer instead of like Karissa Schwiezer. By that I mean she'll have a successful career but she'll never be a serious threat.
On the other hand, she's the best race walker in the country and this is her best shot at the Olympics. Training extra volume for race walking isn't irrational. Although there's not much glory (or money) in racewalking, you can understand sacrificing future running success. Tinman athletes, however, train too much aerobically at the expense of other development without a backup plan to racewalk.
There is actually a sense in which that is true. I was best at 3000m, and could run reasonably at 5000m, and as a master a reasonable 10k.
That said, I definitely started to tail off after 3000m, and my half marathon and marathon were laughable.
So if I based things like tempos or l/t runs on marathon pace they'd just be like steady runs (my marathon fastest marathon was more than minute a mile slower than my 10k pace, and that was near perfect pacing).
I'm saying it's so in this case, but there can be an instance where marathon pace isn't marathon pace for training purposes.
tin can man wrote:
Ewert is in a strange situation. I think her training in high school was disproportionately aerobic and she never developed fast twitch muscle fibers that will be crucial at the next level. I hope it's not too late for Arkansas to correct that.
On the other hand, she's the best race walker in the country and this is her best shot at the Olympics.
I agree completely with your assessment and even your examples of comparable athletes.
I wonder if Arkansas was chosen strickly for their ability to help her progress as a runner or if they were one of the few chosen schools that agreed to divide time or help her pursue race-walking in addition to running.
It reminds me of Suzie Tuffey at NC State many years ago. NC State was the only school who would give her a scholarship for track without making her race XC. She practiced with the team and what i guess the coaches hoped, halfway through the year she wanted to help teammates and began racing. Oh, she won NCAAs that fall. I am going from memory so may have a detail slightly off but it was a pretty neat situation.