Jeff Nelson and Gerry Lindgren, former prep record holders weigh in-MORE MILES

its been said that it takes ten years of hard aerobic training to fulfill your potential, whatever that is

however, after those ten years porformances plateau completely and there is nowhere to go but down. Also those years of hard training take a toll on your body:some athletes more then others but it happens to all. Gerry started training as a freshman, about 14-15 years old.

he was done by age 26. coincidence?

Geof wrote:

its been said that it takes ten years of hard aerobic training to fulfill your potential, whatever that is

however, after those ten years porformances plateau completely and there is nowhere to go but down. Also those years of hard training take a toll on your body:some athletes more then others but it happens to all. Gerry started training as a freshman, about 14-15 years old.

he was done by age 26. coincidence?

no. no relevance whatsoever. If it would have been 1985 when Gerry was 26 years old, he would have run into his early 30s at that same level, with more incentive. Yes, others (like Pre) might have come along and run better than him, but he could have maintained a high level. No doubt.

Rob DeCastella ran 8.13 for 3000m at 17. At 18 he ran 8.49 for 2 miles, 13.58 for 5000m, 29.11 for 10000m and low 44s for 15km on the road. His weekly training load was in the 70-80km range and never reached 90km. Typically a long run of 21km in the hills, 6-8x200m hills and 6-8x200-400m on the track mixed with days of easy running.

Gradually he built that training load to a regular 210-230km per week. He ran at 4 Olympic marathons with 3 top 10 performances, won 2 Commonwealth golds a World Champ gold won Rotterdam twice, won Fukuoka in 2.8 won Boston in under 2.8 etc.At 18 Steve Moneghetti was running around 100km per week with a long run of 24-26km in the hills, hill reps and one track session. At 18 he ran 4.15 for 1500m, 8.50 for 3000m, 15.25 for 5000m , 31.51 for 10000m, 53.46 for 10miles and 70.54 for the half marathon.By the time he was 24 he had built his training load to a regular 160-170km per week and had lowered his 5 to 13.48 his 10 to 28.21 and made his marathon debut with a 2.11 for bronze in the Commonwealths. Over the next few years he continued to build to the point where most weeks of the year he would run 200kms. He ran 13.32, 27.47, 60.06, 2.8.16. He ran in 4 Olympic marathons with 3 top 10 performances he won gold, silver and bronze in his 3 Commonwealth marathons and a bronze at 10000m, he won Berlin, he won bronze at the worlds (also a 4th at worlds)

He held the WR for the half marathon. He was still running 28s for 10000m well into his 40s.

Poor examples....

they both had talent, great coaching, a club system, perfect training environments, support, and brains!

Most US runners only have 1 or 2 of those attributes.

This may make me look stupid, but what is the dreaded "California Syndrome?"

moneghetti's best was 13:25 for 5K

Not sure of "CA Syndrome" but i am from CA the valley, ran in the 70's and there were alot of people who were really good and competition was pretty fierce. My HS had the top cross country program based on the number of City titles at the time. Most of the runners i knew did pretty well when they were at 50 -75 miles, even including LSD.

However since SoCal was loaded with the guys running sub 4:12 miles, close to 9 minute two miles, guys would take chances ,push harder and blow up.i know because i was one of them.

Tabori coached alot of guys in high school and college who did the same thing as me and paid the price. He seemed to have more success making good runners out of not so good runners and helped elite runners stay sharp, but not so good at taking the 4:12 guy and taking him down close to 4.

When i got to college i got some good coaching, learned that trying to run 100MPW was not productive for me and alot of other guys and in fact ran much better with quality workouts that were well planned.

My coach was an Olympian & American record holder in the 40's and they ran nowhere near 100MPW. He didn't believe in it and thought it hurt the better athletes.

HOWEVER if you have a lack of athletic ability you can gain enough fitness top go from 12 minutes to a sub-10 2 mile. Or a 4:40 mile from 5 and a half, just by churning out the miles.

I think guys who did well on 100 MPW are as much an exception as the guys running very low miles.

There were alot of good runners in the 60's & 70's in Socal and one of the reasons is the way we were raised, we played outdoors constantly as kids. We lived in the hills so that is where we played. So we all had a good "base" before we ran competitively.

My neighbor was All City in Basketball 6ft 5 and even he ran a sub 4:40 mile as a senior. The Coach made the whole team run the mile and to make the team you had to be sub 5. Most of the guys ran sub 4:50, the few who didn't break 5 got another chance a half hour later. All 12 made it by the 2nd attempt.

Great post. Southern California was the Kenya of the 1970s for high school. Your region produced an endless parade of 9-minute two milers. It seems that back then almost half of the high school runners in the U.S. who broke nine minutes were from California.

What do you think caused the dry spell in the 80s and 90s? There were years when maybe one runner nationally would break nine minutes, and that runner was likely to be from some state other than California. So while the 20-year period following the 1970s was a dry spell for the nation, it was a severe drought for California, compared to where it had been.

These days, the number of sub-nine 3200 meter runners is comparable to the peak years of the 1970s, and the performances are more evenly distributed around the country, which is good for the sport.

HRE wrote:

This may make me look stupid, but what is the dreaded "California Syndrome?"

the 'California syndrome" refers to top California preps who ran under 4:10 in the mile or under 9 in the 2 mile , then either disappeared in college or never improved a whole lot. (see Barie Williams-Torrance, Ca or Curtis Beck, Santa Monica, Ca). Now, don't get me wrong, what these guys did in college at Kansas and UCLA is still better than most recruits, but they didn't become sub 4 minute milers or compete at the national level that you would think a 406 and 404 prep miler would have done, eventually.

Thanks.

up all night wrote:

He did not want to succumb to the dreaded "California

Syndrome".

Actually, when I was in high school I wanted to be part of the "California Syndrome." Those kids were other-worldly fast. They were demigods to me. When ever I'd see a national high school list it would be loaded from top to bottom with Spanish sounding high school names, almost all of them Southern California. The times were so fast that it was beyond my comprehension. I mean, 8:50 two miles, how can anyone run that fast?

Good thing I didn't grow up in SoCal, I'd probably be living in a panel van and surfing every day today.

Didn't Curtis Beck have a bad back? Was it from the heavy training? That guy was phenomenally talented. Didn't he run 8:48 as a junior?

Curtis did, indeed, have back problems. His training was low mileage (high intensity?). And, yes, he ran 8:48 as a junior.

Time Warp wrote:

Curtis did, indeed, have back problems. His training was low mileage (high intensity?). And, yes, he ran 8:48 as a junior.

Beck did 8:48 AND 4:04 as a HS junior.

malmo wrote:

Time Warp wrote:

Curtis did, indeed, have back problems. His training was low mileage (high intensity?). And, yes, he ran 8:48 as a junior.

Beck did 8:48 AND 4:04 as a HS junior.

just maintaining those times in college would have been a valuable scorer and one of the top guys on most teams. Injuries play a big role in alot of guys 'disappearing' too. It happened to me. I ran a 4:04 mile as a soph in college, then due to injuries and despite 100 comeback attempts over the next 3 years in college, never broke 4:10 again. Sh** happens.

right on. Many guys/gals you you might notice breaking through with some good times or high places, only to disappear quickly from the scene, are indeed casualties of chronic injuries and never 'get it back together'. (you just don't hear about it unless they are a nationally ranked runner). It wasn't that they 'burned out or peaked early', but that's what some people will spin it, as.

I know both Jeff Nelson and myself faced problems most of you don't have to face today. I have only heard second-hand reports on Nelson but as for myself I still wonder how long I could have held on. You recall the NCAA boycott of the national championships in '65. I alone stood up to bullying, threats, and abuse by the NCAA for several weeks leading up to the nationals. It took a lot out of me. By the time I was a junior in college I had developed serious ulsers. Have you ever tried running with your stomach screaming in pain? I was surprised I could run at all. I came into the NCAA nationals with a 3 mile time 30 seconds slower than Van Nelson of St. Cloud State and Oscar Moore of Southern Illinois. How I was able to win races is beyond me. Some races I could come in doubled over at the waist from stomach pain. So, after college I only had a few races where I could go the distance. I never knew when my stomach would flair up and ruin everything.

The comment I am trying to answer is the one about how Nelson and myself "burned out" after college and never ran well again. I was told over and over again when I was 16 that if I ran all those miles and shot out so fast in races that I would burn out and hurt my body so that in old age I would suffer. So, I had to either buy in to the fear of what could happen, or use the energy, recovery ability, and injury recovery speed of youth to lead a distance running revolution. I chose to go for it while it was there. Most people error on the side of fear. I am wierd!

Now I am older and can't run a 6 minute mile. I have a bad back, hernia, ulser flair ups sometimes, and muscles that still yell out in pain just like they did when I was 17. I have abused my body something aweful. But you know, I would do it all over again. What if I had felt the fear and not done overtraining miles like most runners today? There might never have been a running revolution in America. The life expectancy of Americans might not have jumped from 57 years when I was in high school to 87 years today; We would not all be out there excercising. If you stop and think about it, sacreficing one wimpy body for so much good for society is not such a bad thing at all.

I still have dreams. I still have things to accomplish in my life that will affect life for other people. I want to live 300 years. If one person can hang on for 300 years other people will know they don't have to assume death at 57 or even 87 years old. If I can live 300 years humans will start living 500 and even 1000 years. When the Gods created man he was given 1000 years. Methusala lived 984 years. Somebody has to do it first to show the way. I hope to be that person. Think of the problems. In a world that is geared to retirement at 67 and death before 100, there is a person living 3X that long. Big difficulties! But someone has to go through the hard times so times will be eaier for people later on.

If you are young, I hope you will use your running to change the world. Use it before you loose it. Live your life to do for others and sacrefice self. You only have one life and you have to use it up wisely.

High mileage is good IF YOU CAN HANDLE IT. If you find that you always break down at 50MPW no matter how slowly you build up the miles, stop at 50. Go on the bike or do some pool running if you think you need more endurance.

But if you're not injury prone and have enough time, there is no reason why you should not be running 100MPW or more. The only exception to this rule is if you're a sprinter or an 800 runner.

Thanks for that post Gerry! You've inspired me to go out this summer and try some mileage and push-aside my fears. Maybe, just maybe this fall I can be a threat to the local competition.