A runner absolutely must obtain the ability to train at 120-150 (or more) miles per week by the peak of the career in or

"Personally, I've seen better results (albeit for milers/5k guys) when they run 80-100 miles a week and do nearly all of it at close to threshold pace. Running is pretty simple if you have a good head on your soldiers (read: not me). Run 100-110 mile weeks in the off season, cut back to 80s during the season. Run 1 long run, 1 tempo, 1 longer interval session, maybe one shorter interval session (as the season progresses), 1 day extremely easy (jogging) and 3 days relatively up-tempo (right below threshold) and you'll have a fantastic runner."

"Keep in mind, I have never personly witnessed someone doing ALL these things at the same time, but have talked to people who have (Marcus O'Sulivan, Bob Kennedy). I have seen people of decent ability do the training side of this plan and have seen them run 3:58 and 4:03 (both in their early 20s) and sub 14:00."-Conto

Joe Falcon is another example of this type of runner. 3:3?-3:49-7:46i-13:20-28:34.

Let's not forget...JK isn't talking about running 120-150 miles a week year round. There is a time to race and a time to train. A lot of us (me included) forget this at times.

Alan

Yes, JK also said periodializing (i spelled that wrong). Which means one is not supposed to do that year around. You have different stages in training. Ex. Tapering.

I have 2 questions. 1. Q. Who are the best runners in the

world?

A. Kennyens.

2. Q. What peoples run a crap

load of miles?

A. Kennyens.

Problem Solved.

Somebody needs to solve the problem of your spelling..

"Kenyans"

"if you have a good head on your soldiers (read: not me)"

well, i think that says it all...

1. Q. Who are the fastest people in the world?

A. Kenyans

2. Q. What people run a crap load of miles?

A. Kenyans

PROBLEM SOLVED

And also...the second fastest group of runners in the world: Japanese...mega miles.

Alan

"150 per week is BORDERING on a lot" That's funny.

JK needs to once and for correct his comments. Many, many, many, many, many, many, many, WORLD CLASS milers do and have done around 60 miles per week(Coe, Lagat, Krummenacker, many more), and no higher. Even guys running great 3 & 5k's have done 60-80. To say that they needed to double or triple those figures to reach their ?full? potential is downright ludicrous. IF?JK is talking about the MARATHON, then I would give his ideas SOME credence. The marathon is a long-ass race (2800% longer than a 1500M, and even 422% longer than a 10k). So that race changes things. And yes, in the marathon the Japanese have some great success with their super-high mileage approach in THAT RACE. In the 1500-10K???? They have done NOTHING!! And maybe that PROVES they are TOO into high mileage and do NOT know how to train for those shorter races. And maybe JK does not know either.

the runners that can get away with low mileage are the runners who can run mid 40s for 400m. for the runner ranging from 49+ for 400, JKs methods are the way to go. why do you keep trying to challenge what he says? if you dont agree, just dont read this anymore, your arguing helps nothing

?Mid 40?s? for the 400??? So if you can not run a 45 or 46 400 meters, then the only way to go is to train the way JK professes (at least 150+ miles a week, because that only ?borders? on being a lot). And this even applies for the mile or 3K ??? So since there may have never been an athlete with 45 or 46 speed who trained seriously for a mile (wasn?t Coe 47 ?), then the conclusion is: EVERYONE from the mile up, must train JK?s way or they are wasting their time. Well, like I said, tell that to Krummenacker, Lagat, Lassiter and others, who are training together now, and are training less than ½ that mileage. And none of those guys can run an open 400 in 47, but if you take those 3 athletes best 1500 times for next year, they will probably AVERAGE around 3:30. Not bad at all for a trio of underachievers.

And if you can only run a 55 open 400?..WORK ON YOUR FRIGGIN? SPEED!!

(Seb Coe: ?many people believe that to get results, you must train 75, 85, or EVEN 100 miles a week. THAT?S ALL WRONG. For me only ONE thing counts: SPEED, SPEED, SPEED. Modern middle distance running demands a considerable amount of leg speed, and you are not going to get it from running slowly in training.?

And YOU are the one adding nothing to this debate by just Yes?ing JK to death.

bumper- ok smart ass, try telling Peter Snell (48s/400m open) that 100+ miles/week isn't going to help him.

To my knowledge, he ran 100 miles/week and even more at times during his base, and he held WORLD records in the 800m, 1000m, 1500m, and mile. Incase you didn't know, he was also a 3 TIME OLYMPIC CHAMPION. Not too bad for a guy who wasn't overly concerned with his speed. He knew that to be a GREAT middle distance runner, you had to get as much base milage behind you where the emphasis was purley on AEROBIC RUNNING! You can still keep your speed relitavley sharp by running your strides.

you may never understand this, but without the endurance, all the speed in the world means nothing. snells 48 speed would have gotten him NOWHERE if he hadn't undergone a marathon-like conditioning program to boost his endurance.

It seems that I fit the description of your typical slow distance runner- I have a 56.5 400m open PR. [quote]Bumper wrote:

And if you can only run a 55 open 400?..WORK ON YOUR FRIGGIN? SPEED!!

quote] So I should work on my speed right? Well let me tell you I trained on a low milage speed emphasis program with some weights ALL THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL.... this should have improved my speed? HELL NO. some people just were not meant to be fast. It is a matter of your fast-twitch muscle fibres. I am not accepting that I will be at 56.5 forever, but realistically, I know that my 400m time will never be faster than 53, 52 AT BEST, no matter how much I work on it.... but you know what, bumper? I know that my AEROBIC POTENTIAL is UNLIMITED. This is why I choose to run the 75, 85, 100+ miles/week.

it is funny how ignorant people like yourself can forget the training of Champions like Snell even though it was less than 40 years ago.

Exactly. In one race Snell (who won the race) was asked by his opponents "when did you start your speed work"? His reply was "today". Snell was awsom, snell ran ALOT. Read Arthor Lyniard's book. It will do all of you some good.

If that is a true story, I love it. If it is not a true

story, it should be.

It's a true story. Peter came to believe that the "conditioning" phase, the basework, was the thing that made Lydiard training successful. He says that once that is done almost any form of speed/pace work will bring you to your peak, and that you don't need very much of it. When he ran his second world mile record he did it on less than three weeks of anaerobic work, far less than even Arthur thought he'd need.

second fastest runners the Japanese?

what about the Ethiopians and the Morrocans?

BUT, all very prodigious trainers.

i think art was talking in terms of marathoning depth, in which case the japanese might be first...

bumper: coe's mileage totals were much higher than he cared to admit-- he did NOT count warm-ups, cool-downs, and morning runs in his totals... and krummennacker HAS run 47 for the quarter, and i'm SURE lagat and lassiter have run/could run 47 as well...

Count in the chinese women as well.

Hey Bumper,

About how many miles do you think Lagat has run in his life? Compare that to his American counterparts.

Sorry, you can't increase your fast-twitch muscle fiber count nearly as well as you can improve your aerobic capacity. By your logic, if you can't run 9.80 at 100m, work on your speed, speed, speed.

Coe was putting in 75+ base mileage, but even he lacked in development. A 1:41.73 800m runner should be running a 3:38 mile. But Coe was based on speed speed speed, as you say. He maxed himself out in stamina -- but only to 800m. He lacked in a lot of development beyond that distance. That's not to see he wasn't a stamina athlete or that he was low on endurance -- he trained himself to endure lots of races but beyond 800m never ran what he should have been capacble of.

I'd call it a combination of his training style and some impatience. Because Coe had so much raw, natural speed, it would have taken him longer than other less speedy athletes to gain the benefits of several tens of thousands of miles, because of the difference in slow-twitch to fast-twitch muscle fibers; but once he does accumulate thaat volume and expands his aerobic capacity, then you've got the man that will break 3:40 for the mile.

But people are impatient. When ou tell them that it will take a decade to become a world beater, they sigh and say oh well and go somewhere else for coaching or take another route in life. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

I think it's called talent. Those without talent have to practice more.