WINTER TRAINING

In general I agree with the idea of putting in a lot of miles, but you said in a later post that you only trained 75-90 miles a week due to sciatica. If you ran a 2:11:54 off relatively low mileage like that, it's hard to take you too seriously when you say the key to success is running lots of miles. It may be true in general, but your own experience seems to show otherwise.

Gareth, i really don't care if you take me seriously or not, but 75-90 mpw is ALOT OF MILES. It's just relatively low compared to the mega- miles that Rodgers, Shorter, Fleming et al did in the time period that i trained and raced in. I talked with Tom Fleming after Boston 1975 (he was 3rd,behind me by 11 sec.) and he said that he would not run well off my mileage, and I would self-destruct running his 120-140mpw. Ron Daws, my coach/training partner wanted me to up my mileage. When I would try to get more than 100 mpw, I would either get sick (rundown) or injured. Ron and I both agreed that my mileage was best at 75-90 with some good quality: Lydiard hill workouts, intervals, and long runs, done in a well-planned sequence. Tom Fleming and I both arrived at the finish line at Boston in essentially the same time with different ideas of high mileage. I came from a track background at the University of Minnesota, where I had pretty good success with mileage of 50-60 mpw. Running 75-90mpw was high mileage for me! Don Kardong and Craig Virgin, for example,both have said that one doesn't have to run absurd mileage to race the Marathon, but instead find your optimal mileage to get the best results.

Also, to clarify: I did not have sciatica during my training for Boston '75. I developed sciatica that fall, still training 75-90mpw. My guess now is that if I had run the mileage of Rodgers and Fleming, I might not have made it to the start of Boston that year! I still stand by my original statement that more mileage will usually help most individuals, but people have different limits. You can benefit from Lindgren's advice to run alot of miles as I did. It's just that my concept of high mileage was different than Gerry's. To me, I trained high mileage compared to previous years and found success; I do not see a contradiction in that.

I think Gerry's main point is to get people to stop putting limits to themselves. Limits as to what you should be doing according to a coach, or the gurus on this site.

Just go out and run as much as you can. Granted he had a huge special talent of doing that. Was it all due to his mental drive, or was it, as I suspect, a unique physical talent also to handle dramatic loads?

One thing I've taken from Gerry and also Henry Rono is I no longer wear a watch on my runs. Sure, mainly its depressing to be 39 and look at my 2 mile splits on my daily runs and compare them to what I did 10-15 years ago.

But also I can go to the track and get through a mile repeat session on purely effort and have a great workout. Or go out on a long Sunday run and discover when I got back I was out for 3 hours.

Its a new and fun experience to not be obsessively tied to a strict set program and judging every single workout on if I'm doing the right times and distances.

The 10 mile workout Gerry threw out was to get kids off their ass and challange them to get into a new level of discomfort and keep running. And then after a while the outlook on how hard a 2 mile hurts changes and instead of running 10 seconds a lap slower than their mile pr for a two mile, they can do 5.

slaps, I think that you are basically "right on" with your interpretation of Lindgren's "message". Do the most mileage you can and do not put limits on what you can achieve. I often read where successful distance runners claimed they had no talent (speed, fast-twitch,etc.). What is often overlooked -even by them- is that being able to run alot of miles without injury is TALENT!! Ron Daws always said he didn't have much talent, and he was correct in the sense of mile, 5k, 10k speed (4:25,14:05,30:30 respectively) compared to the times of other world class runners. Yet he had a talent to know what he needed and be able to handle that required mileage....100-120mpw. Ratchet up your mileage to a tolerable level, include QUALITY running, believe in yourself and you WILL improve. I think that is the essence of Gerry Lindgren's message.

Agree completely. All of the physiological stuff that's become so common has, in my opinion, the downside of telling people what their limits are. There are all of these threads here, for example, where someone wants to know how fast he can run a marathon or a 5 km based on having run a specific workout or series of workouts. If you could know how fast you can race based on workouts, what's the point of actually racing? I've always thought that sports were about exceeding your perceived limits.

As to the session Gerry mentioned, I've done it twice in the last couple of weeks, well I may have been a bit short of that opening sub 4:00 mile. I certainly can't say it was pleasant and I don't know what it will lead to. But it was interesting because about fifteen minutes into the run I was sure I couldn't go even another ten minutes. Ten minutes later I thought the same thing and continued thinking that to the end. But I got through it and doing so felt like an accomplishment. I learned something about myself that I wouldn't have if I'd just shrugged off the suggestion.

There may be no way to translate the benefits of that sort of run into language that physiologists would understand. But physiologists don't really deal with the concept of mental toughness or desire and those things have as much, if not more, to do with racing success as your physiology.

I'm glad someone like Gerry is here trying to remind people about the value of those things.

Well, races aren´t exactly pleasant. When I run the XC nationals, it´s the same every year: the leaders start off at an insane pace and you either try to follow or you get stucked in traffic. My favourite session to deal with that is to run 1 km very fast, rest for a minute (I know, I´m a whimp) and then go for a tempo run with a fast finish.

"I think Gerry's main point is to get people to stop putting limits to themselves"--I disagree. Here is what he originally said:

OK:

You have 10 weeks before the start of spring track. Between now and then you have to get ready for a great spring. What to do:

First, start out with 4 weeks of overdistance training. Get as many miles in as you can. Don't count miles, just run every chance you get; Two, three times a day!

Second, cut down your running load to 10 miles a day for 3 weeks. On 5 of those days still run easy pace overdistance kind stuff, but on two days each week for 3 weeks do a time trial over 10 miles. Start extremely hard and try break 4 minutes for the first mile to get yourself into severe oxygen debt as soon as you can. Then keep going hard! Time yourself at 1 mile and several spots along your course. Next time you race it, you want to be better at the mile mark and at each of the spots you time yourself. When you are 1/2 mile from the finish jump into an all-out sprint and fly all the way to the finish line hard! Every time you run this time-trial you want your time to be faster.

Finally, for the final 3 weeks, cut out the time-trial and in its place find a 1/2 mile to 3/4 mile straight stretch you can race without stopping (no traffic lights, etc.) Start at one end and sprint just as hard as your wimpy legs will take you ALL THE WAY TO THE END!! When you approach the end, don't stop, but go into a jog and jog back to the start to recover. When you get back to the start turn around and do the same sprint again and again (3 repeats). Do this workout twice a week in place of the hard ten mile time-trials you were doing.

NOW you are ready to have a great spring.

It's pretty clear what he's suggesting. He's not being metaphorical. Maybe he doesn't really think anyone is going to break 4 minutes for the first mile, but basically, he gives a suggested training program. He's a bit overdramatic in his instructions about how to run hard. He could just say "run this part all-out". The whole thing is unremarkable, and a bunch of people are reading more of a message into it than is warranted.

I was about to write the same thing as "noone". Everyone is putting a positive spin on the Gerry's "message" because they have huge respect for his accomplishments (as I do). But the fact is, he is nutty as a fruitbat, and if kids follow his suggestions, they will end up on crutches soon enough. For the one kid in a million that can handle Gerry's concept of running, there will be thousands of casualties. If you want to understand training, reference the great coaches, the ones who devevlop talent, rather than the few statistical outlier athletes who exploit their talent,and even then end their careers in disappointment.

(to repeat what I posted weeks ago)

First four weeks: 120 - 140 mpw nothing fast or hard, OR realistically something less than that, 70, 80, 90, 100 for the fourth week. Drink lots of water & have lots of carbs.

Second 3 weeks: 70 +/- mpw with, say Sat. & Wed. an attempt to run a PR for 10 miles, then try to beat that each Saturday & Wednesday. Ouch, now this IS work. This would appear more sensible than trying to run a PR for your one mile time, then trying to run redline pace for the next nine miles.

Third 3 weeks: Sat. & Wed. try to beat your old high school PR for the 800 m you once ran on the track.

Well getting my lifetime PR for 10 miles I once ran 32 years ago from 54 min. to possibly 53? Getting my 2:05 800 m time down to 2:03?

Thirty five years ago I may have given this some serious thought.

bump

victoria, b.c., canada, runner wrote:

Gerry always used to start any race at a sub 60 400 m pace then just hung on. Of course he slowed during the race, that was his style of racing. I saw him do this at an indoor meet, Vancouver, 1971. A 3000 m which was eventually won by a N.Z. runner, Kerry O'Brien.

Kerry was from Oz--held the world SC record (8:22.0, run in 4:11.0/4:11.0!) for some years. Fourth in the 1968 OG, IIRC.