Matt Fitzgerald's new book 80/20 Running - Rojo what can u tell us about this book since you wrote the foreward

Shawn H wrote:

But on the other hand, we have Mo Farah reportedly running his pre-marathon training easy days at 7:00 per mile, which is obviously just coasting along for Farah. THEN, Salazar begins coaching Farah to run marathons and instructs Farah to speed up his easy days to 5:30 per mile. So if that's true, then Farah would be doing a lot more than 20% of his running at LT pace or better.

Farah with 3:38/12:53/26:46 PBs has vdot around 83. 5:28/mile is his E Pace based on the vdot table.

Ackley wrote:Rojo, what can you tell us about this book?

http://www.amazon.com/80-20-Running-Stronger-Training/dp/0451470885/ref=as_sl_pc_ss_til?tag=letsruncom&linkCode=w01&linkId=4DSJDHBQPNVJSVTY&creativeASIN=0451470885

Was this just a troll attempting to get our young Robert to admit he did not actually read the entire book

or

a genuine inquiry?

The brain is more than capable of that. Even the brain of a mouse. Why would you imagine it to be an impossible task for the brain of an experienced, high mileage runner?

Why shouldn't Fitzgerald re-write a very old hypothesis of the neuroscience behing efficient running?

Proprioception. The brain sesnses these things through many feedback signals.

Got the book in the middle of last week. Now, the brojo's passion for the basic principle is founded, but I'm finding the book to be boring, tedious and a waste of my focus, as, essentially, it's erroneous and redundant rumination on the same idea, over and over again, repackaged every chapter, that, more than sparking productive, organized, scientific or useful contemplation and stimulation, just seems to be sinking my energy and focus. He's supposed to be a writer (as some on this thread have argued, and not a scientist) who makes things interesting, but I don't think anyone of decent intelligence would find the book interesting but rather frustrating and confusing, like all the emails I get from Runners world and health magazines trying to bait you with every "new tip and trick." Only some happy-go-lucky idiot with a deficient short-term memory could find pleasure in cruising from each chapter to the next (imo).

Apparently, he's got an App/podcast for helping runners stick to a plan of very high percentage 80% of light running (strictly defined at a certain heart-rate and loosely, at a certain indicator of breathing and pace). I haven't checked that out but that should be pretty useful and maybe the most useful thing. I'll make more posts on this thread if I get around to thorough reading of the whole book.

I prefer to see training as a Pyramid of intensity, and I think that would be a much better concept and title for a book.

Discuss....

I have no idea if he explains it as I haven't read the book but there is a good model for the development of neuromuscular efficiency. Essentially it comes down to the strength of the signal that the brain has to send in order to perform the desired movement. The stronger the signal the more muscle is being activated and hence the brain has a rough proxy for energy expenditure/efficiency.

You can observe this in electrograms of muscles being worked to failure. It's interesting stuff.

80% of time I masturbate to TOM CROOZ.

20% of time I masturbate to SERENA WILLIAM.

Limey UK Runner wrote:

I don't know if he explains how the brain is capable of determining efficiency. I'm looking at the chapter in question right now (Chapter 5) and don't see a study that explains it.

I have no idea if he explains it as I haven't read the book but there is a good model for the development of neuromuscular efficiency. Essentially it comes down to the strength of the signal that the brain has to send in order to perform the desired movement. The stronger the signal the more muscle is being activated and hence the brain has a rough proxy for energy expenditure/efficiency.

You can observe this in electrograms of muscles being worked to failure. It's interesting stuff.[/quote]

But running efficiently requires less energy expenditure for a given pace. This requires better muscle recruitment patterns and a combination of more force being applied to the ground as well as more relaxation during when the foot is off the ground.

I haven't read the book either, but I guess he agrees with the above?

[quote]Kipketer_Pumpkin_Eater wrote:

Got the book in the middle of last week. Now, the brojo's passion for the basic principle is founded, but I'm finding the book to be boring, tedious and a waste of my focus, as, essentially, it's erroneous and redundant rumination on the same idea, over and over again, repackaged every chapter, that, more than sparking productive, organized, scientific or useful contemplation and stimulation, just seems to be sinking my energy and focus. He's supposed to be a writer (as some on this thread have argued, and not a scientist) who makes things interesting, but I don't think anyone of decent intelligence would find the book interesting but rather frustrating and confusing, like all the emails I get from Runners world and health magazines trying to bait you with every "new tip and trick." Only some happy-go-lucky idiot with a deficient short-term memory could find pleasure in cruising from each chapter to the next (imo).

quote]

It sounds like maybe the book should have a condensed version, which would be something like this:

"If you are a serious distance runner who runs high mileage, make sure only a smallish fraction of those miles are at a hard effort. THE END."

There is no way to follow this plan w/o knowing what your max HR is. So unless you have data from a 400m interval workout or 5K you pretty much have to at least get a sub-max test done?

crickets

I'm going to resurrect this to ask a question.

I listened to the Real Coaching Podcast yesterday where they discussed Polarized training, pretty much the 80/20 approach.

They seem, as others in this thread have said, to think 20% in zone 3 is not much quality.

I wonder, if I run 100km per week, that means I should run 20km in zone 3, i.e. above lactate threshold. My Daniels prescribed I pace is 3:33/km and T pace is 3:51. I guess that means I should do 20km between those paces.

That seems like a lot to me! Even 20km at LT would be quite a lot week in week out, but above LT sounds very hard.

NUFCrichard wrote:

I'm going to resurrect this to ask a question.

I listened to the Real Coaching Podcast yesterday where they discussed Polarized training, pretty much the 80/20 approach.

They seem, as others in this thread have said, to think 20% in zone 3 is not much quality.

I wonder, if I run 100km per week, that means I should run 20km in zone 3, i.e. above lactate threshold. My Daniels prescribed I pace is 3:33/km and T pace is 3:51. I guess that means I should do 20km between those paces.

That seems like a lot to me! Even 20km at LT would be quite a lot week in week out, but above LT sounds very hard.

It does seem a lot, even if you schedule 3 "hard" days. Perhaps 7 km threshold one day, 7 * 1 km intervals the second and 6 km of hill repeats and 200s/400s the third day? I would be conservative and use 85/15 or even 90/10

as a guide like a previous poster suggested.