krum always split 45 point on the ga tech 4x4 and lassiter could easily run 47, and i have no idea how fast lagat could run, but i bet he puts in some good mileage (top 4 NCAA cross usually indicates some good mileage/base training). speed doesnt matter if youre not up there at the end of the race, only strength, and you get stronger by doing more miles, quite simple if you ask me. JK makes perfect sense!
trackhead wrote:
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.
Trackhead I'm with you in spirit -- Coe would have benefitted in the mile from more aerobic work, I'll bet -- but 3:38? Don't you think that's a little bit ambitious. I don't think that his 1:41.73 quite works out to that.
Looking at the fastest 800 meter runners of all time, I certainly don't see any type of correlation like that. Granted not many of them do the mile nearly as often as Coe did. Still there ought to be at least one of them within at least a few seconds of Coe's fastest 1500 meters (3:29.77) or fastest mile (3:47.33), right? But none of them ever came close:
Wilson Kipketer: 1:41.11 - best mile 3:59 (obviously he could better that if he tried
Joaquim Cruz: 1:41.77 - best mile 3:53
Sammy Koskei: 1:42.28 - best mile 3:56
Yuri Borzakovskiy: 1:42.47 - best 1500 3:47
Andre Bucher: 1:42.55 - best 1500 3:38
Vebjorn Rodal: 1:42.58 - best 1500 3:37
I think a bit more endurance work might have made Coe capable of running with or beating El G. But 3:38 is not in that range.
Why can people not accept that Coe ran fairly low mileage for a miler??? Why must they fit him into their ?high-mileage is best for EVERYone running a 1500 or over? beliefs? And why must they INSIST that, if he had only had someone like JK as a coach, who would have given him more mileage, he would have been a much better miler! It is ABSURD. They say things like: ?well, he never really counted his warm-ups, and MARIUS asked Peter Coe about it, and Marius claims that Seb REALLY ran much higher mileage.? So what is the end result? There are people who insist Coe routinely ran 75-80+ mile REGULARLY in his base-weeks?AND HE WAS AN 800 RUNNER!! And then they say: ? LOOK AT HOW MUCH SLOWER HIS 1500 WAS COMPARED TO HIS 800?.HE HAD NO STRENGTH. HE SHOULD HAVE DONE 100-120 MILES A WEEK!!!?
Give it a rest people. Marius wants every great runner who ever lived to fit his nice neat little theory: fairly high mileage through-out one?s youth including lots of lactate threshold running, and then more and more mileage, even MORE long-interval threshold running, and then finally?.some intense speed work (and that is likely a GREAT model for many[not all] runners). And then everyone else (like JK) wants him to fit into the Lydiard mold: weeks of 100+ base miles(of a fairly moderate tempo) for many weeks. NOT EVERYONE THRIVES OFF OF THOSE SECENARIOS!! (and even Marius now admits that lots of Africans have NOT run lots of miles as children, yet they STILL excel!! ) The Coes did NOT believe in high mileage, and I guarantee you Seb could have run a near world record 3k with a SLIGHT tinkering of his training. His back to back Olympic 1500 titles, and his LA performance of several world-class 800?s & 1500?s packed into ABOUT A WEEK showed AMAZING strength. THAT is a distance runner(maybe not a marathoner, but that is NOT a sprinter or 800 runner only). Yes, Peter & Seb Coe have been quoted as saying different things to different people(and maybe that is their fault, that they have possibly practiced some revisionist history occasionally ), but here are DIRECT quotes from a Track and Field article on Coe posted here once before:
From T&F article:
?When Seb was 11 or 12, the Coe family moved to a home on a hill near Sheffield University where Seb would do THOUSANDS of hill SPRINT repetitions.? That doesn?t sound like the Kenyan youths jogging to school each way with occasional hard 10 to 20 to 30 minute lactate-threshold portions, does it? Coe?s early work sounds like sprint training(Creatine-phospate) work and anaerobic work?that evil stuff we are told on this board to AVOID as children, right? Maybe Coe was not born a 1:41 guy?..MAYBE?..HE DEVELOPED HIS SPEED!!!!
(since people here seem to have poor endurance training when it comes to READING, I will take a break here & continue in a moment)
PART II
And did you read the other quote I posted???? Apparently NOT. (or you cannot read) Here it is one more time: ?Seb was later to say(as an adult): ?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.? Can you READ???? OK, anyone??? He was misquoted, right?? Please just accept it. There?s more:
?The basic reason I came down to 800 was to work on my leg speed for 1500.? Hmm?seems to have worked! And more:
?In 1985, Peter began the careful process of training Seb for 5000 meters at 60 to 70 miles a week.? SIXTY TO SEVENTY miles week?.LATE in his career, as an adult, training for the FIVE K! And there are those that insist that he was doing 80+miles routinely training for the 800/1500 as his early 20?s! IT DIDN?T HAPPEN! He never ran those 5k?s because he suffered some back injuries and retired, but he would have run a great one?..because of his speed-strength and focus on quality. You think Seb could not have run that a great of a 5k off of that fairly low mileage??? Here?s a quote for you from someone who should KNOW, whose theories helped Coe develop his training methods, Frank Horwill: ?Coe's VOmax has been measured at 82mls.kg.min., one of the highest ever recorded, yet he NEVER EXCEEDED FIFTY miles a week. This mileage frugality pales into insignificance compared to Bannister's 28 miles per week. But Bannister, like Coe, did 3 x 1.5 miles at 5K pace each week on the track. Coe's coach, his father, has stated that 'Five kilometre pace running is golden. It eradicates the need for big mileage'. The aforementioned physiologists advocate 5 x 1K at 5K pace with 60secs rest as being the ideal workout.. ? Frank also said:
?But where did Coe get his amazing endurance from? The answer came to me in 1986 when I went to Battersea Park Track one Saturday morning with a 13:11 5km performer to do a session of 7 x 800m at 5km speed with FORTY-FIVE SECONDS REST. The rep times were fixed at 2:08 because the 5km runner was returning to fitness after injury. Coe was on the track and came across and asked what we were doing and could he join in? I felt a little apprehensive that an acknowledged 800m/1,500m runner would not survive a 5km pace session with a short recovery. The 800ms went like this: 2:08, 2:06, 2:04, 2:02, 2:00, 1:58 and 1:56! Coe led them all. Afterwards, he confessed that he did a 5km pace session at 13:20 speed each week. I ventured the opinion that he could run a good 5km anytime. He agreed, but said he didn't like the event! It is doubtful whether any 800m runner before or since could have completed such a session in such times!?
Part III
But of course, YOU people, and JK know better. Seb Coe could have run a 3:38 mile if he had just followed your advice. TRACKHEAD, you have lost ALL credibility with that one comment (not that you had much before).
If you all INSIST that Seb?s low mileage hurt his performance as a miler (if you even believe that he did run low mileage), then why can the argument not be turned around?? How do we know that Snell could not have run faster in the 800 or 1500 if he had run more speed work?? WE DON?T KNOW. But I am not such an idiot as to suggest that, as you are not afraid to do with Coe. MY POINT IS: everyone is different. Maybe Snell?s training was perfect for him, and maybe Coe?s and other?s lower mileage approach with more speed based training was/is right for them. There are MANY ways to skin a cat. But sometimes I think many here think there is only ONE path to the Promised Land. And it is ONLY by following the sacred words of Lydiard.
I am re-printing a message posted by ?runrinaldirun? on another thread. He, I think, also does a good job accepting that there is MORE THAN ONE METHOD THAT WORKS, and that runners who can not handle high mileage are NOT exceptions (like JK and others contend) but are actually fairly common:
?As I have had no clear cut response to my original post, I have done my own searching and come across the following:
*Steve Scott via Len Miller
Ave year mileage
80- 68.2 with only one week at 100 miles
81- 72.6 3:31.96 largest week was 98m
82- 76.8 3:47.69 Again only one week at 100m
83- 80.9 2nd at Worlds. Largest week was 92m
So has you can see not too many weeks at 100 miles as everyone seems to think, in fact over four years there was only just two weeks at 100 miles.
*Jim Ryun via Bob Timmons
12 weeks during racing season May 1st until July 24th
-105
-30.5 8:25.2 US rec 2 miles
-85
-45 4:06.5 Heat run
-49 3:58.6 Final
-69
-42
-90
-44 3:53.7 mile
-45 1:51 Heat 1:44.9 Final WR 880y plus 4:02.8 and 47.8 R (Sat and Sun)
-105.5
-32 3:51.3 WR
This was only during the racing season and I guess there isn't a lot of room to bang out 100 plus, but there are a number of very low weeks in there. There are also a number of large weeks in there before big races both 105's were followed by great races US or WR's.
It seems that this message board gets caught up trying to prove which way to train is best, when the only real answer is, there is only one way to train and that is to find out what works for you. No one can say that running 100 miles a week is better than 50. The 100 mile group will always point to Snell and co and the 50 mile group will always point to Coe and co! I feel that both their Wr are very close in terms of performance givin that Snell ran 1:44.3 on a grass track, but they both got there via different tracks so to speak. Hell I ran my 3:40.60 off 25 miles a week. But I know you will say that I could run 3:35 of 100 miles (try it and got three stressies). Oh well. "
No, JH TrackHead thinks you could have run a 3:00 1500M if you had sucked it up and ran 150 miles a week. Wuss.
I love how you guys are questioning the training of a world class runner, who was the best in the world on several occations. Would KK benefit from more speedwork?
Since Coe never ran that mileage, we'll never know, will we.
Either way, Bumper, relax. Take a pill. People disagree with you. Get over it. Jesus...
coe would've been BITCH-SLAPPED in the 5000-- and he KNEW it...
The miss reading of the Coe book has ruined more careers than any other cause. As bumper tries to say in his encylcopedia, Coe says train hard/fast as much as your body can handle. When that becomes easy do more... The other camp says train hard/long as much as your body can handle. When that becomes easy do more. Actually very similar both about hard training only limited by your bodies ability to tolerate it. Unfortuneately when the Coe book came out many, especially young, runners and poor coaches used it as an excuse to run fewer miles. They then ran what they thought was hard. Since there was no one to tell them if it was hard enough they desided that their lack of progress was a lack of talent and either didn't stick with it long enough or run hard enough. This is why Peter Coe says he could only train Seb since he could watch him and tell if he was working hard enough.
On the other hand, the hard/long camp puts out a number say 130 miles/week. This requires no interpretation when 130 becomes easy, it is impossible not to run it faster. A coach's only job is to get his athlete through the work and tweak a peak. This is why the 70's and early 80's guys were good even though they didn't have some amazing high school and/or college program. The definition of hard training was clear cut and they all tried to do it.
Improving is all about the amount of work. There is no short cut but you can do it in either camp. There is no need to build up for years. Just go out and run a serious amount of work for you at that time. Next week do a little more or run a little faster. Throw in a rest day/week/month if you are not having fun but get right back on the hard work and push your own limits. Slow build ups based on bogus limits like 30 mpw as a high school freshman, 40 as a sophmore...100 as a senior in college lead to short uncompetitive careers. Hard work in high school is good. It leads you to be able to do more work in college. Joe Newton's runners have trouble improving in college because most college coaches will not have them work harder than they did in high school. Finally variety, waz wrote about his perfect 110 mile week which seems to show some variety in his training. But, it is harder to run waz's perfect 110 miles one week and then drop the speed and run JK's 150 miles the next than to do either week in and week out. Wasn't this all covered in the summer of Malmo?
Grasshopper: Thank you.
so your saying that no one can be a fast middle distance runner on 100+ miles a week. YOu are WRONG. Peter Snell!!!!!
Okay Bumper,
-Scott's best year (performance) in 1982 he ran 4000+ miles, an average of 80 miles/ week, with a bunch of 90-95 mile weeks.
-Yes, Coe is someone who had the potential to run somewhere in the range of 3:38 for the mile. I'll post a link showing a chart for my evidence. Why can't a 1:41 800m runner turn out a sub 3:40 mile? It's ny no means impossible. It would take a very long time and emphasis on aerobic development -- more so than with other, less speedier athletes because of there greater percentage of fast twitch fibers. Now, why does this come of as so absurd? Because I doubt that anyone has actually planned on doing it -- on taking a guy like Coe and really developing his aerobic band.
He ran really fast times of of what he did -- not too many people are going to find fault with that -- I think he could have run better at 1500m and up if he had a different training plan in place.
-And I don't require and validation from you so I don't care whether you find me credible or not. If you think I'm full of crap, then do so.
On the chart, you'll see that Coe starts in the endurance end, from 400m to 800m, then moves out to B at 1000m and then is in the A column from then on.
Bumper good stuff. Do you or anyone know of what David Moorcroft trained back in 1982 when he turned 13.00.41? That was quite a time & where did come from? Was that a high miles result?
That link does not work. I get a Geocities page saying the link is unavailable
Try it again -- I just got the page.
For whatever reason, you have to open up a new window, then copy the address into the browser to get to the image. I don't know why but it's free so I can't complain.
Fair enough, interesting chart. But what is it from and how is it evidence? Need a little context.
I think the original contention of having a running base of ABILITY of runnig 130-150 miles in a week has been lost. Having that ability whether you train like Coe or Snell is another issue. So, did what worked for him and Snell did likewise. But both had the ability to turn in 130-150 miles per week on extended bases if they had wanted to. Does anyone question that?
The chart is from some Run With the Best software that more or less allows you to apply indivudual athletes directly into the program. For Coe I selected him as running 2500 mi/year and entered in 1:41.7 for his 800m best. The program then estimates what a 1:41.7 800m runner could run at all other distances depending on their level of development/stamina. It's been dead on in determining which group individulas fall in to and accurately predicting other performances. It's extremely helpful in determining an individual's level of development and where they can go.
Race prediction charts have always been unreliable because of their lack of individualism. You can't just plug a runner into a formula. There are thousands of factors that affect an athletes running performance. Just saying that Coe could have run a 3:38 because of a mathematical formula proves nothing.
