Jim Walmsley gets big feature in New York Times Magazine (and a RW and SI feature on same day)

Here you go, fellas:

http://archive.is/lamAT

Pro tip: if you run any paywalled article through archive.is it removes it. Oh and Walmsley will run sub 2:11 at the trials screencap this.

"The typical elite marathoner can log as little as 70 miles per week; 150-mile weeks sit at the far end of the spectrum. "

Does anyone here know of any runner training for the trials, male or female, who is averaging 70 miles per week?

Xenon Nights wrote:

You are delusional, or at best willfully ignorant. Trying to talk down the WS course record because of conditions is just stupid, and you know darn well that he set the 50 mile record prior to getting beat by "that Japanese runner". Which he did, by the way, in less-than-ideal conditions.

It is some hype, sure, but not all. Nobody is saying he is the best runner ever to lace up a a pair of shoes, but your unwillingness to even acknowledge his level of talent says more about you than anything else.

Well the Japanese runner ran a 6:20ish in "less than ideal" conditions. That is one of the fastest times ever. The 50 mile world best is a non contested distance and never was a contested distance.

Jim has talent but he is not as good as his fan crowd wants him to be.

“Not as good as his fan crowd wants him to be”

Not as good at what? Running a 1:03 half in the middle of massive volume and 50 miles at 5:40 pace, uncontested or not, is insane. Never mind the ultra trail accomplishments.

quickndirty wrote:

mathsman wrote:

Anything outside of the top 10 would be a failure.

We'll see, but I bet if he's in the top 25 his fans will be on here acting like "if he really tried" he'd be top 5-10.

His fans will celebrate even if he Barnicles the race. Doesn't mean it is a success.

mathsman wrote:

quickndirty wrote:

We'll see, but I bet if he's in the top 25 his fans will be on here acting like "if he really tried" he'd be top 5-10.

His fans will celebrate even if he Barnicles the race. Doesn't mean it is a success.

LOLLL, "Barnicle's the race" Did you see the Olympic Trials website..there is basically a Chris Barnicle rule about being on pace by mile 16 or you're pulled from the course for an alternative finish. Long live The Barnicle..

bluecolla wrote:

“Not as good as his fan crowd wants him to be”

Not as good at what? Running a 1:03 half in the middle of massive volume and 50 miles at 5:40 pace, uncontested or not, is insane. Never mind the ultra trail accomplishments.

5:48 pace. For you joggers, 8 seconds/mile may not mean anything, but for real runners it does.

oonunoomus wrote:

"The typical elite marathoner can log as little as 70 miles per week; 150-mile weeks sit at the far end of the spectrum. "

Does anyone here know of any runner training for the trials, male or female, who is averaging 70 miles per week?

Well he's not training for the trials, but according to Canova and others in the know Geoffrey Kirui only trained 70 mpw prior to winning Boston in 2017. And also prior to winning Worlds the same year I think

oonunoomus wrote:

"The typical elite marathoner can log as little as 70 miles per week; 150-mile weeks sit at the far end of the spectrum. "

Does anyone here know of any runner training for the trials, male or female, who is averaging 70 miles per week?

That's easy. From just the Hoka ad profiles, Liza Reichert averages 70 mile (high 82) and Ashley Brasovan 50-55 (high 60). That's 2 of 6 profiles.

My point is that I think there are other runners putting in equivalent mileage. Walmsley had two big weeks in the 170s in December that stand out from the crowd (and is likely geared towards his ultra training), but other than that he is fairly consistent in the 130 range. That is not atypical for a top level marathoner.

I believe the majority of trials marathoners are in the 120-140 range, and that the Times making a statement about "as little as 70 per week" is meant to put Walmsley's training on a pedestal. I'm not knocking his training, but the throw in statement is misleading, and likely 100% false. There are others out there putting in the work, and the Times makes it seem like that isn't the case. I would be surprised if anyone is under 90/week let alone 70.

While it is besides the point above, I would need to see a quote / reference from a reliable source in order to believe that Kerui averaged 70mpw.

That was quick. I stand corrected.

I wasn't able to pull up the data earlier. Hideaki Yamauchi's run under "less than ideal" conditions produced the best result of 2019 and the 14th best ever over 100k. Please stay with the hard cold facts. Thank you.

No Walmsley fanboy wrote:

I wasn't able to pull up the data earlier. Hideaki Yamauchi's run under "less than ideal" conditions produced the best result of 2019 and the 14th best ever over 100k. Please stay with the hard cold facts. Thank you.

What the actual F is your point, do you even know? Do you actually even have one? Other than proving yourself a pedant?

Honestly, any media outlet should just say ‘THE LETSRUN MESSAGEBOARD’ from now on and quit it with the euphemisms like ‘running message boards’, ‘the running community’.

It doesn't say "average."

^This.

His ultimate goal would be to win Comrades and UTMB to go with his Western States. That’s where the focus in ultra running (and probably his sponsors) would be.

He did set a world best in 50 miles on the road though, basically ran 2 marathons back-to-back in 2:30 each. I think he can run a 2:12-15, which might actually put him top ten. But he is clearly focusing on Comrades judging from the mileage he’s accumulating in training.

Shannegen wrote:

He did set a world best in 50 miles on the road though, basically ran 2 marathons back-to-back in 2:30 each. I think he can run a 2:12-15, which might actually put him top ten..

Did you actually put the time of that 50 mile 'world record' into an equivalency calculator? According to Jack Daniels' VDOT Running Calculator, it only pegs out to a 2:28:24 marathon.

He has done workouts for sub 5 pace: 5x5k @ MP

https://www.strava.com/activities/3051885272

Interesting... thanks for pointing that out (obviously I didn’t use a conversion table or calculator for that post, I’m not that obsessed with what he’s gonna do honestly). I haven't used VDOT, but when I put his 4:50:07 into McMillan it’s giving me a 2:10:xx. Not sure I believe that either based on a 64 half. I couldn’t find a free version of the VDOT one, but I’d be interested in using it for myself if you had a link. Did you use the time for the full 100K or just the 50 miles he “ran”? He blew up after setting the standard and basically jogged in the last few.

Don’t know much about ultra running, but a 2:15 is what I think he could manage if he trained right.