Marathon Training On Low Volume???

Renantonio,

Thanks for the comments.

"...you back away from the "substantive discussions" you claim to enjoy, as with Renato, Antonio, and others."

Your view on this is interesting to me. It is well known that I generally choose not to interact with those who use personal attacks, insults, dishonesty, etc. However, I can't recall ever declining to have a substantive discussion with anyone who wanted to discuss something with me. In the case of Renato, he chimed in on the discussion with his comments on how to train for the marathon and how the top marathoners train. I don't have any problems with him posting (I actually agree with much of what he said). I didn't see that he addressed anything to me in particular and didn't feel compelled to respond. Broadway Joe asked me if I had a reply to Renato's comments and I said not really without giving further explanation. Which has in turn led us to the point where you are suggesting I seemingly routinely back away from discussions with other posters. So, while I appreciate your honesty and your feedback it appears my perception is quite different than yours.

Best regards,

Well then Richard_,

tell us what you think of what Renato said. Don't ignore his post - he contradicted the essence of your position, but not from the position of a scientific background - rather from the position of (arguably rather extensive) experience training elite athletes. Give us a detailed response please.

Further, can you name a reputable coach with any demonstrable experience who will support your view that three days of training per week is a great idea for distance runners?

For information purposes, I can offer my own personal experiences as another data point, for the original poster (GILT). I'm hardly even remotely close to being elite, but I have run:

3:35 and 3:15 off 25-35 mpw training

3:01 off roughly 40+

and

2:45 off about 55-60 mpw training (average, with 70 mpw weeks peak)

However, I don't believe I've come anywhere close to my potential. I think I can probably train myself to 2:38ish shape with 75-95 mpw, and my ultimate potential (as an average runner with no genetic gifts) is likely 2:35+, but with much heavier mileage.

I can guarantee I'll never get there (maybe it's just me) on three days of training per week.

Pete,

I generally agree with his points 1 & 2.

I am not in agreement that high mileage is necessary for all athletes. While elites may have the genetics to absord and respond to the frequency Renato suggests, I don't believe those of average genetic talents are well served to try and duplicate the training of the elites.

Regards,

This is a great topic, except I don't understand why people pick on Richard so much.

The essence of my original post really is being discussed here. Most agree that much bigger weekly volumes are needed to reach Marathon potential. And I guess no-one ever ran world class on 50MPW, right?

Cheers

GILT

average genetic talents

What exactly doyou mean by this? Please explain how you determine the level of a person's "genetic talents"? What tests do you use? Have you identified (when legions of geneticists profess ignorance), the precise genetic sequence which leads to distance racing success?

Nobby,

Nobby Nomates wrote:

average genetic talents

What exactly doyou mean by this? Please explain how you determine the level of a person's "genetic talents"? What tests do you use? Have you identified (when legions of geneticists profess ignorance), the precise genetic sequence which leads to distance racing success?

We can not identify in advance what a person's genetic talents are.

We can observe a person's response to training though and, over time, determine their individual rate and magnitude of response.

(forgot about this thread so I am responding very late)I wrote:>> genetics of American runners, whatever>> they are, have not drastically altered>> in 20 years.

No you have me there. I have nothing to prove that the gentics of American runners have not drastically altered since the mid 1980s.

Now I would make another flippant comment about DNA here but I don't want to sound confrontational when I don't seriously believe we actually have any major point of disagreement. I think it is safe to take my premise as a given. Maybe I'm assuming to much but the idea that there has been some sort of populationwide genetic change in 20 years is something so silly to me that I reject it out of hand. If you don't accept at least that then the rest of my reasoning regarding the drop in performances becomes irrelvant.

I do hold with that idea. There are simply fewer serious runners. The serious runners are doing the miles. But since there are so few of them, there are so few sub-2:20s.

I don't dispute for a second that desire (and lack of it) plays a part. But I think we also have a generation of runners who have been cautioned, coached and conditioned into a less-is-more mindset.

I think people like Richard are a part of the problem. They tell people what they want to hear rather than what works. When one person is saying you need, say, 100 mpw to run your best possible marathon and another is saying you only 40, it's human nature to want to believe the lesser figure. So much so that if you don't know which person is more credible, you might tend to to be... shall we say less "rigorous" in your evaluation of their message. Not you specifically but people in general. When you hear what you want to hear, it's easy to stop looking elsewhere

Eventually, if someone stays in the sport long enough, they get wise to people like Richard. But how many years are people going to waste on his "plan" before they learn what really works from real world runners? To me, the danger of a guy like Richard is simply that he wastes a runner's precious time.

We can observe a person's response to training though and, over time, determine their individual rate and magnitude of response.

How do you know that the training "prescribed" (to stick with the medical metaphor) is sufficient to induce a response?

How do you know that the initial low-volume training you prescribe will induce the requisite response which would, I assume, lead you to label the person "genetically talented" and thus, I assume again, lead you to increase the "dosage"?

You state on your website that you have never trained an "elite" runner, perhaps the problem is that the initial training you prescribe is insufficient to push the athlete to a performance which would cross your imaginary "genetically talented" threshold? A chicken/egg situation, if you will.

Nobby,

"How do you know that the initial low-volume training you prescribe will induce the requisite response which would, I assume, lead you to label the person "genetically talented" and thus, I assume again, lead you to increase the "dosage"?"

What training load is generally prescribed for beginners? How does a beginner and/or his coach determine when to increase training load?

Renato Canova

Very interesting post as always. Can you please explain your view on alitude training for a non-african born at sea level? Does this volume you speak of, change at sea level? What about the sessions? Are the times adjusted at alitude? I know you train most of your athletes at altitude, do they still aim at sea level goal pace for the marathon.

it works like this.

a beginner starts running.

he runs some miles.

he gets used to it

he tries running MORE miles

he gets used to that

he runs yet more miles.

you get the idea

Why don't you answer my questions first, then I'll answer yours.

IMHO, the base of the pyramid has shrunk. I believe it is all training / desire / goal etc related, and nothing to do with genetics. I think this is the root of fewer "serious" runners. We look at the distance running world and throw up our hands. "We can't win at the Olympics or set WR. That's for Africans." And our incredibly fat, lazy, luxurious North American lifestyle, which is the biggest factor of all.

(Silly me, I even believe that Kenyans are not genetically superior to Europeans in distance running, and that West Africans are not genetically superior to Europeans in sprinting. Now there's a topic for a thread. I'm ducking now.)

Cheers

GILT

Nobby,

I meant for you to infer my response from my questions. Sorry it wasn't clear.

Basically you asked if my training recommendation might be too low to determine who is and who is not genetically gifted. I suggest that 3 days of training per week for beginners, which it a pretty common recommendation, is sufficient to produce a training response. From the response, over time, we can begin to figure out the inborn talent levels of individuals. Those who readily respond to the training can then begin increasing their training load (my training recommendations for beginners are not different than what is generally recommended).

This is probably more specific to beginning high school runners than older beginners who may have weight and other problems, but you can max out (or come close) VO2max in about 10 weeks of long intervals twice a week--or a typical cross season at 50 mpw (which incoming high school runners aren't ready for).

After two months of long intervals twice a week, you know who has the engine and who doesn't.

Speed Kills wrote:

After two months of long intervals twice a week, you know who has the engine and who doesn't.

I like the way you put that.

This is a false dichotomy - you've heard from a number of people who have been "insulting" but have asked legitimate questions as well. That you dislike their "attacks" in no way absolves you of the responsibility of defending your ideas. One would think you'd want to do this regardless of the tone of your opponents' deliveries - in fact, it would seem that you would be especially eager to prove the more inflammatory posters here wrong - and I'm sure you are; the problem is, you can't. Those who have taken the pains to follow this mess and have assigned your propositions a certain tentative amount of credit are not pleased that you refuse to address Renato and others whose ideas so starkly contrast with your own.

In summary, it's quite clear you use the "attack" angle as an excuse to not respond to things you're at a total loss to deal with rationally, which is most everything you write. By defining everything that tears your ideas apart as "insulting" - even when no insult is made - you give yourself an out. Trust me, though - everyone else can see right through it.

If you attack me again I won't respond. Thanks for the input.

Ren,

It seems to me that insults, personal attacks, dishonesty, etc. are unnecessary in making a physiology or training point. If someone knows I choose not to engage in this type of discussion and still deliberately chooses to use insults, personal attacks, etc then I assume they don't really want a response from me and just prefer to make their point and throw a few jabs at me in the process.

I don't really have anything else to say on this topic. If you choose to believe that I use the "attack" angle as an excuse to not respond, that is certainly your perogative.

Now, shall we get back to training and physiology as the focus of our discussion?

I am convinced that 50MPW can bring about WR Marathoning, and we should get away from the idea that 3 runs a week = novice and 10 runs a week = advanced.

The longer the race, the less runs per week should be done. Sprinters need 10 runs a week. They need to sprint.

Marathoners need Marathon sessions. Why do Marathoners do multiple 8k runs in a week? What's the point? "To boost my mileage" is crap. DO MARATHON SESSIONS, then rest and recover from them.

3 runs a week:

1-steady 32k to 37k at slower than race pace.

2-multiple 3k to 5k runs at race pace with 3min to 5min recovery.

3-multiple 400m to 800m at faster than race pace with short recovery.