2:19 on 70-80 miles per week.

OlympicRunningTeamCoach wrote:

And Rono run some great times but I am not really impressed if I saw how hard he trained, doesn't seem really efficiënt ;). I coached a 13.04 last year and compared to Rono he did nothing...

And now you can talk about the different shoes and track but that doesn't change the fact that this much quality is not efficiënt at all. Read some science books and you will understand what this amount of quality does with your body...

You clearly have no clue how impressive Henry Rono was in his prime. Time is just one factor, look at how he dominated the races he was in. He was setting world records SOLO in college meets. WTF? Do you have any real info in the history of running?

Einstein mathematics wrote:

Even in Kenya there is not school every day in the week, so 140 k is not possible then. lol

He's a dedicated student!

"Science"= drug use

Perfect example is Cathal Lombard:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=409051

People's explanation for his brake through was doing less mileage and doing jumping exercises. Turns out, he just switched to doping.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/aug/09/athensolympics2004.athletics

You don't have to run as much if you are doping.

The prince of the Kenya highlands wrote:

[quote]OlympicRunningTeamCoach wrote:

You see Tim.....LRC is a place where most runners and coaches got stuck in the belief that more must be better! It's of course

almost impossible to convince them of the opposite that a more balanced approach is preferable to achieving the same or better results.

And there is good reason to be stuck in the belief that more must be better because for at least sixty years now the people who have been winning and placing well in races, especially big ones, have for the most part, with some notable exceptions, done high mileage. But throughout that time there have always been more people running , say, 50 to 70 miles a week than those running 90 to 140. If 50 to 70 was really enough to get most people to their full potential there should be far more 50 to 70 mile types winning and placing highly in big races than there are 90 to 140 people.

You might counter by saying that the 90 to 140 group has more talented runners but that argument doesn't hold up if you're defining talent as it usually is defined, i.e., an inherited characteristic. In that case there is no reason why there would more talent in the 90 to 140 group. Genetic characteristics are usually distributed randomly among sufficiently large populations. A group of 10,000 will have more people who have blue eyes or are at least six feet tall than a group of 1,000 will have so the largest group doing the minimum amount of adequate training should be producing the most winners and high placers.

After all the decades of the kind of success high mileage runners have had the onus of proving that you can be your best, again, with some small number of exceptions, falls on the advocates of lower mileage. When those sorts of people start supplanting the high mileage types you will likely see people unstick from the "more is better" mindset but it will, and should, take a lot more than a few physiology articles and a relatively small number of low volume success stories.

Alvin Moss wrote:

pro high mileage wrote:

I always liked Van Aaken guideline on how much to run per day:

Race—Training done per day

400 meters— 6 kilometers

800 meters— 10 kilometers

1500 meters— 15 kilometers

3000 meters— 20 kilometers

5000 meters— 25 kilometers

10,000 meters— 30 kilometers

Marathon— 40 kilometers

"He took this to the extreme with his athletes stating that the runner should eat very little, about 2,000 calories per day. "

I hope this is BS

No. He believed in dieting down to minimal body fat. His athlete, Harald Norpoth, was known as the "running skeleton."

spot on. Is the ability to handle large volumes without injury also part of being talented?

Can you post your log from those 12 weeks and a brief synopsis of what you did the few months / years prior?

Below Average: That’s funny, for a second there I thought I was reading a biographical post of myself. Somewhat of a decent talent back in college (8:20/14:30/30:30), focused on life beyond running for the next 12-13 years with great job making good money, beautiful wife (9.6 for me), 2 yr old child, and a recent sub70 half off 50mpw. I too am CIM bound later this year 2019 but with a slightly more conservative goal of low-to-mid 2:20s (not quite ready to handle 2:19 just yet; or ever haha). I am limited to 6 days per week (so maybe 75-80mpw). I started working with a coach nearly a year ago and has been going well ever since; coach has nearly got me back into 15:00/31:30/1:09 shape again. PM me to compare training. I’m curious to see how yours is structured around #LifeWithBaby while on permanent #DaddyDuty.

yyy wrote:

spot on. Is the ability to handle large volumes without injury also part of being talented?

The trouble with talking about talent is that while we mostly all acknowledge its existence we really don't know what it is and we certainly can't identify it. We assume its existence based on performances.It often becomes whatever you define it as.

That said, I would imagine that you could say that being able to handle large volumes is a talent. But just as inheriting the talent to run a 2:10 marathon doesn't mean you'll do it without developing that talent I would say that inheriting the ability to stay healthy while doing really large amounts of running is also not going to happen automatically. You need to develop that talent as well and there are likely people with moderate amounts of talent for doing this who've developed the ability well and are better at doing it than some with more inborn talent who have not worked to develop their talent. But that's just speculating.

As I am the new coach we can take it directly here , lol . Well .....the structure for "Below Average" is now the same as for all my runners with emphasis on the 3 most important factors for the result in middle/longdistace running. Most weeks will have one so called maxVO2 interval of mostly 20 x 400m at 5 k race pace with rest = easy walking down to 120 bpm .

The other workout in the week will be a so called LT- intervall ( lactate threshold interval) to a total of 6- 10 miles at LT -pace. ( same rest as on maxVO2-interval) . Then to get very best marathon result there is a specific long run of 90 min to 2 hours 40 min with fast finish last 10-40 min in intervals or sustained. Between the main workouts there is easy distance running at best individual aerobic power pace 6-10 miles . Looks too simple at a first glance , but it`s super effective!

Now.....could be interesting for us here to see your ( your coach`s) structure to compare. Please publish! :)

- Magic Summer -

COACH J.S

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Most weeks will have one so called maxVO2 interval of mostly 20 x 400m at 5 k race pace with rest = easy walking down to 120 bpm

The other workout in the week will be a so called LT- intervall ( lactate threshold interval) to a total of 6- 10 miles at LT -pace. ( same rest as on maxVO2-interval) .

With the same rest, that is 24 to 40 x 400m unless you're doing longer repetitions, perhaps 5 to 8 x kilometers.

In the latter case, returning to 120 bpm must have a longer rest interval.

Thanks for sharing your program.

Hi HRE :) I counter by saying that most part of the 50-70 mpw group didn`t know how to reach their potential on that kind of " low mileage" . It`s of course up to every coach and runner to follow "the old way" of running 100+ mpw , we all know that it functions! But why run 100+ mpw when it`s not necessary to reach as good as or even better results on just

"low mileage" ? ( And then I don`t include the runners that do it because they just want to run a lot )

As I've said before, I am interested in what you're doing and if you manage to produce the same sorts of results with your athletes as people doing high mileage are getting I may concede that you're right. But it's one thing to say the lower mileage people are just not doing it right and another to show that they ARE doing t right. As it stands now, I do think there is a lot of value to what you do especially for guys like Below Average.

dunes runner wrote:

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Most weeks will have one so called maxVO2 interval of mostly 20 x 400m at 5 k race pace with rest = easy walking down to 120 bpm

The other workout in the week will be a so called LT- intervall ( lactate threshold interval) to a total of 6- 10 miles at LT -pace. ( same rest as on maxVO2-interval) .

With the same rest, that is 24 to 40 x 400m unless you're doing longer repetitions, perhaps 5 to 8 x kilometers.

In the latter case, returning to 120 bpm must have a longer rest interval.

Thanks for sharing your program.

The LT-intervals are at 800m up to 3000m . " In the latter case, returning to 120 bpm must have a longer rest interval.", No, not necessarily. Running the LT- intervals is at a slower pace , lactate threshold pace , and eg 800s will mostly have a shorter rest time or equal down to 120 bpm . The main thing with this resting back to 120 bpm is that the individual body gets perfect rest time after every rep , in addition no matter how the day shape or external conditions are.

Peter Coe said something along the lines that 5k pace training eradicates the need for high mileage. We know how that turned out for America in the 90s. I know, they didn't do it. But I'm pretty sure if it worked so well, they would've figured it out within a decade. There's no substitute for running. Less is not more.

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

" In the latter case, returning to 120 bpm must have a longer rest interval.", No, not necessarily. Running the LT- intervals is at a slower pace , lactate threshold pace , and eg 800s will mostly have a shorter rest time or equal down to 120 bpm . The main thing with this resting back to 120 bpm is that the individual body gets perfect rest time after every rep , in addition no matter how the day shape or external conditions are.

The LT repetitions must not reach the same high heart rates then, as otherwise they'd take longer to recover from. For example, 1000m reps up to 180 heart rate take longer to recover from than 400 reps up to 180 heart rate. Correct? So the LT intervals in addition to being a slower pace, must also be at less intensity overall, perhaps up to 165 heart rates.

Also I'm curious what heart rate range you recommend for the steady recovery days. Based on what you've mentioned before, it appears to be around 120 bpm.

But what do I know? wrote:

Peter Coe said something along the lines that 5k pace training eradicates the need for high mileage. We know how that turned out for America in the 90s. I know, they didn't do it. But I'm pretty sure if it worked so well, they would've figured it out within a decade. There's no substitute for running. Less is not more.

Peter Coe said something along the lines that 5K pace training lessens the need for high mileage for 800m runners.

more accurately ... wrote:

But what do I know? wrote:

Peter Coe said something along the lines that 5k pace training eradicates the need for high mileage. We know how that turned out for America in the 90s. I know, they didn't do it. But I'm pretty sure if it worked so well, they would've figured it out within a decade. There's no substitute for running. Less is not more.

Peter Coe said something along the lines that 5K pace training lessens the need for high mileage for 800m runners.

And he (or if it was Seb?) also said the world is full of runners that can run hugh amount of miles,but very few can run their miles really fast.