To Malmo, Hodgie, and the other "greats: a few words about talent

But what is consequential is that Kouros and friends didn't run 170 and 190 per week for two years either. I call bullshit dunes runner.

Dunes runner has a lock on the 2003 Maggies Award - named after Magpie, the Letsrun poster who submitted false PRs to the All Wejo Team.

But anyway, this thread has taken a turn now towards everybody basically confirming "it's good to at least try running a lot of miles". OK. Most everybody is in agreement on that, even the posters who are sort of "against" the Malmo, et al camp. However, one aspect that might be worth exploring is that there is actually quite a lot of divergence between Wejo and Malmo. Sure, they agree on the fact that one should train an awful lot. But Wejo is always quick to point out how slow most of his training is--a large amount of it being at 7:00/mile pace or so, which is easy even for a much slower runner such as myself. He also seems to race very infrequently, although I'm not sure if that is by choice. Malmo, on the other hand, seems to be more in favor of balls to the wall running a lot of the time, given that he has stated that 5:30 to 6:00/mile is a very easy effort for a very high mileage runner, and he defends the likelihood that Derek Clayton was running faster than that for a good 70-80 miles of his 150 and up mile weeks during his prime. He also seems to endorse racing a lot, even multiple races in a day or weekend.

So basically we have 2 philosophies: run a ton of miles, mostly very easy except for hard workouts, with infrequent races, or run a ton of miles, a lot of it hard, and race frequently. Both seem to have produced success from runners who, while they seem to have a good bit of natural talent by my standards, were not exactly stunningly talented when they started out. Wejo has run a little faster for 10K I think, but not by much, and there are all sorts of reasons you can give for that difference which aren't worth going into. So basically they seem to be about equal, assuming Wejo can keep achieving for a few more years.

So, what is a runner reading this thread, maybe a young runner who is using this information to help plan his/her future training, supposed to make of it, since in some ways the two training schemes are very much opposed?

Hodgie-san has written on a few occasions, "Run the miles and let the pace come to you."

Gelindo, I did the same type of work and wasn't all that much faster than you and have never regretted it. Sorry that you seem to, but like mplatt said, at least you won't wonder.

Malmo, on the other hand, seems to be more in favor of balls to the wall running a lot of the time, given that he has stated that 5:30 to 6:00/mile is a very easy effort for a very high mileage runner, and he defends the likelihood that Derek Clayton was running faster than that for a good 70-80 miles of his 150 and up mile weeks during his prime. He also seems to endorse racing a lot, even multiple races in a day or weekend. >>

I don't think Malmo says that at all. He is often quoted as being a "high mileage" advocate; he will say that he advocates "right mileage". Just like there is a right mileage, there is a right pace for your continuous runs that make up the bulk of your training. For WeJo, things work best at a pace around 7 min/mile. Malmo got best results with a faster pace, which is more "go as you feel" type of training. As you feel stronger, the "right pace" will get faster, and the wise runner would spend more time training at that pace. But it isn't the same for everyone.

The comments about racing are a counterpoint to an almost paranoid fear of racing so often seen among post-collegiate runners. There is much learning to be done from racing often. The wise runner must understand how racing fits into the overall plan.

I think you're trying too hard to make it look like they have the same philosophy. In the Derek Clayton thread, Malmo clearly states that 5:30 to 6:00/mile pace is virtually effortless to someone running that kind of weekly mileage. Thus he implies that it was an effortless pace for him. He also doesn't dispute that Clayton was doing 5 runs per week of 10-25 miles at efforts that were "hard", "fast", "flat out", etc (i.e. significantly faster than 5:30-6:00). Maybe it's just me, but it seems clear that Malmo is identifying with this type of training as something that he would have done.

Constrast this with Wejo. I don't know the exact details of his training, but I doubt he runs anywhere remotely close to that much HARD mileage. He is always saying that he does most of his runs very easy, which he says is around 7:00/mile. Malmo says that 5:30-6:00/mile is easy for a high mileage runner. These are not minor differences. Wejo's system is very much aerobic, while Malmo's would involve much more anaerobic running. Just because the volume of miles is similar in both systems doesn't mean anything else about them is similar. It's fine to say each system makes allowances for differences between individual runners, but overall they are just too far apart to say they are basically the same program.

In fact, if Malmo had somehow ended up as Wejo's coach, I'm sure he wouldn't have had Wejo doing tons of 7:00 miles.

TomM wrote:

So, what is a runner reading this thread, maybe a young runner who is using this information to help plan his/her future training, supposed to make of it, since in some ways the two training schemes are very much opposed?

Why is it a problem for you? You seem to dwell on the differences instead of the similarities. You also seem to see things in black and white, either for or against. Do you think when I was a young start-up and studying what works, that every runner was a mirror-image of each other? They weren't. They weren't then and they weren't now.

You, my friend, are the worse element we see on the internet. You do not hesitate to mistate what's been said in order to make a point (non-point), do you? When did I say to anyone they should train "an awful lot?" Never, that's when. I've always said that training should be race specific and that the athletes need to go out there and find his or her "sweet spot". When did I ever say to "race frequently?" Never, that's when.

Stick to the facts, buddy. the difference between you and me isn't miles, it's attitude pure and simple.

Who said anything about 5:30- 6:00 pace being effortless?

Why wouldn't I have Wejo doing tons of 7:00 miles if I coached him? Have you ever heard me say anything about how I'd change Wejo's training. No you haven't.

Keep with your obsessive embellishing.

TomM wrote:

So, what is a runner reading this thread, maybe a young runner who is using this information to help plan his/her future training, supposed to make of it, since in some ways the two training schemes are very much opposed?

Not opposed, just different.

To put it nicely - "29 ways to skin a cat".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barney Burner wrote:

keep in mind those descriptions are Clayton's, from his training log. I don't find it hard to believe those are actual descriptions of his percieved effort. That's not to say the pace is actually that fast (relatively speaking). I could see him describing 5:45 to 6:00 pace as very difficult given his cumulative fatigue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Malmo responded:

Obviosly you haven't ever put in the kind of sustained mileage Clayton did. If you'd had you'd know that 5:45-6:00 pace is hardly an effort at all. Culmulative fatigue? Did the Penguin tell you that?

The human body is capable of amazing things. Just because you haven't tested the limits doesn't make your reality our reality.

Get out and run some.

MALMO: this is a quote from you on the Derek Clayton thread. Look it up yourself if you like. OK, technically you're correct, you never said that pace was "effortless", you said it was "hardly an effort at all".

Are you capable of admitting you're wrong.

Yours truly,

The worst element of the internet

I know what I said and didn't say. And I know what I did and didn't mean. I stand by my words. In fact, "hardly an effort at all", would imply an effort, which is more than easy.

Quit embellishing, pal. And the obsessiveness?

I'm obsessed with you too malmo.

actually, I think it is funny as hell that you don't admit your wrong, first or all...because IT IS NOT THE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION....whether you are or aren't.

you remind me of Howard Dean, described as "a little teapot ready to boil over".

now we are off the topic for sure.

16x wrote:

I'm obsessed with you too malmo.

Most women are.

Pete wrote:

But to get back on topic maybe for a minute... I think work ethic is probably way underrated, but let's nobody pretend that talent's not a factor. We all have some ultimate potential. But you'll never know what it is until you try and fail and try and fail and try and fail...

So keep on trying...

Pete, well said. There is really nothing more to be said about it. Do and you will find out how much talent you have, don't and you won't.

This whole thread reminds me of the book "Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and the discussion of what "quality" is and what it means.

malmo wrote:

16x wrote:

I'm obsessed with you too malmo.

Most women are.

I figured that much.

LOL

To bring things back to the main topic i think generally the main point being made here aside from asinine arguments is: run a lot of miles, get faster....repeat.

Tom, the guys running at 5:20 to 5:30 aren't running anaerobically. The observation that they're talking to each

other is a clue. Tergat was running 10 @ 5 for breakfast. If

you move the LT and have some ability these paces become

routine.

Another quote from the Almighty, Infallible Malmo--from this very thread!

"Dunes runner, speak for yourself, I've run in the 150-180 range many times. 5:30-6:00 is easy."--Malmo

I apologize for my insolence, Almighty One! I am but a worm in Your presence!

P.S. Did you really say 5:30-6:00 is easy there? I must be wrong somehow. Let me see....how can I find a way to make this my fault again?

Yes it was easy for me. 5:00 was sometimes hard, but many times, in your words, "effortless".