Is the 40% Rule true in running?

For the average human that's 1000% correct. I have friends who aren't overweight but will quit after running 400m.

A huge part of running is training your mind to understand how far and fast you can go.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

He completed elite training as a Navy SEAL, Army Ranger and in the Air Force?

Um.

Why would anyone here doubt him as far as endurance?

Because there is no science behind it and perception of effort is highly subjective? He’s doing motivational speaking here, not exercise science. It’s valuable advice (you can do more than you ever imagined if you put your mind to it) but shouldn’t be confused with quantitative training guidance.

I really liked his book. It made me whine less about the pandemic & shut up & train.

We have to take what he says with a little understanding though. He's not the most educated man. If he was more cognizant, he most certainly would have been on our foremost seal teams. He could have used a mentor.

I have a lot of respect for what he went through.

Doesn't sound like you've read his or book or really listened to him much and are just repeating what some other uninformed person has said about him.

Really he's talking from his own experience, that he was a failure in his own mind, blamed others for his failures even when he knew he wasn't giving things an honest effort. Eventually pushing himself and learning to dig deep and tap into that other '60%'. He's not trying to make any scientific claims or anything of the sort.

he's talking to mommy joggers and middle schoolers, not me

Feels about right to me., assuming "capacity" means time to failure at a particular intensity.

I think shorter distances become miserable sooner. For me, about a mile into a 5K it starts to suck and I want to slow down. In a marathon I usually feel solid through 15-18 miles before it starts getting uncomfortable.

I'm also reminded of the classic definition of a tempo run, 20 minutes at a pace you could hold an hour.

Uhmmm I wish. Last time i raced i fell down at the finish line and stayed there for 10 minutes, was sick for the rest of the day and didn’t manage to do a CD. It wasnt too fast, but i gave everything. But maybe i wasnt mentally strong enough and could’ve gotten a way bigger PR?

Saying that kind of stuff is just David Goggins' hustle.

I don't know about 40% but you definately can push yourself farther than your body tells you and train your mind to allow you to do so.

I know in marathons I've pushed through points I thought was physically impossible. I was a good D1 runner and I've learned to push through things I couldn't have at that point.

Probably applicable to the novice runner but definitely applicable to someone going through BUDS or similar where success is 95% mental.

helpabruthaout wrote:

David Groggins states that when your mind is telling you to quit and that you’re done or exhausted that you’re actually only 40% of your maximum capacity.

While this definitely helps when you think about it during the hard moments of running do you really think it’s true?

How could he possibly quantify this? BS. Just trying to promote some theory to sell a book

If you can give another 60%, you're actually just really crap at estimating what your likely limit was in the first place. So this guy basically makes a career of being crap at understanding his own body and limitations. Sounds like a snake-oil salesman to me. But he's a SEAL, so people unquestionably lap this crap up.

So basically you're saying that every runner should be able to give their Yasso 800 amount, explain how they did their Lydiard Strides or quote Bowerman at every step to have information that can be used by runners? With all due respect, I doubt any of these coaches could pass all of these Special Ops tests at the elite level. A man who persevered empirically through passage of three tests across three Armed Forces is so much more important than exercise science. Otherwise, ding the Kenyans by going on feel based on distance and terrain to determine speed. The deeper truth is that you, like many others, discredit him because he's not a name you know or like. That's playground logic.

Slartibartfast wrote:

Stoppit Smith wrote:

He completed elite training as a Navy SEAL, Army Ranger and in the Air Force?

Um.

Why would anyone here doubt him as far as endurance?

Because there is no science behind it and perception of effort is highly subjective? He’s doing motivational speaking here, not exercise science. It’s valuable advice (you can do more than you ever imagined if you put your mind to it) but shouldn’t be confused with quantitative training guidance.

To add to this, I'm not sure what makes his advice any different from Jenny Hadfield, who does not use hard numbers but haa many followers in her marathon training.

Stoppit Smith wrote:

To add to this, I'm not sure what makes his advice any different from Jenny Hadfield, who does not use hard numbers but has many followers in her marathon training.

Talking David Goggins seriously is like asking why runners don't listen to cross-fit specialists (i.e. if you want to improve your endurance, don't do it; cross-fit people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about).

Someone should have told Joshua Cheptegei that he could have gone another 60% at his 5km WR pace to break 26 in the 10km. Or, hell, why not go 60% faster in his 5000m attempt to really smash the record.

The way people idolize US military force training, in an unquestioning, almost religiously zealous way, just blows my mind. I wish this zealous belief transferred to how the same people typically view the scientific (and especially the epidemiological) community.....

I dont really know what you are going on about. Have you read Goggins book or actually listened to him at all? Do you honestly think he thinks elite level athletes are all selling themselves short and that this 40% rule of his applies to them? His audience is regular people who view themselves the same way he viewed himself, a loser who quit when things got hard. Thats it. You are making more out of this than it is and getting angry over nothing, things he's never said or anything.

Are you freaking serious, dude? Training is so much more about the body and feel and mind over matter than scientific numbers. Science certainly has its place. It teaches us about the BCAAs and their benefits, the VO2 Max, the protein/fat/carb ratios, the metabolic rates, the BMI, the points at where ketosis can occur, the ways to combat lactic acid, the possible speeds for each distance, etc. etc. But the athlete has to use it by feel their way. If scientific data could predict performance at all levels, nobody would bonk. UM. Yeah. No. So I think this is just opinion from you because you don't know the guy. Athletes use science a lot. But science stops at that first step on track or road. If you are a qualified scientist speaking for science on a qualified level, I expect that you know this already But to diminish the military in light of what you're calling science comes off as ungrateful at best to the freedom you enjoy.

Complete BS wrote:

Stoppit Smith wrote:

To add to this, I'm not sure what makes his advice any different from Jenny Hadfield, who does not use hard numbers but has many followers in her marathon training.

Talking David Goggins seriously is like asking why runners don't listen to cross-fit specialists (i.e. if you want to improve your endurance, don't do it; cross-fit people have absolutely no idea what they're talking about).

Someone should have told Joshua Cheptegei that he could have gone another 60% at his 5km WR pace to break 26 in the 10km. Or, hell, why not go 60% faster in his 5000m attempt to really smash the record.

The way people idolize US military force training, in an unquestioning, almost religiously zealous way, just blows my mind. I wish this zealous belief transferred to how the same people typically view the scientific (and especially the epidemiological) community.....

I'm no elite but I've finished races and collapsed over the line, laid there panting for 5+ minutes and then been so exhausted I couldn't walk without holding on to something, unable to sleep that night because I'm in too much discomfort. I find it hard to believe that's only 40% of what I'm capable of.

Tell this to Jacob Ingerbristen and his 3.28.X. I'm pretty sure the science helped him there. All that borderline-LT training didn't not do nuttin. But, oh, no, you're right, as soon as he was on the startline the training didn't matter. "The mind" is all that you need to worry about.

The science always underpins the performance, whether you like it or not, and whether you acknowledge it or not. Just like all every other facet of existence.

[quote]Stoppit Smith wrote:

Are you freaking serious, dude?

Training is so much more about the body and feel and mind over matter than scientific numbers.

Science certainly has its place. It teaches us about the BCAAs and their benefits, the VO2 Max, the protein/fat/carb ratios, the metabolic rates, the BMI, the points at where ketosis can occur, the ways to combat lactic acid, the possible speeds for each distance, etc. etc.

But the athlete has to use it by feel their way. If scientific data could predict performance at all levels, nobody would bonk.

UM. Yeah. No.

So I think this is just opinion from you because you don't know the guy.

Athletes use science a lot.

But science stops at that first step on track or road.

If you are a qualified scientist speaking for science on a qualified level, I expect that

you know this already

But to diminish the military in light of what you're calling science comes off as ungrateful at best to the freedom you enjoy.