He's baaaack! LRC coaching Guru JK (John Kellogg) AMA Wednesday 2pm eastern

runnerguy2016 wrote:

I would be most interested in JK sharing a 24 week sample training schedule for a 5K/10K peak race from start to finish.

I too would like to be coached for free.

Jenny penny wrote:

A serious question to John. What's your opinion on the wizard JS assertion that 50-60 mpw

is enough to reach individually optimal results on all distances from 5k to marathon? Does he know something that you don't ?

JK is writing some treatise as we speak. I told him people want answers now as it's 2pm.

I'm going to try and get him to answer this one first before he unleashes some 1000 word post.

Posting as Osiris!

Jenny penny wrote:

What's your opinion on the wizard JS assertion that 50-60 mpw is enough to reach individually optimal results on all distances from 5k to marathon?

The hard truth? This is the way that drugs have ruined the sport the most. Not by taking away honors from clean runners, but by poisoning the well of training information for all runners. There are no ways to make 50-60 mpw more effective than having much more substantial base other than through PEDs. Running economy cannot be fully developed by running so little. Even 20 years of 50-60 mpw won't get it done. I would say "discus" but there's nothing to discuss. Think "1995 Moroccans" and their "medium mileage, plyos and weights" tripe. It was code for drugs then and it still is.

Have you changed your opinion about any topics recently? Has any research come out that has altered your training philosophy?

KTBR wrote:

Are CV workouts useful? What's good about them, what's bad, and how should they be integrated into an overall training plan?

This seems like it's of general interest. Terminology is always changing, so I'm assuming "CV" is the pace that's about 2.5% to 3.5% faster than the pace at "ventilatory threshold" - basically the pace you'd run during an all-out and evenly-paced effort that lasts from 39-42 minutes. 1980 Olympic marathoner Kyle Heffner introduced me to the term "crest load" for this effort level back in 1994, so I've been calling it that for a number of years. If you participated in our summer running, you got a video which mentioned the ridiculous hypertraining I often did at this pace in high school (3 x 2.5 miles at about 10 seconds per mile too fast for my fitness at the time). I eventually (after about 5 years) learned my lessons and trial-and-errored those too-hard workouts into more effective ones with most of the reps at shorter duration and at the speeds that didn't keep me relying on lactate for fuel too long. I also found out that many people regularly operated in the same effort zone by incorrectly estimating what their true "threshold" effort was (most people go too hard), so some workout protocols at this pace were already in existence.

The general idea for this stuff is to exceed your "respiratory compensation point" for a time so that you must rely on lactate as a fuel, but you don't want to remain in this state of effort long enough to experience the negative effects of acidosis. There is a brief period where your natural buffering mechanisms delay the onset of acidosis even though you are relying on lactate as an energy source. This is sometimes called the "isocapnic" stage of exercise. It is by spending time here that you provide the best stimulus to improve the mechanisms by which you are able to transport lactate and thereby make better use of it as a fuel source.

Side note: Workouts at this effort level are more effective when coming down from an extended stay at an altitude of 7,000-ish feet to a lower elevation (3,000-4,500 feet) to perform the workouts. The pace won't be as fast as at sea level, but the benefit will be greater in the respects that matter most. As far as altitude goes in general, you want to live and do easy running and alactic speedwork at 7,000 feet, occasionally (once every few weeks) make a foray of 24-48 hours to around 10,000 feet and just walk around, do most of your high-end aerobic running and virtually all of your "crest load" running at moderately low altitudes, and go to sea level or as near as possible for full workouts involving race pace running ... with the rare exception to those rules, of course, depending on how long you've been at altitude and how you respond to it in terms of red cell production and MCT protein expression.

Getting the most out of integrating workouts at this speed into the overall routine depends on your age and running background. You actually do have a "crest load" effort even as a beginner who couldn't run at a strong pace for 39-42 minutes, and it can be somewhat beneficial to work out at this effort/pace for short durations even when you're new to running, but you won't get as much out of it as you will once you can accumulate a little over 20 minutes of total time spent at this pace in a workout (broken into segments with rest periods) and recover adequately within a couple of days. Once you're fit enough to handle it and recover quickly, an ideal amount of time to spend at this pace is between 24 and 35 minutes (I like to keep it just under 30 min. and add some alactic speed or a few quick 150s or 200s after that), done in reps of 3 minutes to 12 minutes with fairly short recovery periods (easy jogging). I like to use reps of 4 minutes or 8 minutes (and occasionally one or two of them at 12 minutes) with 2-4 minutes easy jogging between bouts since these "multiples-of-four" durations don't normally correspond to distances that people usually do in workouts, so there is less incentive to push the pace too much or complete a pre-determined distance to compare with what you do at commonly-run distances. Of course, it's also often good to pinpoint the speed with exact distances (such as 7 x 1,200 with 2-ish min. rest), but at other times, running by time rather than distance is better. It fosters the ability to find this effort level by feel. Unless (in fact, even if) you are taking lactate readings after each rep, ideal execution of a workout boils down to the athlete's ability to use perceived exertion.

Also, what are JK's thoughts on mixed or layered workouts vs workouts that focus on one stimulus.

See above re: adding alactic speed after "crest load" work. It's a good idea to finish many focused workouts with short and fast stuff. For a start, doing 24+ minutes of work at fairly strong speeds (or doing a long run at easy to medium speeds) may not recruit the "fast twitch" muscle fibers, but it will use glycogen in ST and FT fibers, and by then recruiting the FT fibers, there will be a strong stimulus for those units to take on more aerobic properties. On top of that, the athlete will train to mentally summon the fast speed in the face of fatigue.

There are times to use very short and very fast (alactic) efforts at the tail end of a workout involving a strong aerobic effort and there are other times to use longer reps (for example, a few short buildups to get ready for something faster, then 4 x 400 at mile pace with pretty generous recovery periods). I tend to use about 6-10 reps of the short speed stuff (10-30 seconds) following the bulkier workouts (with a few light to medium speed reps at first to warm up for the faster speeds to follow) and the longer reps to finish off workouts with less time spent at the slower speeds. Uphills can be used sometimes for the short stuff to focus more on recruitment; flat or shallow downslopes can be used other times for emphasizing "rate coding" (stride frequency).

jiggymeister wrote:

What is your take on jogging rest vs standing rest during threshold intervals and during repetitions?

Standing rests are far less productive than active rests. You should move around - even if it's slow walking for part of it - during recovery intervals in order to prevent venous pooling, which would undermine the ability to clear waste products and would compromise the re-uptake of lactate. Very hard efforts usually require more passive (but not inactive) recoveries, while a more sedate effort on the work bouts can be followed by a little quicker jog between bouts. So with 8 x 400 at mile pace with 1 min. rests, you might walk for a few seconds and then walk / shuffle slowly ("wogging") or even walk around the whole time between reps. But with something far less intense like 8 x 1 mile at half marathon pace with 3 big minutes between reps, you could obviously jog almost all of the rest period faster than a "wog" and would get better training for doing so.

I don't include continuous workouts like the old U. of Oregon 30-40 thing along with traditional "interval" workouts. The slower speeds are still part of the effort there. Same thing with "The Michigan." Whenever there is a pace assigned to the "recovery" sections (or you're trying to see how fast you can keep moving during them), you obviously have no choice on how easy you can take it.

wejo wrote:

Without JK there is no LetsRun.com.

So this is ALL his fault? Are there boots on the ground who can "take care" of this situation?

TMADDDHASFNE wrote:

Which of the following Ed Whitlock's times below are the most impressive?

What is the best way to not lose speed, stride-length, and muscle strength as we age?

Stretching -- Good or Bad?

The 2:54:48 at age 73 looks the best single performance to me. But the longevity is the most impressive thing of all. Even running at all at age 85 - let alone a sub-4 marathon - is a rare accomplishment.

The best way to keep your strength that doesn't involve HRT is through diet and regular eccentric loading in many muscle groups, not just running muscles. But it's mostly diet. Fewer calories with higher nutritive value. And no refined sugar. Get a fully masticating juicer and juice organic veggies like Swiss chard, carrots, kale, etc. Add in juiced lemons or other citrus and then some apples for flavor. Drink 15 oz. of that right away so it doesn't oxidize. Repeat that a few times a day. You don't have to give up solid foods, but try to eat things that put the least burden on your digestive system and which will starve out the bad bugs in your microbiome (hence, the "no refined sugar" rule). Healthy fats are always good, so salmon and avocados are high on the list. Juicing is great since it reduces the load on your guts to separate the live enzymes from the fiber. I don't do it at the moment because I don't have the discipline (so this is one of those "do as I say, not as I do" things), but when I have, it's worked wonders.

Deadlifts are great for retaining overall strength. Start with easy resistance and more reps (2 sets of 10 reps pretty easy just to get the feel for doing them) and after a couple of months, work up to high resistance and only a few reps (like 3 sets of 3 reps - 1st set at 80% of 3-rep maximum, 2nd set at 90%, 3rd set at max). Make sure you use good form (and clench you glutes when the bar is fully raised). Lower the bar as slowly as is safe to get the eccentric loading.

Eccentric exercises can be done with other groups as well, such as "clam shells" and side steps using a theraband and some hamstring exercises. The deadlifts you only need 3 times a week. The others you can do 15 reps on each side 2 or 3 times every day.

Stretching is excellent. Just get a light warmup of some sort (maybe on a bicycle trainer) for a few minutes before stretching, hold each stretch for at least 20 seconds about 5 times, and don't stretch through pain.

sceptic wrote:

This will probably be deleted, but I see no evidence that JK is other than a creation of the Johnson brothers. A link to a source mentioning him not involving the Johnson brothers or LetsRun would disprove that assertion.

Here you go

John, what is your opinion on balancing maximizing mileage vs. starting tempo type workouts during a base building phase? Is it better to maximize the mileage, or better to sacrifice 10mpw and start doing tempos midway through the base phase, heading into a season?

Here’s a thread talking about Tinman and Jk from 15 years ago.

I would have figured Tinman wasn’t around then but was wrong

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=877904

rstnjr wrote:

JK > JS hehe :-)

- Majiq J -

DirtyT wrote:

The only reason I’ve heard of this guy is because y’all mention him on every podcast. Why, other than because he helped you run well post collegiately, should we take his training advice seriously?

But seriously, this ^^

Besides Wejo, what other great results did John have? I mean this, I don't know.

My brother was very successful at Cornell and John was there with him in Ithaca designing workouts etc. so shared success. He got me from #2 on my high school team to #4 in the country. Granted he was my assistant high school coach so I should ask him could Erick (the #1 guy) been a 27 minute guy? Erick was too 15 in the 3200 in high school.

I’d say not as he was taller than me and I’m 6’2 and rail thin.

Osiris wrote:

Posting as Osiris!

Jenny penny wrote:

What's your opinion on the wizard JS assertion that 50-60 mpw is enough to reach individually optimal results on all distances from 5k to marathon?

The hard truth? This is the way that drugs have ruined the sport the most. Not by taking away honors from clean runners, but by poisoning the well of training information for all runners. There are no ways to make 50-60 mpw more effective than having much more substantial base other than through PEDs. Running economy cannot be fully developed by running so little. Even 20 years of 50-60 mpw won't get it done. I would say "discus" but there's nothing to discuss. Think "1995 Moroccans" and their "medium mileage, plyos and weights" tripe. It was code for drugs then and it still is.

Oh really? So how do drugs improve energy kinetics?

How do drugs circumvent thermodynamics?

By magic oh great and wise Guru?

zxczxcv wrote:

How do you overcome recurrent calf injuries as a long distance runner? The injuries usually occur in long tempo runs, which are necessary for everything at 5000m and above.

That I can't answer for sure. Best to see a sports doctor / PT. The trouble might originate somewhere in the feet, knees, hips or spine (things like this often come down to hip flexor mobility). If continuous tempo running makes it worse, maybe try repeats at a slightly faster pace with rest periods between reps. You can do some stretching of the problem areas during the recovery intervals (not being under continuous stress) and maybe that will help in some way. 5-6 x 4 minutes (start with only 3 reps at first) at 5-10 seconds per mile faster than regular "tempo" speed (use 2-4 min. rest periods with a little stretching in there but move around some too) provides a lot of the benefits of 30 minutes continuous. It's best of all to get the continuous stuff as well if possible, but it can't help you if it gets you injured and you're grounded or training off and on for several weeks.

Come on JK coaching genius, don't be a coward

Tell me how so called PEDs improve energy kinetics?

Tell me how they circumvent thermodynamics?

Do you even understand the question?

Do something really useful with your life and learn some basic physiology. And stop with the idiotic drug endorsements.

Fine to disagree, but please be civil.

Thanks for the comments on CV pace, JK. Interesting.

khvgcygckckgv wrote:

JK, how has your training philosophy changed since coaching WeJo? If you were coaching him today, what would you change?

I'd try to get him to do track in the spring (instead of tennis) for more than just his senior year. But I tried then, and it was no use. I'd also pay more attention to dealing with some footstrike issues that plagued him later.

Has your opinion changed on high mileage? I never see anybody running the mileage that you typically prescribe. A majority of the top 5,000m and 10,000m runners are only running around 100 miles per week, many in the 90s.

Well, 90-100 isn't low. I wouldn't call it especially high either. I averaged 107 miles per week during the summer before my junior year of high school, with a high of 156 (my lifetime high week, actually), so my view on what "high" is might be different than most. Still, I'd say 90-110 mpw is very good if it includes some focused training, which most pros touch on year-round these days in order to always be only a few weeks away from producing a top effort. I once remarked that people needed to be capable of doing 120-150 mpw. That doesn't mean they need to do that much - at least not consistently. It means they need to be able to handle it. In that way, they can do focused training at around 100 mpw. The way to prepare for handling 120+ per week without actually having to do it is to get very regular high mileage individual days or, better still, 3- to 4-day blocks of easy 18- to 20-mile days. It's also important to barely touch on a lot of the speeds you'll encounter during the regular season while you're building your base in the preseasons - even while increasing mileage to all-time highs - but to avoid spending enough time at the fast speeds that they become unduly effortful. When you push the boundaries out on mileage, the less stress you want to encounter from the pace of your running, but low effort doesn't have to mean slow either. Variety is good during high mileage periods - as long as it's not strenuous.

Yep, I unnecessarily went over the top that summer in high school. But cut a then 15-year-old guy some slack. I didn't know at the time that I could have been just as well off with only 4 days a week at that kind of mileage and the rest lower. Besides, I really loved doing it, I didn't go hard enough to get injured, and the dedication it fostered in me was worth every step. Looking back, 107 per week wasn't actually THAT high of an average. Plenty of top HSers around the country did stuff similar to that. World Junior XC champion Eric Hust comes to mind, and before him, Jim Ryun hit 100 a number of times in HS. When I was in college, there was runner named Tony Conroy who went to Arkansas by way of Ireland. While Johnny Mac had most of his guys doing 85-95 per week during XC, this guy ran up to 130, as he had done in high school! He was a pure XC guy, whereas a lot of the Hogs were recruited as milers, so McDonnell gave him a lot of slack on the high stuff since it worked so well for him. I also heard Brad Hudson once ran something like 130 in a week in 8th grade!!! Is that true? In any case, it wasn't at all crazy for high school runners to go over 100 per week back then.

Do I still say you need to be capable of handling a 120+ week if you have world class aspirations and want to maximize your ability? Absolutely. Do you have to actually do that much on a weekly basis? Not necessarily. You should be doing regular high days, though, or several days in a row before a lower stint. If you can actually run 120+ for a few weeks in a row before a low week, better still for your development as a long distance runner, For 1,500 through 3,000? Well ... alright, you can probably be just as good at a consistent 90 with highs around 110. But getting a 20-mile day every few weeks (or 18s for 3 days of a week and 11-12 for the others, which gets you "only" around 100) can help you even for those events. High mileage helps improve running economy like crazy. It's not all you need in that regard. Short speed - the really fast stuff - helps with RE as well, as does eccentric loading, as both assist in optimizing the myotatic reflex and reducing ground contact time. But the ways in which RE is improved through high mileage (footstrike stability and reduction of wasted motion via efficient recruitment) can help runners improve performance at longer distances as they age, even while top speed goes South.

In all, 90-110 per week with focused training included is indicative of a runner who could easily do 120+ per week of easy running (i.e., "able to handle it"). And these guys are getting some higher days along the way as is. You want to gradually add more high days in order to find your sweet spot. As the poet T.S. Eliot said, "Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go." Try to be smart about increasing, but don't hold yourself back from seeing what you can do.

* Eric Hulst.

Typo on his name.