What running-related hill are you willing to die on?

Doubles would significantly benefit almost all runners; even beginners at low mileage.

Starting the thread off on a really dumb note. A weak core will cause instability and energy loss. The force you generate from pushing into the ground is absorbed by your pathetic mushy midsection instead of moving you forward. Not to mention the injury prevention a good core provides.

yeah but core exercises are so damn hard

I think the idea of being able to isolate your core with planks, crunches, etc. is pretty dumb and ineffective. Core strength is really a product of doing complex movements that engage your core muscles. But the goal is not to have strong core muscles. The goal is to activate the kinetic chain and engage all the relevant muscles. A one legged Romanian deadlift is a great example. You engage everything from your foot to your shoulder and your core is at the center of the movement.

My hill to die on would be trying to manufacture changes in running form. Good running form comes from getting faster. As you run faster, you naturally get more forward on your foot when you strike the ground. Whether you get to the point that you only strike with your forefoot and your heel barely touches the ground or whether you strike with a flatter foot and your heel hits the ground is more a matter of biomechanics that your are born with. While it is possible to alter those mechanics, it really doesn't do much and most people will see their mechanics improve just by training and getting faster.

Well, I am looking forward to lose about 30 kgs but everytime I start dieting, after losing 8 to 10 kgs it becomes very difficult and later increases gradually.

Shoes cost much less than doctors or PT. For all but the most gifted in natural form and injury resistance, replace your shoes by 250 miles or as soon as you notice a new pain that seems connected to mechanics changing due to shoe wear, whichever comes first.

It’ll cost less in the long run.

Cross country courses shouldn't be a standard distance, they should just have a range. For high school make a course anywhere between 4.5 to 5.5K, whatever course you can layout that naturally fits the geography.

No more "on the first loop you go behind the maintenance shed, but on the second loop you cut across the football field "

Carrying hydration during hot long runs.

Above a certain threshold of quality, training does not matter. Kerr, Hocker, Nuguse, Ingy all are on completely different plans but are separated by less than a second in the OLY final. This applies to collegiate athletes and amateurs as well. The most important thing is consistency and buying into a program.

I think I disagree with both your paragraphs because not everyone will work out their weaknesses simply by focusing on the big picture. A weak core or poor form could even be what's holding back a runner from progressing more effectively. Whether that be through causing inefficiencies or injury. There's a reason we do form drills and core exercises.

I guess you could say the hill I'd die on is that not everything will work itself out in the long run. You need to be deliberate in correcting your weaknesses or else you'll just adapt around them and will be held back.

I have a lot of bait. But I'll just leave this here:

There is zero reason American marathoners can't run 2:04-2:05 with our track times and supershoes. It's our marathon coaches that can't get the job done. Ed Eyestone thus far included.

Mantz and Young ran the equivalent of ~2:05 at Paris. (2:08 on a very difficult course.)

Long runs and tempos are overrated if you're not training for a marathon. Most club and hobby runners would be better if they did more speedwork.

All of you are doing way too many hard workouts every week, far more mileage than you need, and your easy workouts should be closer to Z1. None of you listened to Hadd in all the years he gave advice here before he passed.

The first time an elite coach finally bites the bullet and has their runners train more easily and cuts their mileage down to 60-80 mpw, and wins doing that, it's going to break most of you because (as they all do) you attach your egos to how fast you run, how many mpw you do, and sticking to outdated research and traditions.

People focus too much on their training. As long as you do a decent amount of training and it's not obviously bad, there's massively diminishing returns with higher volume or better training. The two biggest factors that predict the level you reach are natural talent and age you start running.

Marathons need much lower cutoffs- 6 hours isn't acceptable. It should be 4.5 hours max- marathons are a privilege not something for everyone.

I don't remember or maybe I missed it- when people began thinking marathons weren't serious. Too many people who shouldn't do them are running them.

You're most likely racing too much and doing too much hard speed work.

All the training is pieces of the puzzle.

It all helps as long as you aren't killing it.

We listened to you in 1990.

Easy runs easy, like Daniels says, at <70% max heart rate; or like Schwartz says, slower than 5K race pace + 2:00 mile for a 17:00 guy . . . slower than race pace + 2:30 for a 20:00 guy.