Your easy and my easy are worlds apart.
Your easy and my easy are worlds apart.
My PR's are as good as and in some instances better than yours and miles under 6:00 every run is not "easy" running for you or I. No offense, just don't agree with your statement.
Then you aren't aerobically well enough trained...miles that are 2 minutes slower then mile pace and 1 minute slower then marathon pace should feel like a joke if you run decent mileage.
Seb Coe didn't could it as training if it was slower then 6:00 miles, and I agree. 7-8 minute miles don't replicate the running action of world class performances, and so it shouldn't count towards your "10,000 hours". That would be like a formula 1 racecar driver counting his morning commute as training time. If (as a near world class athlete) you are too tired on a day to run 6:00 pace, you shouldn't be training.
Well, puting my own take out of the equation. I have trained with a few guys in the range of 27:45 to 28:30 10k range that do not run that hard for their easy runs. But your hearsay reference to Seb Coe's training has convinced me that none of our coaches knew what they were doing.
P.S. I and Malmo(he was much closer in his time than I was/am)are no where near world class athletes.
It is all a matter of personal preference really. Personally I recover better running 10 miles in 60 minutes then 10 miles in 80 minutes. I just can run more smoothly at 6min/mi then at 8. At the slower pace I feel like I am bouncing too much. Mechanically for 4:0x milers there shouldn't be an issue running 6minutes/mile. The occasional slow run is ok but otherwise you are teaching your body the wrong thing to do.
I'm sure Malmo would disagree. Or at least I hope he would.
2:12 marathon, maybe not, but a 1:01 1/2 marathon and 8:2x steeple? Yes, I would say so.
I hear what you are saying and to a point I agree, if you are running all of your miles on a track in perfect conditions. Hey, Daniels suggest under 6 minute pace for easy running at the V-dot that we are talking about, and he knows a hell of a lot more than I do. However, there are things such as hills,wind and heat that factor in as well. I haven't met many runner that run their is runs at the paces given by Daniels because of these externalities. I do not beleive in monitoring my runs by pace either, HR works much better for me. In my opinion pushing yourself to run under 6 minutes every run is a good way to over train. You are correct though it is a matter of personal preference, and each person reacts to training stress differently. Regardless, if your training works for you great, and good luck to you.
Then I have made an ass out of myself and I owe Malmo an apology. I must have got his PR's confused with some one elses I thought he was more like 2:15 type range. His belitttle statement of "My easy and your easy are worlds apart", while it is true it annoyed me a bit. Again I apologize for any offence I have given.
An honest mistake, and someone apologizing on letsrun is rare indeed.
wwiwi wrote:
Then I have made an ass out of myself and I owe Malmo an apology. I must have got his PR's confused with some one elses I thought he was more like 2:15 type range. His belitttle statement of "My easy and your easy are worlds apart", while it is true it annoyed me a bit. Again I apologize for any offence I have given.
Don't sweat it. Malmo's not the type to ask for an apology. I think his slowest marathon is around 2:15 by the way.
malmo wrote:
Avocadros Number, as usual, you read into things too literally and miss the message entirely. For distance running has the least amount of time investment of any sport or endeavor that I can think of, to achieve one's potential.
FWIW, 10,000 hours of running is well over 100,000 miles of EASY running. A runners potential will come to fruition, long before that, perhaps 30,000 miles.
"Malmo," instead of spending your time insulting your intellectual superiors on a message board, why don't you spend a few hours actually reading Gladwell's book? That way, although you still may not be able to discuss the subject thoughtfully or intelligently, you may be able to discuss it more knowledgeably.
Obviously, it takes a lot less than 10,000 hours or 100,000 miles for a genetically gifted distance runner to become world-class. That's my point. Gladwell's 10,000-hour rule -- which he does mean for people to take "literally" -- is far from universal. Indeed, some reviewers have criticized Gladwell's theses in "Outliers," including his 10,000-hour rule, precisely because he relies on highly selective anecdotes to draw very general conclusions about the foundations for high achievement. I think that his observations are, for the most part, interesting and useful, but far from rigorous.
And FWIW, you would be hard pressed to find ANYONE who has done "well over 100,000 miles of EASY running" in 10,000 hours, to say nothing of "well over 100,000 miles of EASY running" in his first 10,000 hours of running, which is the more relevant measure. You certainly haven't. Nor have many runners who have run much faster than you.
More egg on your face, Avocado? I've rarely run over 6:00 pace on training runs. An example cut from my training logs on a measured 8.5 mile loop I used to do my mornings on. My logs only recorded time and subjective effort. It wasn't until 20 years later that crunched the numbers out, for curiosity's sake, to compare my subjective assessment to actual pace. I assure you, the collective averages of my evening runs were faster.
45:45 5:23 hard
45:50 5:24 moderate-hard
47:30 5:35 moderate
49:00 5:46 moderate
48:00 5:39 moderate
54:00 6:21 slow
53:00 6:14 slow
52:30 6:11 slow
48:00 5:39 moderate
46:30 5:28 fast
46:00 5:25 fast
48:30 5:42 moderate
46:05 5:25 fast
49:00 5:46 moderate
49:00 5:46 easy
48:30 5:42 easy
49:30 5:49 easy
47:00 5:32 moderate
46:50 5:31 moderate
46:00 5:25 fast
47:00 5:32 moderate
44:07 5:11 very hard
52:30 6:11 slow
47:30 5:35 easy
48:30 5:42 easy
44:30 5:14 fast
48:30 5:42 easy
48:30 5:42 easy
46:00 5:25 moderate
43:28 5:07 very hard
50:00 5:53 easy
51:00 6:00 easy
48:20 5:41 easy
48:30 5:42 easy
46:30 5:28 moderate
47:30 5:35 easy
48:00 5:39 moderate
48:00 5:39 moderate
48:00 5:39 easy
48:00 5:39 easy
47:30 5:35 easy
48:00 5:39 moderate
48:30 5:42 easy
51:00 6:00 easy
49:00 5:46 easy
50:00 5:53 easy
47:10 5:33 moderate
48:00 5:39 moderate
50:00 5:53 easy
If my math adds up, at that rate, to reach 100,000 miles: 49 days x 8.5 = 416.5. I doubt I'm reading into it correctly, but let's add another 416.5 for your evening runs = 833 miles in 49 days. So at that rate, you'll run 100,000 miles in 16.12 years, if you ran every day. If you go with 30,000 miles as you mentioned, it's a little less than 5 years.
"Malmo," you were a decent runner, but you're an argumentative dope who hates to admit when he's wrong. You never came close to running 100,000 "easy" miles at sub-6 pace. That's one hundred "easy" miles per week at sub-6 pace for twenty years, plus your "moderate" and "hard" runs. Maybe Paul Tergat has come close to that, but you sure as hell haven't. Neither has Rodgers or Shorter or any of the other guys from those days.
2:12=5:02/M, so your easy runs were 30-40 seconds slower than MP, which is what I often do (from 6:07 MP), and percentage-wise that is a bigger slowdown for you. That part seems reasonable. But 25 of those runs aren't even described as easy or slow, so I just wonder whether you were getting adequate recovery. You are saying that you did no real recovery miles (e.g. the 9 minute miles that many top Kenyans do)? Don't you think that it is possible that with more recovery you would have run sub-2:10?
UCONN Freshman, Noakes regards physical burnout as a myth, on the grounds that you will recover from overtiredness within 7 weeks at most. Mental burnout explains most of these cases. However, he contradicts himself in often stressing that excessive mileage (which he deems 120+/W) and inadequate recovery (he favors a two month break every year) produce permanent muscle damage, causing an inevitable decline, as in the case of Salazar, whom he cites repeatedly on this issue.
Gladwell is a literalist and goes for the big simple theory. He is like Steven Pinker in repeatedly citing studies uncritically and citing only studies that support his position, implying falsely that social scientists are unanimous about virtually every claim. (Pinker is less guilty of this but does it often in 'The Language Instinct.' In 'The Tipping Point', Gladwell spends a lot of time talking about how just a few special individuals of various well-defined types are behind every fad, and so forth.
malmo is argumentative, arrogant and dismissive, but he was far better than a decent runner and he did not claim to have run over 100,000 miles in 10,000 hours of easy running. He wrote, "FWIW, 10,000 hours of running is well over 100,000 miles of EASY running. A runners potential will come to fruition, long before that, perhaps 30,000 miles." So, he extrapolated his pace to the Gladwell number to illustrate how many miles it would be for a runner like himself.
The 10,000 is based on brain skills-playing the piano, higher mathematics and the fine arts.
Muscles are just pieces of meat nowhere near the level of complexity of the brain. And as I've mentioned, age is a much bigger factor in athletic endeavors.
Jonesy, I think running moderate in the mornings is fine if you can handle it. malmo clearly could. And with a 1;01 half he probably did underachieve in the marathon.
I would agree with Noakes on that...especially the fatigue that comes from too many hard marathons. However, would the immune system constantly breaking down and the thyroid/adrenal failure be classified as mental or physical? I would say most burnout is physical. Constantly achy legs and lower abs as well as feeling like crap during an entire run, trouble falling asleep and trouble waking up, sore and achy feet in the morning is definitely physical. As long as you have a goal and stay focused, and have something bigger then yourself pushing you, you will never mentally burnout.
I think a 1-2 month break after the summer track season isn't a terrible idea...as long as some training is done and the weight gain is kept to a minimum (<10lbs).
jonesy. wrote:
malmo is argumentative, arrogant and dismissive
Only to those who dare have a difference of opinion, no matter how minor, with him.
Avocados Number wrote:
I finished reading "Outliers" yesterday, and also found myself wondering how the 10,000-hour rule might apply to running. 10,000 hours of actual running is a lot -- perhaps 90,000 to 100,000 miles of running in a pretty intense training program, which would take at least 15 to 20 years of training. Perhaps if you include all of the running during childhood, along with ancillary activities relating to running (going to meets, walking or jogging around to loosen up before a race or workout, and so on), you might be able to argue that Gladwell's rule applies to running as well, but the rule seems a little too simplistic to be applicable across the whole range of activities.
Jonesy, here is the statement that malmo was criticizing when he made his silly comment about 10,000 hours being "well over 100,000 miles of EASY running." When I wrote that statement, I wondered if someone might point out how unlikely it is that a runner would actually cover as much as 100,000 miles in a career of 10,000 hours of running, but I certainly didn't expect anyone who knows anything about running to suggest that the number of miles would be significantly higher than that.
Obviously, many of us ran thousands of "easy" miles at sub-six pace in our running careers. A few even ran a bunch of miles at sub-4 pace. But would you expect a sub-4 miler to argue that, by way of extrapolation, a career of 10,000 hours is well over 150,000 miles of running? Of course not. You would say, "Sir, you were a far-better-than-decent runner. But you are still an argumentative dope."