Rojo's Article

As I recall, this site was started as a way to keep JK's ideas on the web when TnFmedia died. This was very important because during the 90s mileage in the US was very low and performance even lower. Over the years, the breadth of threads on training designed specifically for an individual has been great and I don't think the echo of support for the reason the site was started is misplaced.

When I first read Rojo's article I was impressed because I still think of him as just out of college and the article showed his growth. The more I think about it though I am not sure I really understand Rojo's definition of repeatable.

The statement, "2. Repeatability is key to any training program in ANYTHING. If you can't do it over and over again (and right most of the time) its pretty hard to get good at it. So, if you need to get caffeened up, adrenalined up, and run times at your limit (or past) to "get fit", you can't do that very often. If that is your bread and butter and you can't repeat it, you're not doing anything. The things you do every day or every week are the things that really make you improve." while not Rojo's would seem to support that others who have spent a lot more time around the term repeatable don't understand it either.

It seems to me there are two parts to the training of great runners. The repeatable day to day and week to week part and the races. While the obviously repeatable workout part and trying to add mileage each year is important, you must train yourself to make running past your limit an easily repeatable process. I guess you could argue that over a series of years you could move your race efforts from 98% to 99% to 100% to 101%... But does anyone really do this?

In the Hadd and Cabral thread, they talk about ST runners having greater ability than FT runners to race consistently. When I read about Webb's training and racing I don't assume that his workout's are 110% and unrepeatable. I just figure he runs workouts that hard to practice bringing out everything he has on race day since this is one of his weaknesses.

I enjoyed the article and found the principles Rojo lays out to be sound. I appreciate the effort to put more articles on training on the site. It will keep me coming back.

Can't say I agree with Once an All-American. However, he does raise an interesting point about recovery runs. Are they something one does simply because you can't run hard everyday? Is there a discernable benefit to them? Do they simply add to the "mileage bank" and thereby accrue some fitness benefit over time? Do they just "get the blood flowing" through one's legs and ward off stiffnes/soreness?

It's not an idle question for me, at age 57, with time limitations, not to mention limited physical ability and increased recovery times. I often wonder whether 45min at a ridiculously slow pace (9:00-10:00min/mile)is worth it. Kudzurunner seems to think so. Would I be better off spending that time cross-training, say on a spin bike, and at least getting my heart rate up a little.

I'm working this one out as I go. Would be interested in hearing others' perspective.

This bit is so true:

If one is doing intervals and they start off at the absolute maxed-out fastest pace possible, I think they are training their body that "fast is painful" or "tense equals fast." I think that's exactly the opposite of what you want to teach your body physiologically.

Too much tension and you tighten up and slow down.

On recovery running, does anyone else feel that true MD types need to go SLOWER on their recovery runs than the Longer-distance types?

You hear lots of MD guys going pretty quick on their easy runs- and shorter...but I'd argue the opposite needs to be done for these guys.

I've always thought, the more aerobic the run,( 3k/5k intervals on up to recovery runs)the easier it will be for the LD guys and tougher it will be for an MD guy running at the same pace.

MD guys seem to rely on a higher anaerobic output to supply energy at all paces- (thus they can better handle the 800/mile stuff) and need to go slower than a true LD guy with similar track times on easy runs to TRULY recover.

Is that a legit thought or just fizzyology???

Sounds like crap:) If you believe the El G training posted,pretty much all of his aerobic training was pretty hard (~MP).LD guys are likely to have more ST fibers which respond better to slow training while MD distance guys have more intermediate fibers which respond better to faster paces. Of course a lot of this probably just mileage. It is easy to crank out 60 mp at decent quality . When your trying to do 120, you take it a bit easier.

hill city wrote:

On recovery running, does anyone else feel that true MD types need to go SLOWER on their recovery runs than the Longer-distance types?

You hear lots of MD guys going pretty quick on their easy runs- and shorter...but I'd argue the opposite needs to be done for these guys.

I've always thought, the more aerobic the run,( 3k/5k intervals on up to recovery runs)the easier it will be for the LD guys and tougher it will be for an MD guy running at the same pace.

MD guys seem to rely on a higher anaerobic output to supply energy at all paces- (thus they can better handle the 800/mile stuff) and need to go slower than a true LD guy with similar track times on easy runs to TRULY recover.

Is that a legit thought or just fizzyology???

El G is probably a bad example..."pace" is relative. After 40,000 lifetime miles 5:00 min pace probably feels a lot like 7:00 min pace did at 5,000 lifetime miles.

So, you say FT guys would respond better to faster running (ie. races and workouts that have a large anaerobic component). Deal.

My point (or maybe it's really a question) is that FT guy with a mile Pr of 4:20 would recover better doing an easy run at a slower pace than a ST guy who also runs 4:20 in the mile.

I reason that any run that is more aerobic in nature will put more metabolic stress on the FT guy than it will the ST guy. Just because you can run an easy day faster doesn't necessarily mean you should.

Scale it your PRs. Try running 60-75s off your mile PR. It is a hard pace but not impossible. If you don't like El GAnaerobic is a pretty vague term. FT (well actually more intermediate fibers. If you have a lot FT you probably are not a distance guy) if they run slowly recruit just ST (unless they are running over an hour or so) just like your LD guy. Picking the pace up lets them train those intermediate fibers.I am also guessing metabolic stress is not the limiting factor in recovery during easy days.

hill city wrote:

El G is probably a bad example..."pace" is relative. After 40,000 lifetime miles 5:00 min pace probably feels a lot like 7:00 min pace did at 5,000 lifetime miles.

So, you say FT guys would respond better to faster running (ie. races and workouts that have a large anaerobic component). Deal.

My point (or maybe it's really a question) is that FT guy with a mile Pr of 4:20 would recover better doing an easy run at a slower pace than a ST guy who also runs 4:20 in the mile.

I reason that any run that is more aerobic in nature will put more metabolic stress on the FT guy than it will the ST guy. Just because you can run an easy day faster doesn't necessarily mean you should.

I enjoyed the article and am excited about the direction the site is taking.

I don't necessarily agree on all said about repeatability. It is one thing to design a training programme to allow progression and graduated loading, but in my mind that is not repeatability.

The first mistake most people make is assuming that because they have done x,y, and z in one build up and ran 14:30 say, that if they do x, y, and z again they will run 14.30 again.

That assumption is wrong. To then use that assumption and go further and say if we do x, y and z and add 10-15miles a week mileage we will run faster is also wrong, you might still end up at 14.30.

I think people underestimate the law of diminishing returns in training, the body is a remarkable adapter and adapts best to a stimulus the first time it is presented, if you REPEAT a training programme build up after build up, the adaptions you get from that programme diminish each time, potentially making you slower.

So I guess my view is you want to target a change or fresh stimulus in every build up so as to deliberately avoid repeating what you did last time.

The example used in the article about NCAA XC runners who place highly one year, only to fall 30 places the following year, is a classic example of someone who had the view that if they did what they did last year and just add in a bit more they will run faster. After realising they need to make some changes in year 3 they often go very well again.

Great article and webcast, i really enjoyed it and hope there are more articles and webcast on training to come. As a young runner i find things like these invaluable. thanks wejo and rojo and keep them coming!

[quote]gfsdgsdf wrote:

Scale it your PRs. Try running 60-75s off your mile PR. It is a hard pace but not impossible. If you don't like El G

Anaerobic is a pretty vague term. FT (well actually more intermediate fibers. If you have a lot FT you probably are not a distance guy) if they run slowly recruit just ST (unless they are running over an hour or so) just like your LD guy. Picking the pace up lets them train those intermediate fibers.

I am also guessing metabolic stress is not the limiting factor in recovery during easy days.

[quote]quote]

I'll be less vague next time as not to confuse people- but that wasn't the point of the post anyway.

How do you progress in training on a week-to-week; year-to-year basis if you're doing "easy runs" at 60-75 seconds off your mile PR?

I have a hard time envisioning all but a couple of biomechanical marvels being able to train consistently at that type of intensity.

For the average runner, 60 seconds slower than their mile PR is their lactate threshold pace... or even 10k pace.

So I want to share my two cents (five cents really) about the article. I think it is great the the Brojo's are making an effort to include more training threads, webcasts, etc. I think it will go a long way in improving American distance running on every level.Furthermore, I enjoyed the article and mostly agree with the philosophy presented. I've always been a big advocate of getting a lot of easy base miles in. And of course repeatability is important.However, I have some problems with and questions about the article. First, as others have pointed out, more data needs to be presented for Rojo to prove his point. Picking one runner on his team and Webb is too limited. Second, I don't exactly see how repeatability, the main topic, is tied to the training philosophy. More needs to be said about why a slow, easy program is more repeatable than a faster-paced, less mileage program. The point was said, but I don't believe adequately explained. Finally, I'm not sure I understand how running increasingly faster intervals is better psychological preparation than starting off faster. Both are painful, and races will be painful. I feel like strides and other methods are equally effective for learning to run relaxed.As to this thread at large I will say that I think training is a VERY individualized thing and MOST people don't appreciate that. I personally have always run my best off of easy, consistent mileage.

Sheister wrote:

I think people underestimate the law of diminishing returns in training, the body is a remarkable adapter and adapts best to a stimulus the first time it is presented, if you REPEAT a training programme build up after build up, the adaptions you get from that programme diminish each time, potentially making you slower.

I think this is a VERY good point. In a sense this contradicts the importance of "repeatability" and advocates that training should be varied (I don't know if that's what Sheister meant). Once I started triathlon training my running improved significantly. Variety is very useful.

You progress all training the same way: You either do more (volume) or you increase the pace to maintain the intensity. Once you get to the limits (running mp runs every day or ~20 miles per day slowly seem like they are the limits. You don't read about people running hm pace every day and not a lot of competive guys are running 160 mile weeks for long periods of time) you are stuck. And even if you don't make your distance runs harder, you could make your race specific workouts harder. Talking about the average runner is a waste. Just about anything you can get a 22 min 5k guy to do that counts as aerobic exercise will make them faster.But base the times off 5k/10k pace if you prefer though. El G was ~4:08 for the 5k and imagine running your distance runs 50-60s off your 10k pr (need to scale as percentage but I am too lazy). Sounds pretty hard but doable. In fact there is a high school coach (pretty succesfull if memory serves) that pretty much does this (1 min off 5k pace) Will doing 50 mpw at that pace give better results than doing 75 at 2 min+ off 10k pace. I don't know but it seems possible. Evidence also suggests it was pretty repeatable (El G was good for years. Ron Clarke had a pretty long career).

hill city wrote:

On recovery running, does anyone else feel that true MD types need to go SLOWER on their recovery runs than the Longer-distance types?

You hear lots of MD guys going pretty quick on their easy runs- and shorter...but I'd argue the opposite needs to be done for these guys.

I've always thought, the more aerobic the run,( 3k/5k intervals on up to recovery runs)the easier it will be for the LD guys and tougher it will be for an MD guy running at the same pace.

MD guys seem to rely on a higher anaerobic output to supply energy at all paces- (thus they can better handle the 800/mile stuff) and need to go slower than a true LD guy with similar track times on easy runs to TRULY recover.

Is that a legit thought or just fizzyology???

It depends what works for the individual, and what training period he/she is in.

The oft quoted El Gerrouj training comes from late 1996 to early 97. He was training too hard and was disapointed with his results that year. Also, the recovery runs were faster in the early part of the schedule where he was building endurance, and slower in the racing period.

But even so, he slowed the pace in later years around 5.20 per mile according to British MD runner John Mayock who trained with him.

Yes a MD guy will have a slightly higher anaerobic output at all paces than the LD guy, but a very well trained MD runner will be capable of a very fast 10k.

Does it matter if a runner does 50 mpw at an average of 6 min/mile or 75 mpw at 6.30/mile 100mpw at 7 min/per mile?

You really have to do a huge amount of experimentation to find what works for the individual. This means essentially that good coaching requires giving a lot of attention to every runner.

In response to the Cornell kids, it sounds like Rojo does a good job with you guys and while it is hard to argue that you could have trained better in your time at Cornell with your improvement, honestly I think you could have trained better.

Honestly, running 2:21 for the marathon and is exactly what I would expect if you are doing Rojo's training.

However, looking at your PR's it sounds like you may be a bit of a donkey.

If I were a college coach I wouldnt judge the success of my athletes based on how fast they can run a marathon at graduation. Why? Because there is no NCAA marathon. I would be interested to know what you ran on the track for 10k, 5k, 1500 in college.

Look at El G, Coe, Webb, Scott, Cram...Even Willis, people say he runs slow mileage but again that is recovery. In my opinion it doesnt matter what you do on your recovery days. For a great runner running marathon pace for 15 miles isnt going to put you in the hole for the next day. Willis' longer runs are hard as hell just ask Steve Shearer(sp?) had to stop training with Willis cuz he couldnt handle speed of long runs.

All of these guys not only can run excellent times up to 10k and dominate at 1500.

"Once and All-American", I see what you are saying - but Canaday was just one example of a particular type of runner trained by Rojo.

Look at Jimmy Wyner - great cross runner, 24:32 at VCP and 3:41/1:48 on the track. Cornell has had plenty of very fast mid-d runners recently.

gfsdgsdf: Some good points, thank.

On the subject of repeatability and daily training volume/intensity, look no further than Ron Clarke and Lasse Viren. Clarke was fit 365 days per year, nailing runs twice a day and racing all of the time. He ran unbelievable at times (thus the 18 or whatever world records) but not necessarily the best at the major champs.

Viren, on the other hand, (and the only info I have is Viren's training from "Running with the Legends" and a Kenny Moore article) spent a good portion of easy days 630-700 on his easy days..ran a lot more..but obviously was able to use his reserves when it mattered most.

Honestly, running 2:21 for the marathon and is exactly what I would expect if you are doing Rojo's training.

Which is precisely why guys like Bruce Hyde, Jimmy Wyner, Mike Smayda, Andrew Levy and Andy Miller all ran exactly 2:21 in the marathon. It was that marathon training - you know, where they hardly ever do anything really fast on the track. Another thing you won't catch them doing is picking it up to 5:20 pace or faster for the last 5 or so miles of their long runs, maybe finishing in under 4:50. No sir, they never do that. Nope. It's all easy and it never changes one bit. That way, it can stay "repeatable."

Hang on. I'm being informed those guys were in fact 800/1k guys or mile/3k types. Hyde 3:42/8:03/XC All-American (4:00 1,500 and 8:51 3k in high school), Wyner 1:48/3:41/7:59 (1:53 and 4:11 in high school), Smayda 1:50 (1:57 in high school), Levy 1:50/2:24 1k/1:49 relay (1:58 in high school), Miller 4:04 mile/4:00.9 relay 1,600 (4:25 - that's right, four-twenty-freakin'-five - in high school). Since they obviously never vary their routine there (that's what "repeatable" must mean, right?), I bet the middle distance guys all do exactly the same stuff Canaday did during the track season and a guy like Hyde would have improved sooooo much more in his college career than a lousy 18 seconds in the 1,500 and a ho-hum 48 seconds in the 3k if he had just done something besides that stupid "repeatable" marathon training. Miller, too. I mean, my gosh, there are sooooo many "good coaches" out there that use "El G/Coe/Webb/Cram/Willis training" to have 4:25 guys knocking 23 seconds off their high school 1,600 times and win individual and relay conference championships. And those five IC4A 4 x 800 wins in a row would have been 8 or 10 in a row if they weren't a bunch of "donkeys" who never did any 800 work.

That Dannemiller guy is another one of those "donkeys" they've got. After all, he was only a 4:19 miler in high school but he ran a 1:08 half marathon. He must be another Canaday - pure distance all the way. I bet they never once let him train like a "real runner" - a track guy, that is - "should" be training. So he obviously could have improved a lot more than he did in the middle distances, where he only jogged a 2:25 1k, a 3:48 1,500, a 4:07 4 x mile split and an NCAA-qualifying 8:48 in the steeple as a sophomore. We all know taking 12 seconds off your mile time in 2 years and making NCAAs in your first year doing the steeple is a shitty accomplishment. Poor training, poor coaching all the way, I say. In fact, I bet they never once let him do a "real" Coe/Cram middle distance workout or let him run an 800 or a 4 x 400 in small meets. Naaah, they'd never let a pure marathon type like him do that, especially if they planned on putting him in the 1k at the indoor conference meet or using him on the 4 x mile at Penn Relays or the 4 x 800 at IC4As.

Saying a 2:21 is "exactly what I would expect" also sounds like you think your average 8:46 high school 3k guy can run that for a marathon prior to their senior year of college. That's a negative, ghost rider. The average 9:20-9:30 3,200 guy never breaks 30:00 for 10k in college (Canaday ran 29:47, was a conference 10k champ and made NCAA cross) and couldn't run a 2:21 marathon even if he made it his sole focus.

I just wanted to clarify for people like "Once an All-American" that it was my choice to run the marathon in college- it wasn't because we were all training like marathoners or Rojo pushed us to move up. He let me because he knew that it was one of my goals...that year we mainly focused on track (spring 2007) and I ran the marathon in June.

Also, I'd say under Rojo's training it seems like the mid-d guys responded quicker...and the relative success/depth of Cornell's mid-d program really was what really flourished. During indoors we had guys winning or at least scoring points in the 800m, 1000m, both relays, the 3k and the 5k...that was a lot of team points for us at the conference meet...and that really didn't happen very much before Rojo came to Cornell.

Other distance guys of note: Joel Frost-Tift...this guy ran like 9:50 in hs, and last year ran 30 low for 10k and placed at conference.

A lot of runners out there should be glad that sentence started with "if."

Just because the almighty track matters so much to you doesn't mean Canaday didn't have the dream of making the trials in the marathon while he was in college. That might sound stupid to some people, but maybe he always saw himself as a marathoner and it was a big goal of his. And he found somebody that would let him pursue his own goals, not yours. He did pretty well on the college scene along the way, too. NCAA XC, Ivy League 10k champ. That's a lot farther than almost anybody else in the country with his high school times got in college. And you know what? He probably thinks it would be stupid as hell for a pure long distance guy to give a deuce about scrapping his marathon dreams and doing some horse crap middle distance garbage just so he could someday maybe run a 1:55 800 and never be a conference 10k champ or make the trials.

So? WHY in the name of Zeus look at them? Canaday is nothing like any of those guys and never could be. He wasn't going to be a 1,500 guy no matter what he did about it. He's a roadie who can come "down" to the 10k or XC and do pretty well.