Don't enjoy high mileage

I had no idea what EMU's name was, I was taking his word for it.

How about:

John Zishka

Ricky Pittman

George Nicholas

Earl Zilles

Earl Zilles had a teammate whom I can't remember the name, he ran 9 or low 9

That makes 5, and I know there are some I am forgetting cause I've grown old and frankly don't care that much about it anymore.

Whatever, believe as you wish. Huron is real as am I, don't give a rat's a$$ what you think.

lets go back on topic...this thread was rolling along nicely earlier...

Well, apparently you do care what I think because you keep posting trying to convince me. Again, I'm not a disbeliever, just a skeptic; there's a difference. Earl Zilles did not break 9 for 2 miles and didn't even go under 9:10. He was the state CC record holder for the then distance of 2.5 miles and was a good runner, but not as grand as you remember. Since you have some facts wrong, how can I believe the things you say about Huron? Zishka is the only one in the group you mentioned who broke 9 minutes for 2 miles (or at least the equivalient 3200 time).

Clark and Willy

Give it a rest and drop this nonsense...put the thread back on course. find something meaningful to talk about. Chris

I can't even remember what this thread was about but I can relate to and agree with what Huron says. It mirrors my experiences as well. Most pointed is the remark that what people don't realize is the supserstar talents are going to run fast at low mileages. Not because of their training but because they are superstar talents. Bob Kennedy runs 4:05 in high school on 35 mile weeks and from there after every high school coach in America trains ALL their guys low mileage. If you're a Kennedy, Trautmann, or a Gaucher type (say running super fast times effortlessy the day you first start running) then I would agree that getting away with as little as possibe is the way to go, especially if you are winning state and national titles. But if you are of average talent, but have strong desire, if you work hard you can achieve.

I was a 5:04 miler as a freshman and ran 70 to 100 miles a week from the summer before my junior year to graduation. I ended up a 5 time NCAA All-American and probably peaked and platued at age 20. I might have just reached my talent potential earlier because of the training. But I didn't know any way to go about it except all-out. I trained as much as I could in order to earn a high school letter, then a conference championship, then state, nationals, so on. I don't think I could have held back because of the fear of getting beat,lack of a kick meant I had to pull away. Therefore I had to get stronger meaning more miles.

SOrry for rambling but I get irritated when I see how much stock people place on undertraining youths and holding everyone back but there are a lot of potential national class runners who probably end up quitting running too soon because they aren't breaking 10:00 when they graduate from high school.

If you don't like running long distances, then the sport of long distance is not for you. Case (thread) closed.

trainer wrote:

If you don't like running long distances, then the sport of long distance is not for you. Case (thread) closed.

I like running 4 miles at a time. Even twice a day. Does that mean I shouldn't even run 5k's?

Just one thing I noticed from huron's post that I see all the time. Why the hell does everyone on this board insist that they have no talent? If you run faster than other people, there has to be some talent involved, right? Work ethic is a talent, if it were not, then everyone would be doing it, right?

My sentiments exactly. Most people can't run under a 5 minute mile even with years of moderate training. Just go to Runner's World forums and you'll see people who've been training for years to run an 18:00 5k.

For the most part, it is the people who realized they had some talent who stuck with the sport. Just because they had to work hard to get where they are doesn't mean they aren't also talented--I don't believe that just anyone who works hard can go out and run a 15 minute 5k; just like me going out and working on my speed won't ever let me break 11 for the 100m.

You would do much better in a 5K if you would up a weekly long run to 12 miles. If just running for fun and moderate fitness is your goal, then what you are doing is fine. If increasing your performance is your goal, then you need to run further. Two four mile runs in a day is not as beneficial as one 8 miler, and as someone already said, 8 miles is nothing - certainly not high mileage.

Even though Huron got irritated with me for questioning him, I do believe that his advice is the correct advice.

I agree with that point. Running even a 16:something for 5K requires some talent. Obviously it won't get you anywhere in the NCAAs, but it is still a bit of talent. People should just post their times and let us decide whether or not it determines talent. 9:26 and 4:15 in high school shows talent.

Back again....as this thread is back online. I agree that most people that ultimately end up sticking in track even in HS have talent of some sort. Why else would you punish yourself? The talent I was specifically referring to is leg speed. THAT Talent to me means that you can run fast times with minimal work. I ran hard miles because I had no faith in my ability to outkick the competition in a big race. I lost 2 dual meet races in the mile in HS. Both were to guys that were fast enough to sit on me while I forced the pace and outkick me in the end. Both ended up placing highly in the state in the 800. Everybody that makes it to college and enjoys a modicum of success at the collegiate level has talent of some kind. Talent may be work ethic and a sturdy enough body to survive the work. Or it could be a super strong mind. I was teammates with a guy that was a Jesus freak. He was a world class steepler. At Dogwood Relays I watched him run a 5K so hard he pissed his pants. I asked him how he could run so hard. His reply was "Jesus was on the cross for 3 hours - I can take 13 minute of pain". You can believe me or not - I'm done name dropping. BTW Eastern Michigan was known as the Hurons until polital correctness and Native American sensitivities were served causing the change to Eagles. Check it out. I chose that name because it pisses me off.

Ricky Pittman was sub 9.

Chris Los is for real. I doubt you will find much internet data from the 80's.

Flagpole Willy wrote:

Even though Huron got irritated with me for questioning him, I do believe that his advice is the correct advice.

That's just it, though. The advice stands on it's own, regardless of the PRs. If he's slow or fast, if he's lying or telling the truth about his PRs, the advice is valid. You were questioning his comments about high mileage due to his PRs when they are two separate issues.

I think one really has to just ignore PRs posted on this board. If you get too caught up in them, you'll miss the forest for the trees. Aside from inflating one's PRs to look good, what incentive could anyone possibly have to come here and give repeatedly training advice that they think does NOT work?

Ok. You're right. Ricky Pittman did it in 1980. George Nicholas did so also (his 8:58 time actually extrapolated from a 3K time), but not until 1981, so not really a sub-9 2 mile and not in 1980. No one else was close. Go here to see a good list:

http://www.cs.uml.edu/~phoffman/nats/gods.htm

Anyway, 8 guys from OH didn't do sub 9 or close to 9 flat in 1980. More probable is that 2 guys were under 9. 1 guy was under 9:10 and 5 more were under 9:20 in Ohio in 1980.

Hyperbole rules when lamenting the past. This is why I don't believe most of what I read as far as times go on the internet and why I won't provide mine. Huron has all the qualities of a truth teller (he provided his times only when asked) and he mentioned that his times still were the records at Worthington HS (all I have to do is send an e-mail - hey, perhaps I will), and his times aren't that good as to not be believed (no offense Huron). Of course, even is Chris Los is a real person and really holds the records at Worthington HS, there is no guarantee thta Huron is really him, but at that point it becomes just too ridiculous, and I would believe him and set myself up for fooldom if it turned out he was just a liar.

That's the problem. 8 miles is a lot. Bores me to death.

Flagpole Willy wrote:

You would do much better in a 5K if you would up a weekly long run to 12 miles. If just running for fun and moderate fitness is your goal, then what you are doing is fine. If increasing your performance is your goal, then you need to run further. Two four mile runs in a day is not as beneficial as one 8 miler, and as someone already said, 8 miles is nothing - certainly not high mileage.

Even though Huron got irritated with me for questioning him, I do believe that his advice is the correct advice.

Well then Terence, you have your answer. It doesn't make you a bad guy, just a guy who won't reach his running potential, but in the grand scheme of things, that's no big deal.

If you are wondering whether the high mileage will help you, all you can do it try, but I'm telling you it will help tremendously if you do it.

I graduated from Thomas Worthington in 1993. At that point LOS still held the record. At that point they hadn't erased the old Worthington HS records and nobody has been close since 1993. Huron...when did Eisenhart stop coaching and when did Smith take over the reigns?

I think Gary was the head track coach not long after I graduated. Les was winding down. Both passed away in the last few years. Gary in 1998 I believe. Both were well regarded. Eisenhart ran at OSU with Jesse Owens.