Maybe we should wait and see if Hall actually does run better on fewer miles if he actually does run notably less miles. Then we need to figure some way of divorcing those results from the miles he's done in the past. The effects don't just go away, as others have mentioned. If those things happen we can say fewer miles worked. But as there is no way of doing the second thing, any success Hall might have on fewer miles will be due to everything he's already done, i.e. his high mileage phase and his lower mileage phase. And 100 mile weeks are really not high miles.
Ryan Hall tells it like it is
Training Advice/Discussion
800
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
I think one of the best approaches, and I think some of our runners are figuring this out, is to have periods of high mileage followed by periods of lower mileage (much like running a base phase during the summer and cutting back during cross country season), but longer periods in this case.
This might mean training like a 5k/10k guy for a year, and then rotating back into your training for the mile, kinda like what Webb did before he had his awesome '07 season. Or Ritz training like a marathoner, and then changing his training up and busting a good 5k and 10k. If you do all this high end aerobic stuff, like 140+ mileage, for a year or more, it will certainly carry through when you switch to maybe 80 or fewer mpw. -
dsrunner has the day off wrote:
So here at LetsRun we don't care if the US has anyone at 800-5000m?
To someone who believes the mileage mythology, high mileage is the only way. Thankfully, Andrews, Wheating, Manzano, Huling and Lagat don't believe the myth.
Hall cuts back and says he feels better, runs better on less. That's the point of the thread. The other point is we can be more competitive without the mileage obsession.
This more is better madness has already taken down Webb, Ritz and Fernandez. And it almost finished off Hall. Isn't that enough damage?
And while Bekele and Geb have been outstanding, they have also missed most of two seasons with injury, trying to do more. And I'm guessing that at least part of their phenomenal distance success has something to do with the small size and oh yeah, the 3:31 1500m speed.
The US has had thousands of guys run 100 miles/week and everyone of them would get lapped in the 10000m by Bekele except a few. The few with a fighting chance don't all run especially high mileage -- Rupp averaged <80 miles/week to hit 27:10, Lagat runs 12:54 on 70/week -- but they do have the capability of running 60-61/ lap for 3000m. And when you are going up against Bekele in 10000m, all the mileage in the world isn't worth a damn if you haven't got that.
Yes, it is true that Bekele had great speed, but how do you think Bekele had the strength to run six consecutive 4:12 miles...or something like that in his 10000 WR? That strength is aquired through years of high mileage, amassing a HUGE base. -
[quote]good points wrote:
I think one of the best approaches, and I think some of our runners are figuring this out, is to have periods of high mileage followed by periods of lower mileage (much like running a base phase during the summer and cutting back during cross country season), but longer periods in this case.
This might mean training like a 5k/10k guy for a year, and then rotating back into your training for the mile, kinda like what Webb did before he had his awesome '07 season. Or Ritz training like a marathoner, and then changing his training up and busting a good 5k and 10k. If you do all this high end aerobic stuff, like 140+ mileage, for a year or more, it will certainly carry through when you switch to maybe 80 or fewer mpw.[/quote
How fast have you run off 1:40 miles a week?
