John Kellog and the brojos preach high mileage, and that athletes should eventually be running as much as 150 miles per week, much of it at an easy pace (7:30 miles if that is what feels "easy"). In the training podcast, rojo says that there is no need to run steady or moderate on a non-workout day because it is still not at threshold pace, so you're not getting that physiological benefit, and you're also exerting more effort than you would at an easy pace, so you're tiring yourself out more for not much of an increased stimulus (as they say).
Peter Coe says in his book that athletes should limit their volume to the very least needed to achieve their goal. He also says that the quality of what you do is much more important than the quantity of what you do, arguing it is pointless to run (relatively) slow miles when you can develop an athlete with quality. Seb did no more than 70 miles per week (according to marius who has copies of seb's logs and spoke to peter and seb about this subject specifically), with much of his over-distance runs on the road at 5:20 mile pace or faster (much of it faster - 10 milers in under 50'...etc).
I don't want this to be a debate about how many miles Seb really ran, or if doing race pace repitions year round is beneficial, but rather a discussion on a high volume of easy miles with 3 or so workouts per week, as john kellog and the brojos advocate vs focusing on a lower volume of steady state pace running with a lot of runs finishing at LT pace.
-
-
- Kellogism vs Coeism
-
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to curious letsrunner
-
Post - because no one clicks on threads with no replies
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to curious letsrunner
-
I click on threads with one post.
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to curious letsrunner
-
good thought. I'm sure there is quite the debate on this issue. In highschool our coach had us train more like kellogism but in college my coach trained us more like the "coeism" theory that your suggesting. I did get faster but it was also due to the increase of intensity and volume.
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to curious letsrunner
-
Coe sounds great for shorter distances, but for 10k and beyond doing a lot of running is the obvious training required.
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to curious letsrunner
-
Im very much in the coeism, and peter coe learnt that from frank horwill, who says that for a 5k runner more than 80 miles a week was a waste and could possibly end in injuries.
It really is about what event you want to do, look at the requirement of that event and train accordingly.
And also realise that with a few weeks of adjustment you can go either up or down in distances raced.
Mileage gives you time on feet and all the physiological benefits from it.
But it is the faster paced work that actually allows you to race and makes PRs possible.
That is why multi pace training is successfull, it keeps you in touch with all the energy systems.
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to curious letsrunner
-
I'm no expert on Coe's or Kellog's training methods, but I have read a little bit on Lydiard, and it seems to me that his standard 100mpw of quality, steady-state mileage would hit a middle ground. At the end of the day he leans a lot closer to Kellog, i guess, as with regular morning runs I'm sure many Lydiard-style runners could easily hit 150mpw. At the same time though Lydiard's high aerobic 'steady state' was no 7:30 jog (at least for his Olympians); I've read that Snell would start his 22-miler at 6:00 and end at 5:00. So in my mind the high-aerobic training of Lydiard or the sub-threshold training of Kenyans, both of which are rather high mileage, is the way to go; It seems to simply forge stronger and faster runners, and is not as prone to the excesses of too much quality or too much quantity. Hope I did some justice to that middle-ground perspective.
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to curious letsrunner
-
It really takes a mix of both views to properly train an athlete. No one should have any set beliefs in running. One must learn to adapt and train in a way that gives them the best shot at winning. Some guys run well with very high mileage and others benefit from slightly lower mileage and more intensity. A lot of how someone should train is very personal and depends on how that person should train, what distance they are training for and, when that race is.
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to curious letsrunner
-
Do Coeism make cornflakes?
-
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to pirie
-
On average, history tells us something different.
pirie wrote:
Im very much in the coeism, and peter coe learnt that from frank horwill, who says that for a 5k runner more than 80 miles a week was a waste and could possibly end in injuries.
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to Surprise!
-
Coe's way of training is more specific to the demands of 800 / 1500 races. I think more miles are required to reach one's potential for 10k and higher. 5k is in the middle and could go either way. just my .02
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to nova cats baby
-
Elite runners at 5k and above run (very) high mileage virtually unanimously. Some elite 1500m runners run high mileage, and comparatively fewer 800m runners do high mileage. When I say "high mileage," I mean in the vein of JK-style training--lots of high end aerobic work, relatively little hard "anaerobic" training, and long blocks of 15+ miles a day. It's a matter of two things:
1) your own physiology
2) the demands of your event
Renato Canova had a great post recently about how it's silly to talk about the 800 being "50% aerobic" or whatever, since it depends highly on the athlete involved. So for a given sample of (say) 3:50 1500m runners, their ideal training might vary based on their own physiology. One might do well to focus on more high-speed training and would flounder when given 10k-style training, whereas another might do well with a high-mileage, high-end aerobic focus. That being said, EVERYONE needs a solid base of high mileage, and one of Kellogg's main points is that Americans do not have a sufficient mileage base to support long-term improvement on low mileage/high intensity training. Unless you're a Kenyan and you ran to school every day as well as played soccer for several hours many times a week, your long-term development will be hampered unless you spend at least some time putting in high volume high end aerobic training. Once you have "built your aerobic house," as Canova says, you have more leeway in the mileage you run.
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to curious letsrunner
-
Well, in my mind the 150MPW is more than needed. I prefer to keep the volume at more conservative level, where you`ll be able to do more LT training. But should not force the pace either, and keep the easy runs really easy.
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to U.N.O.
-
http://www.irc-club.ru/faq/methods/morocco.html
here is a pretty cool link to El G's training. It appears that El G would do his 'aerobic endurance' runs at 3:10-2:50/km. For a 3:43 miler / 12:50 5,000m runner, 5:00-4:30 sounds reasonable for those types of training pace.
The dude must have had phenomenal recovery to be able to do this day in and day out. I'm on day 3 of recovery pace runs trying to recover from a 4 mile tempo the other night. :)
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to Middle Ground?
-
"Snell would start his 22-miler at 6:00 and end at 5:00."
Maybe at the end of his 8-12 week base building. Started out running only 15 miles until Arthur approved moving up in distance and intensity. Check out Keith Livingstone's book of Lydiard and High Intensity Training. Very detailed outline of Lydiard's philosophy.
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to bangalangadanga
-
More like "had a phenomenal recovery AID." If you know what I mean.
bangalangadanga wrote:
http://www.irc-club.ru/faq/methods/morocco.html
here is a pretty cool link to El G's training. It appears that El G would do his 'aerobic endurance' runs at 3:10-2:50/km. For a 3:43 miler / 12:50 5,000m runner, 5:00-4:30 sounds reasonable for those types of training pace.
The dude must have had phenomenal recovery to be able to do this day in and day out. I'm on day 3 of recovery pace runs trying to recover from a 4 mile tempo the other night. :)
Also why read Livingston's book when Lydiard himself wrote several? Isn't that Kieth Livingston training and not Lydiard training then?
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to curious letsrunner
-
i'm not a coach & no real interest in such
however, it is obvious what coeism is all about :
weight-training, especially the legs for a 800/1500 guy - meaning leg press
from '78 - '81 included, i doubt his hypothetical 3k potential was outside 7'30 - 7'35 ( little change albeit nearer quicker end of range in '81 )
in '78 i reckon he was
~ 47.1 / 1'43.6
in '79 i reckon he was
~ 46.2 / 1'42.1
in '81 i reckon he was
~ 45.7 / 1'41.3
these all yield 7'30 - 7'35 potential ( albeit '81 is quicker )
key is simply improved speed which brought all this about :
little change in aerobic ability ( may have even backed off the mileage by '81 ) but immense anaerobic improvement ( more than compensating for loss of aerobicism for "short" events like 800/1500 ) thru weights - meaning leg press
lesson is there to be learnt, especially for kenyan 800 guys
don't bother chasing even further aerobic gains if you are already highly developed in that area ( most are )
hit the leg press
the improved strength/speed will more than compensate for the small aerobic loss & you can slash big chunks off the 800
you obviously need an experienced strength coach for this...
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to curious letsrunner
-
Coe was not a distance runner Race one mile or 1,500m, train 70mpw? sounds about right. WEJO was a 10k'er and marathoner, so yeah, run more in training and run easier.
It ain't rocket science.
If you're a concert pianist, do you practice as little as possible or do you have to spend hours a day preparing?
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to do not shoot me
-
Coe also sucked at any distance over 3km. His best asset was his speed and speed endurance over 1500m. He was basically training like an 800m runner who also ran the 1500m and mile. So why would he run 100miles a week? Coe trained the way he had to train to win. This is an old debate and I wish someone would bury this horse.
-
-
-
- RE: Kellogism vs Coeism - in reply to Ninetonite
-
I'll give my take. For what it's worth:
-Im a physician
-Have had a pretty strong interest in exercise phys for a long time
-have trained with elites
Does this mean Im an expert? No
Benefits of high mileage running:
-MUSCLE LOSS which has two benefits:
-Less overall body weight, requiring less energy to cover any distance
-Selective weight loss in the arms and legs- these are the MOVING PORTIONS OF THE STRIDE. This is why oscar Pistorius uses less energy than everyone else in the 400 and closes the 400 better than anyone
-increased myoglobin expression in muscle=substance that removes oxygen from the blood
-increased capillary density= more oxygen to you muscle
Downside to high mileage
-muscle loss: decreased power generation
upside and downside of speed and strength
-opposite of above
takes a mix depending on your event
-