JK is brilliant

Yep, it was a very good article again.

Here is one that he had written early incase you missed it:

http://www.letsrun.com/2004/jkoxygen.php

Thanks again Letsrun/Wejo/JK

Thanks JK for sharing your ideas.

So I'm wondering about something, since we really are supposed to be training at slower paces, which I believe is true, I've been doing it and it works...Can we bump our mileage up a good deal? Like if I do 90 this week can I go to 100 the next week And increase even more? Do I take a greatest risk of getting injured by doing this, even if I'm not increasing intensity? I just want to up my mileage as high as I can without getting hurt to just improve the most.

i dont know..

Kellogg says you have to stay away from anaerobic work for some time, he says most people run too hard on their temporuns, he says you need 120-150miles/week.

Steve Jones and Carlos Lopes:may be the two best non-african marathoners ever, both mediocre junior runners.

Both ran two(or 3) fast Interval(Fartlek)-Sessions per week the whole year, both ran their temporuns very hard at a very uncomfortable pace, both ran maximum 100miles/week and averaged even less(70-90).

wello is right, focus on the extreme anomalies - there lies to key to success in sport, as it does in life!

wello wrote:

i dont know..

Kellogg says you have to stay away from anaerobic work for some time, he says most people run too hard on their temporuns, he says you need 120-150miles/week.

Steve Jones and Carlos Lopes:may be the two best non-african marathoners ever, both mediocre junior runners.

Both ran two(or 3) fast Interval(Fartlek)-Sessions per week the whole year, both ran their temporuns very hard at a very uncomfortable pace, both ran maximum 100miles/week and averaged even less(70-90).

I'm not doing anaerobic work at all, and I'm not doing tempo runs either, just very easy morning runs, easy afternoon runs w/ strides after, 1-2 progression runs a week, 1 long run, and 1 run where I go half the miles uphill, and half turn around downhill, also 2 days of drills in a week. If my highest week before was about 113-116, do I take a big risk of getting injured if in the next 8 weeks I go from 100 mpw to 130 mpw? As long as it's all kept at slow paces and controlled obviously?

extreme anomalies?

Lopes and Jones were not very talented, they had to train hard(and right) to get the results.

And running fast 10ks or marathons on 100mpw or less is not something special, there are many other athletes who have done that.

an anomaly is for example when a 1:01 half marathoner can't run under 2:13 for the full thon.

Steve Jones in particular did some monster anaerobic work. I dont have the time, want to make the effort, dont care if im world class, and want a life - so i choose not to run 120-140 miles per week. If i want to be locally competitive, i have found through trial and error over many years of running- that track workouts - anerobic- help my performance the best. That and a long run once every 2 weeks or so.

Kellogg may have a point- but i think there are many ways to get real good if you have the talent. Anyone read Train Hard, Win Easy the Kenyan Way. Its a good book that goes in detail some of the weeks these guys and gals put in. Some do 140 mile weeks and lots of tempo as you feel runs with longer runs. But others do hard track or fartlek runs and average around 100 or less a week, with a day off every Sunday for religious reasons.

wello wrote:

an anomaly is for example when a 1:01 half marathoner can't run under 2:13 for the full thon.

Errrr...malmo's best marathon is 2:12. He only ran three (I think), the slowest of which was 2:13.

I think it's pretty impressive for a 1500/3000sc track specialist to run the times malmo did for the half and full marathon.

And since you seem to be in the mode of slamming elite runners, why not take a shot at Lasse Viren who, despite his impressive 5,000 and 10,000 meter credentials, could "only" manage 2:13 for the marathon.

i dont want to bash anyone but when we are talking bout training or ideal training then we should bring up all facts and figures.

wello wrote:

extreme anomalies?

Lopes and Jones were not very talented, they had to train hard(and right) to get the results.

And how do you know that Lopes and Jones were not very talented? It cracks me up when people make assertions about someone's innate talent. I mean, did you sneak into Lopes's and Jones's bedrooms before their running careers started and take muscle biopsies or something?

Steve Jones took less than optimal care of himself and yet still ran a frickin' 2:07 marathon. He worked very hard, but so do most elite runners. For all we know, Steve Jones could have been the most "talented" runner in the history of the world.

everyone is talking about how good high-mileage running is for long-term development but high-mileage guys like Bedford or Viren ran their PB's in their early 20s while other "low" mileage-guys like Jones,Lopes or Aouita or Marsh set PBs in their late 20s/30s.

My problem with the JK-Articles is that its a dogma, "you have to run atleast so and so much miles" and thats nonsense.

before you guys totally get away from the topic, does anyone have an answer to my previous question?

wello wrote:

My problem with the JK-Articles is that its a dogma, "you have to run atleast so and so much miles" and thats nonsense.

Nope, sorry, shot yourself in the foot with that one.

In Jk's words:

"From a standpoint of enjoyment, there may be some people who do give higher mileage a chance for several months out of each year and find that even after several years, they still hate every moment of it! These individuals will probably lose motivation and focus by forcing themselves to adhere to such a program and most likely will achieve more in the sport by bringing a fresh, positive attitude to sessions they will enjoy. In the end, the ideal balance for any given runner will be found only through patient trial and error."

Read that again until your reading skills kick in; no dogma there, nor any number of miles set in stone.

good post

yeah:

"A runner absolutely must obtain the ability to train at 120-150 (or more) miles per week by the peak of the career in order to reach fruition.".

He does imply in many of his articles that you have to run so much to get good. That if you want to maximize your talent, 120 -140 miles is needed. There are many on these boards, and many elite runners that would disagree with that. Perhaps 120 does work for many, but its not the only way. Kellogg makes it like you are selling yourself short if you dont run that much.

Of course, there's always a danger when one increases one's miles. When I was a serious runner about thirty years ago, I could run a bit over 90mpw without getting hurt, but everytime I went over 100, I would get hurt. Maybe I wasn't running slowly enough, but I think it had more to do with natural defects in my body that allowed it to withstand just so much; also, I wasn't the most talented guy. But I do think JK is absolutely right: one gets better ultimately by increasing one's miles over time. So if I were you, I'd surely increase my miles. The choice is whether you divide the increase between your morning and afternoon runs or whether you just add the miles to one or the other. If you run well in the mornings, I'd do the former; if you don't, I'd do the latter.

FLG RUN wrote:

before you guys totally get away from the topic, does anyone have an answer to my previous question?