If people commonly blame the relative demise of American distance running in the late '80s and '90s on the widespread adoption of Peter/Seb Coe's lower-mileage training philosophy, then why did it work so well for Coe and his British contemporaries? If anything, shouldn't it have produced a slew of elite American middle distance runners in that time period? Does anyone have any theories about why it didn't?
John Kellogg's take:
John Kellogg wrote:
While the elite runners (who had grown up during the 1970s running boom and understood how to train) were still running sub-28:00 for 10,000m (Nenow, Bickford, Eyestone, Sandoval, etc.) and scads of 2:10-2:15 marathons (and a few 2:08-2:09 times on p-t-p courses), the high school crowd (beginning circa 1979) had moved toward a "faster must be better" mantra. Coe obviously did not start this, but his assertions that "modern middle distance running is about speed" (another direct quote), as well as the other quotes mentioned above, fed a virtual cult of misuderstanding followers who praised the Emporer's new clothes of high intensity. The biggest problem was the non-runners in the white lab coats determining (in true "forget what we told you several years ago; this time we've really got it right" fashion) that max VO2 could be improved to its ceiling by running 35-40 miles per week. The next generation of runners, already overestimating the importance of max VO2 in predicting performance, was happy to hear that they could be back at the arcade playing Asteroids and Pac-Man after a 30-minute track workout. Virtually every piece of literature of the mid-1980s announced that the trend in training was toward lower mileage and higher intensity. Performances on the depth charts plummeted, first among the high school ranks and then among U.S. elites. Runners who had burned out from high intensity and mediocre performances in youth had little reason to stay in the sport, and the elite ranks thinned.
It was the greatest ploy ever perpetrated on gullible runners, to insure his legacy. Peter is the mastermind and Seb smirked his way along.
Underreport mileage by 50% and throw in some blood reinfusion...Voila!
"why run the life out of a young runner when you can develop it with quality" - Peter Coe
The death knell of American distance running during the Great Depression of '88-2001.
It's not really about mileage vs intensity for any runner, including Coe. He ran plenty of miles in Winter and plenty of tempo runs throughout his career.
Look at what Alan Webb did, his PRs from 800 up to 10000 show how a good training plan and a good mindset can reap reward at a good range of distances without high mileage. That doesn't mean that low mileage or medium mileage or high mileage are the way to go, it means that different runners achieve results with different training.
John Kellogg stated that it was impossible for a distance runner to get anywhere without running 120-150 mpw. I don't know why you would have so much belief in a man who can say such stupid things.
Bump. Interested in what folks have to say about this.
Most people have completely misinterpreted some of the comments by the Coe's.
The whole quality is more important than quantity was taken out of context. He was specifically referring to Coe's early years, during his mid to late teens. And he was absolutely right. Too many promising juniors have fallen by the wayside by training too hard, too young and too much.
Coe made a comment in an interview in 78 that he had been only been doing 30 or 40 miles a week prior to the Europeans. This was probably taken at face value, but the point was that he had been injured and was unable to put in the adequate mileage required for a championship. Some ran with this quote and presumed Coe always did low mileage. There was certainly no intention of covering up what he was really doing. Other coaches like Horvil or Canova witnessed many of his training practices, and could have told you at the time, when a successful senior, that he was doing reasonable mileage like all the other Middle distance guys at the time.
The main difference with Coe is that he was one of the first who maintained gym and speed work all year round. Hence the quote that you can't get away from speed. Again, he was right. To be the top of the pile you had to have the speed to win in any sort of race. The mistake others made was that you could succeed on this alone. Coe was outstanding because he developed unrivalled speed, while matching anyone else with the endurance required to run 1500.
ISBN wrote:
Most people have completely misinterpreted some of the comments by the Coe's.
No one misinterpreted. Peter Coe's book is a volume of disinformation hyping his "high quality/low miles" approach.
Coe was the first crossfitter. 1:41/3:29 on HIIT
The thing people hate to admit is that Coe is right, and his training program has been proven correct. Look at El G or Lagat. Low mileage, high intensity. Leads to long and productive careers. Meanwhile, the high mileage Lydiard acolytes burn out after a few years. Is it any surprise that Edward Cheserek -- who is known to run no more than 45 miles per week -- is the best college runner in the nation?
Who was the one great rival Coe had? It was Ovett who ran a decent quantity of miles most of the time. Steve Scott matched up pretty well against Coe and Ovett and he too, ran respectable volume. But few English speaking runners got all fired up about trying to imitate Ovett's or Scott's training. Coe was the flavor of the decade(s).
Coe ran more than was commonly believed but there are loads of people in the sport who don't want to run a lot, who much prefer going to the track, hammering for a short while and maybe heading for the gym. Those people looked at the low mileage parts of Coe's program and decided that if he could be so fast on 40 or so miles a week that was all anyone needed to do. And what he reportedly did was a departure from what people had been doing until he came along so there was the appeal of something that seemed new and innovative that didn't go with Ovett's and Scott's training.
You could have found parts of Snell's program when he wasn't doing much more than Coe was at his low mileage stages but Lydiard emphasized the high mileage when he discussed what he had Snell doing and Peter Coe emphasized the shirt fast stuff when discussing his son. So loads of people saw what they wanted to with Coe and did what they thought he did.
Like it is...
The harsh truth we're not accepting is Seb Coe was on EPO and likely test - his father in a first edition of a book running that was later redacted touted the virtues of EPO..
Webb's career trajectory is that of a runner on PEDs - likely EPO - he peaked in HS, where drug-testing was least stringent and shortly afterward before the bio passport. How you run 3:54 at 18 and can't break 4 10 years later. This is the typical pattern of a cheater.
I'm sure most of these guys you mentioned who had big times in the 70s and 80s were on PEDs or blood-doping or using testosterone, which was pioneered by paavo nurmi in the 1920s, google it!
Hitler and the Nazis were using test. The entire Capt America story is a parable about the discovery of testosterone and its use in soldiers.
Bruce Jenner won the olympics on test and didnt know the consequences of longterm use - hypogonadism. He refuses to take exogeneous test and can't make his own, he is now a woman.
Face reality instead of making these delusional threads.
Another example that I forgot to cite above is the ageless Leo Manzano, whose longest run of the week is usually under 8 miles. Focuses on intervals, and he's better off for it. Running long and slow makes you injured and, well, SLOW.
josephfishkin wrote:
The thing people hate to admit is that Coe is right, and his training program has been proven correct. Look at El G or Lagat. Low mileage, high intensity. Leads to long and productive careers. Meanwhile, the high mileage Lydiard acolytes burn out after a few years. Is it any surprise that Edward Cheserek -- who is known to run no more than 45 miles per week -- is the best college runner in the nation?
Funny because in an interview with Running Times he talks about his 80 mile weeks.
RT: It’s still early in the season, but what do you expect will be different about your training this fall and what do you need to work on?
EC: Last year at this time I was in terrible shape. I wasn’t in good shape like I am this year. But it seems like now everything is moving well and I am running more mileage. Last year I was running about 70 to 80 miles a week but this time I’m running about 80 to 85 miles a week. We’ll see, if I’m getting faster maybe we’ll keep it at 85, or maybe in the next two months we’ll add a little more. But with the workouts we’re trying to push everything up a little bit. I’m not a huge mileage guy, I’m more a really good workouts guy. My coach says, “Don’t worry about the mileage, just worry about the quality workouts.”
He even says that this is low mileage. 85 mpw is "low" mileage.
josephfishkin wrote:
The thing people hate to admit is that Coe is right, and his training program has been proven correct. Look at El G or Lagat. Low mileage, high intensity. Leads to long and productive careers. Meanwhile, the high mileage Lydiard acolytes burn out after a few years. Is it any surprise that Edward Cheserek -- who is known to run no more than 45 miles per week -- is the best college runner in the nation?
Yeah as opposed to those high-mileage burnouts like Bill Rodgers and Frank Shorter, right?
More like those high mileage burnouts like Salazar and Ritzenhein. Their careers could've really been something had they subscribed to the Coe model.
Isn't there some thread on here by a poster who was told by Coe that he did up to 110 mpw in the offseason bread-and-butter weeks, and even something like 70 in season.
What we do know is Coe didn't record warmups and easy miles as training... We know he focused on the quality sessions, not hitting a certain mpw, and probably wouldn't tell others to aim for a certain mpw. But that does not mean he ran low mileage.
You can try to skew this all you want, but Coe's status as an advocate of low mileage is unquestioned. Just think this through logically: Why would running, say, 16 miles at 7:00 pace help me get better at racing 800m well below sub 4:00 pace? It just doesn't make sense, scientifically or logically. That's why my HS runners run no more than 25-30 mpw. No injuries and career longevity.
yoyo12 wrote:
Like it is...
The harsh truth we're not accepting is Seb Coe was on EPO and likely test - his father in a first edition of a book running that was later redacted touted the virtues of EPO..
Webb's career trajectory is that of a runner on PEDs - likely EPO - he peaked in HS, where drug-testing was least stringent and shortly afterward before the bio passport. How you run 3:54 at 18 and can't break 4 10 years later. This is the typical pattern of a cheater.
I'm sure most of these guys you mentioned who had big times in the 70s and 80s were on PEDs or blood-doping or using testosterone, which was pioneered by paavo nurmi in the 1920s, google it!
Hitler and the Nazis were using test. The entire Capt America story is a parable about the discovery of testosterone and its use in soldiers.
Bruce Jenner won the olympics on test and didnt know the consequences of longterm use - hypogonadism. He refuses to take exogeneous test and can't make his own, he is now a woman.
Face reality instead of making these delusional threads.
18 - 3:53
24 - 3:46
"Webb's career trajectory is that of a runner on PEDs - likely EPO - he peaked in HS"
...