HRE wrote:
If you can only run 50 or 20 or whatever a week then that's all you should do. But you shouldn't tell other people not to do more just because you can't.
Huh? Who told others not to do more? If your body can handle more, then bless you. And thank your parents (or God or whoever). Don't try to take all the "credit" for yourself, although I understand that's the norm on this board.
You are a very typical LRC poster in that regard, except that you are a few decades older than most.
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
HRE wrote:If you can only run 50 or 20 or whatever a week then that's all you should do. But you shouldn't tell other people not to do more just because you can't.
Huh? Who told others not to do more?
You did:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6404712&page=3#6410195Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
The first person (100mpw guy) will break down sooner or later, and repeat injury-rehab cycles. The second person (50mpw guy who sleeps in) is likely to stay injury-free and steadily improve.
So no one accomplishes anything for themselves? Any success anyone has, no matter how major or minor is attributable to some other party or parties? Sorry, I don't buy that and I think that attitude you're exhibiting, i.e., you're so limited by forces beyond your control that you can't really accomplish much is sad and limiting.
Days off. Everyone is so concerned about getting their daily run in even when they're exhausted. Week after week of 70+ miles. Everyone thinks they're going to "lose fitness" by taking 3-4 days completely off, truth is you're gaining it.
Instead of taking 1 day completely off per week, try training 4 weeks straight and then taking 4 days completely off. This is just my personal philosophy (consistent with hard days hard, easy days easy), but I wonder if anyone else does this. My legs always feel wrecked during the 4 days off, and that's how I know it's working.
Many years of running and observing other runners tell me that handling big mileage is a lot easier than most runners think. You just have to increase it slowly. Rupp increased his average mileage over 10 years by 5 mpw a year. That's what you should do, not jump start running 100 mpw until you're so tired and stiff that you can't get out of bed. And if you start developing an injury you must scale back and heal it completely.
That said, I do think mileage is overrated for many runners. But *handling* high mileage is first and foremost a question of patience and dedication.
That's what I think. If you can run 50 miles a week comfortably you can run 53 comfortably. Run that much for a month or so until it's comfortable and you can run 56. Do the same and you can run 59. In a year and a half at that rate you'll be over 100. Or just add 2 miles and you're still over 100 in a bit over two years.
HRE wrote:
That's what I think. If you can run 50 miles a week comfortably you can run 53 comfortably. Run that much for a month or so until it's comfortable and you can run 56. Do the same and you can run 59. In a year and a half at that rate you'll be over 100. Or just add 2 miles and you're still over 100 in a bit over two years.
But if I do that I'd find out I can handle more. Who needs that? I'll stick to my 30 plus complaining.
malmo wrote:
cbenson4 wrote:Since I said "depending on your event," I'll use the half marathon as an example.
Let's say you trained for a while and your VO2 max was measured to be 68, and then you raced a half marathon in 1:12.
And then say you went and trained for much longer, with more mileage, and after a few years your VO2 max was remeasured to be 75. You go back to that same half marathon. Assuming all other variables had *at least* stayed the same, you would run a good deal faster than 1:12 -- probably closer to 1:07-1:09.
Here is an interesting and inspiring article by Joe Vigil that helps to support my point:
http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/2/2_1/the-anatomy-of-a-medal.shtml"Previously, she was only running 40-50 miles a week, which certainly was not enough volume to compete at her desired level. We increased that volume to 70 miles per week (MPW) for the next 15 months. This allowed for gradual adaptation without any resulting injuries or setbacks. At this point, she had a VO2 MAX of 70.2 mls. (VO2 MAX is the maximum amount of oxygen in milliliters your body can use in one minute per kilogram of body weight, i.e. the higher the better). We next increased her volume to 90 miles a week over the next 18 months. Her VO2 MAX jumped to 77.5 mls. During this time period, she was making her mark nationally and had won a national championship in Cross Country. Again, we increased her volume to 100-110 miles per week and, not surprisingly, her VO2 MAX was at 81.3 mls. This level of fitness is attained by very few athletes and is one of the highest ever recorded in an American athlete."
"We both knew VO2 MAX was important, but even more so was the increase of anaerobic threshold..."
VO2 Max doesn't mean anything
It's an oft-used and little understood term used by grad students to justify to their parents that their efforts and money have not gone to waste. University administrators have been duped by this sciolistic fog-machine, as well. How else could the waste of valuable resources, time and money, be covered-up with impunity? Parents and other intelligent, rational thinking adults could not possibly decipher this code. Do not try to yourself. You'll only make yourself look foolish reciting the catechism of the exercise-physio-geeks.
This nascent science of exercise physiology was born out of a failed genetics experiment in the early 60s; the breeding of an economist and a sociologist. The offspring from this pairing would say more and mean less than the combined blather of the two parents put together. Common sense would have told us how this experiment would have ended, but stubborn researchers pushed ahead, nonetheless.
The only numbers that matter are the ones that you receive at the end of the race. The most important of these is called place, and is represented as an ordinal. A '1' is the best indicator of your performance. If you get a '1' then you've done excellent. It's no small coincidence that '1' is a homophone for 'won'. Other excellent numbers to receive are '2' and '3'. Not nearly as good as a '1', but by tradition and convention the numbers '1', '2' and '3' are deemed to be the 'supreme ordinals'; that is to say, worthy of gold, silver and bronze, and are segregated from the other ordinals. The rest of the ordinals are represented by the formula: n + 1...(to infinity). There is a direct, inverse relationship between ordinal value and its worth. The closer to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer to infinity, the worse you've done.
One of the other numbers that matters much more than VO2 Max is time. Time is always secondary to place in it's value. Neither place nor time are given in the gerbil-wheel lab tests conducted by the exercise-physio-geeks. You will only receive them in the experiment that the real experts call competition. Time does not supercede place, but it is a way of comparing the place of two or more experiments from different venues and eras. The juxtaposition of time and place is the business of track statisticians, who, by the way, are also the progeny from the aforementioned failed genetics experiment.
Long ago, time was measured as a fraction of the earth's rotation in base 60: hours, minutes and seconds. It's still expressed as such, however, the predecessors to the exercise-physio-geeks have determined that time should now be measured in terms of the vibration frequency of irradiated Cesium atoms. Your watch has quartz crystals in it that will simulate this experiment for you (without the attendant radiation and disposal problems) and convert the results automatically, presenting them to you in the form of easily recognizable numerical glyphs. No complicated formulae to memorize!
Through complex mathematical machinations, physicists have proven that it is physically impossible for VO2Max to supersede either time or place in value. Physicist Richard Feynman once said, "VO2Max and five bucks will get you a cup of joe at Starbucks."
So far, in the history of sports, not one award has been given, nor has there ever been remuneration, for VO2Max results.
There are many other factors that are much more indicative of athletic performance, or the potential for performance, than VO2 max. I couldn't possibly begin to list them all: height, weight, hair color, skin color, shoe size, favorite TV show...the list is endless.
------
What is VO2 max?
Simply put, the oxygen consumption capacity of the body during exercise. It's value is expressed as: Volume of oxygen (O2) consumed, per Unit Body mass, per time interval or: milliliters O2/Kg body/minute. Check that out, two variables and one constant in the formula. Look at the denominator of the formula: Kg body mass. Want to improve VO2 max without training? Lose weight.
At rest, the human body has a VO2 of 3-4 ml/kg/min. According to the exercise physiologists: sedentary individuals have a VO2 max of 40-50. Trained recreational runners 55-65. Competitive runners 65-80, and elite runners 84-92. The truth of the matter is that there are no distinct boundaries separating these groups. Many recreational runners have higher VO2 max (80s) than competitive and elite runners. Many elite runners have lower VO2 max (70s) values than some of the recreational runners.
Take a sampling of runners with PR differences of just 2% in their specialties. For example, that would be three sets of athletes collected together like so:
1) 1500m (3:29.7-3:34.0)
2) 5000m (13:00-13:16)
3) 10,000m (26:57-27:30)
Now fly in exercise physiologists from around the world and geek-out: treadmills, oxygen ventilators, calipers, rectal probes! Collect the data, crunch the numbers and what do you get? Sets of highly-trained runners with similar PRs (2% differentials) with VO2 max values that vary wildly: 10 to 15 percent (sometimes more)! Runners with slower PRs having higher VO2 max. How is that predictive of performance?
As a broad generalization, I'll agree that trained runners will have higher VO2 max than the sedentary. That is called the common sense doctrine. Within sampling sets of like-performing athletes, there is no direct correlation.
92.5 Greg LeMond, professional cyclist
92.0 Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder
91.0 Harri Kirvesniem, Finnish cross country skier
90.0 Bjørn Dæhlie, Norwegian cross country skier
88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist
87.4 Marius Bakken, Norwegian 5k record holder
85.0 Dave Bedford, 10k world record
85.0 John Ngugi World XC Champion
84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner
84.3 "Physiologist in training," 15:12/30:55 runner
84.0 Lance Armstrong, professional cyclist
82.7 Gary Tuttle, US runner
82.0 Kip Keino, Olympic 1500 champion
81.1 Craig Virgin, twice World cross country champ
81.0 Jim Ryun, US miler WR holder
80.1 Steve Scott, US miler 3:47
79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner
78.6 Joan Benoit, 1984 Olympic Marathon Champion
78.5 Bill Rodgers, 2:09:27 marathoner
77.4 Don Kardong, 2:11:15 marathoner
77.0 Sebastian Coe. WR mile, 1500
76.6 John Landy, WR miler
76.0 Alberto Salazar, 2:08:51 marathoner
74.3 Amby Burfoot, US marathoner
74.4 Johnny Halberstadt, 2:11:44 marathoner
74.2 Kenny Moore, US marathoner 2:11:36
73.5 Grete Waitz, Norwegian Marathon runner
73.3 Bruce Fordyce ultramarathoner
73.0 Jeff Galloway, US snake oil salesman
73.0 Buddy Edelen, 2:14:28 world record marathoner (1963)
72.8 Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner
72.3 Peter Snell, Olympic champion
72.0 Zithulele Sinqe, 2:08:05 marathoner
71.3 Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner
71.2 Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder
71.0 Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder
70.3 Willie Mtolo, 2:08:15 marathoner
69.7 Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder 2:08:35
67.2 Rosa Mota, Marathon runner
----------------------------------------
RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY
Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running velocity during VO2max test predicts running performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 35-45.
Marathon runners (N = 20) and ultra-marathoners (N = 23) were tested for VO2max, peak treadmill running velocity, velocity at lactate turnpoint, and VO2 at 16 km/h using an incremental (1 min) treadmill test.
Results. Race times at 10, 21.1, and 42.2 km of the specialist marathoners were faster than those of the ultra-marathoners, however, only the 10 km time differed significantly. Lactate turnpoint occurred at 77.4% of VO2max and at 74.7% of peak treadmill velocity. The average VO2 at 16 km/h was 51.2 ml/kg/min which represented 78.5% of VO2max.
For all distances, performance time in other races was the best predictor of performance (r = .95 to .98).
The best laboratory predictors were: (a) peak treadmill running velocity (r = -.89 to -.94); (b) running velocity at lactate turnpoint (r = -.91 to -.93); and (c) fractional use of VO2max at 16 km/h (r = .86 to .90). The predictive value of the lactate turnpoint measure increased as the distance increased.
The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r = .40 to .45).
Conclusion. There may be no unique physiological characteristics that distinguish elite long-distance (10 km or longer) runners as is often promoted. Other factors determine success in high level sports among exclusive groups of superior athletes.
Implication. Running performance is the best predictor of running capability in elite long-distance runners. Physiological laboratory testing gives less information than does actual performance. Even the fastest speed of running on the treadmill is a better predictor than any physiological measure. This suggests that for at least endurance-dominated sports, actual performances in a variety of performance-specific situations will give more useful information than that which can be obtained in any physiology laboratory test.
Science of Running: More on VO2 Max
http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html------------------------------------------
As I've said in the satire above, "VO2 max doesn't mean anything."
------------------------------------------
As I've said in the satire above, "VO2 max doesn't mean anything."
Malmo, in no way was I trying to convey that VO2 max is the greatest thing in all of running, and that if you don't have a high VO2 max, all hope is lost.
I recognize that VO2 max varies among all runners. I also recognize you don't need to know your VO2 max to run well.
HRE, how old are you and how much do currently run?
and how many years were you doing 100+ mpw?
I'm 62 now and go for an hour or two in a typical day. I try not to think much about how far. I had some really bad falls when I was a kid which messed up my back and now my back has got stuff screwed up in my right knee.
I was over 100 from 1973 until early 1978 and then dropped to maybe 80-90 for, well, until my back stuff caught up with me. I do sleep a lot now.
HRE wrote:
I'm 62 now and go for an hour or two in a typical day. I try not to think much about how far. I had some really bad falls when I was a kid which messed up my back and now my back has got stuff screwed up in my right knee.
I was over 100 from 1973 until early 1978 and then dropped to maybe 80-90 for, well, until my back stuff caught up with me. I do sleep a lot now.
Nice!
Sorry about the back stuff though
You are missing the big picture.
The first guy is running hard every day, eating crap, and sleeping only 5 hours. A high mileage guy needs to sleep more, eat better, and take the easy day easier than a low mileage guy.
Unless you are the great HRE, who can overcome anything with his determination. But the mere mortals have to take the recovery seriously if we want to run more mileage.
Yeah, isn't it sad that people who win awards (Grammy, Oscar, etc.) thank other people who helped them achieve their dream? They even thank God for their gift! Why not talk about how hard they worked instead? It's all about me, me, and me, right?
Another thing that's overrated:
Training more even when you feel like total garbage and everything in your body is telling you, "NO MORE!"
Overlooked:
Rest. Solely cross training for a bit or taking a day completely off when you need it is not going to suck the fitness out of you.
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
You are missing the big picture.
The first guy is running hard every day, eating crap, and sleeping only 5 hours. A high mileage guy needs to sleep more, eat better, and take the easy day easier than a low mileage guy.
Unless you are the great HRE, who can overcome anything with his determination. But the mere mortals have to take the recovery seriously if we want to run more mileage.
You need to actually try to get in the picture before you tell anyone how things work.
Overrated: nutrition, stretching
Underrated: Sleep, easy days, double days, tempos, weight liftinf,
How do you know I haven't?
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
How do you know I haven't?
Because you wouldn't be whiny and filled with resentment against those who can.
You probably 'tried" for a month, tops.
You know absolutely nothing about my injury history, thank you very much.
Irrelevant. You are a quitter.