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

JK,

I don't disagree with your principles at all. I think you hit the nail on the head as to why US athletes have suffered the last couple decades (although I wouldn't necessarily call T-Williams, Steve Holman, Bob Kennedy, Mark Croghan, Alan Culpepper and Adam Goucher as failures or not as fast as their predecessors).

Anyway, my issue with your assertations is that you HAVE to run that type of mileage. I have friends who break if they run more than 80. Their bodies just can't adapt to mileage. They are still very fast, but they rely on other methods to get there. I just don't think, as a coach, you should be quite so narrow minded.

You never answered my last question. What type of runner are you gearing your training for? What do you see someone like Deak running in college and post collegiately? Are you in the business of making marathoners and 10k men? What do you think about training for the mile and 5k?

Conto, have you never thought for a moment that you are asking pesky questions? Why in the hell should he give you a prediction of what Deak's running career is going to be like? He would not even give Ryan such an unprofessional prediction. Think!

i would NEVER pay for coaching. NEVER... it's a waste of money. if you put in the time necessary for improvement and development, then by the time you are ready to be fast under a coach or not, you'll know as much as any coach anyways. it's all a matter of applying yourself to what you already know. do your weekly long run, do your easy days VERY EASY, get some workout examples and do them on a weekly basis, and take a recovery week once in a while. develop a system that resembles shorter's or someone else's... there are many out there to look at. a Coach wouldnt' tell you anything more than shorter, ryun, or scott's biographies do. seroiusly.

i mean shoot, get a training partner and friend to hold the watch. seriously, a coach (JK, wetmore, lanana, etc) has no secrets. the real secret is that successful runners are different because they actually dedicate themselves to applying what we all know. and they get somewhat lucky with minimal injuries and bouncing back from them too. i wouldn't waste my money on coaches. coaches who want to 'succeed' will come to you and want to coach you. you won't have to pay them. peace out.

I agree with you somewhat in that paying for coaching is a tad bit sketchy. but as i have only been running for about 1.5 years, i know that you need 1 long run per week, and mileage and all that stuff, but when do the tempos come in? what workouts should I do? how do i trak my progress? Thats what I need guidance in.

gravytrain, having trained under a person I now regard as a lousy coach, I can tell you that you are wrong. Sure there are a lot of folks like Culpepper that is avance and can train themselves very well--especially having seen and read about many systems. But coaches can create improvements for the runner that he or she never had considered. Most people will benefit under an experienced and very knowledgable coach. I do know that JK has vast knowledge of this sport and endurance european bike racing--or rather it seems to me he does since I have heard him cite such ideas I know originatinted from biking community. And having a coach is much like having a psychologist anyway--because you are for the most part only trying to get athlete to realize their own schedule for training and help them better themselves--by themselves. Which seems to be JK's approach with Ryan. Therefore Rayan is more responsible for his training than JK is--but I am sure that Deak is not unhappy for having extra methd to dig down deep inside himself for answers to his own questions.

Having a (good) coach is a luxury, but one that is worthwhile in my opinion. The function of a coach shouldn't be so much to rah rah you and get you fired up (at least not post collegiately), but rather to provide objective advice, and pull the reins when necessary.

I've often found myself being so compulsive about training/racing so as to act against my better judgement and try to "get away" with things that I would be better off not doing. Having a coach can take that compulsion out of the equation and insure that all of the decisions made w/ respect to your training and racing are appropriate.

It also helps to have someone to whom you are accountable for getting your shit done. When you're on your own it's easier to let the little things slide here and there. If you've got someone laying out your plan and expecting that you will be doing what they ask it sometimes provides that extra little incentive. It's harder to let someone else down than it is yourself. That's how I see it anyway.

Finally, the words that i have been searching for that totally describe my needs.

DUDE, GET A DAMN LIFE. GO TO ANOTHER MESSAGE BOARD, PLEASE!

As for the checks, that is not why JK coaches. I think it's fairly safe to say JK's net worth is less than any person I know.

I probably get 10 emails a month from people trying to get Jk to coach them and he turns them down because generally he does not want to coach people online although he will make exceptions.

I don't think Ryan Deak runs a 120 miles a week. Maybe he does. I doubt it.

But we're talking about saying an athlete should see if they can tolerate 120 miles a week. We're talking relaxed miles. Most of you guys are being super critical without having ever tried would JK is advocating or being at the level he is talking about.

You guys comparing JK's philosophy to Al Salazar's are way, way off the mark. Obviously if you make that comparison you don't know what you're talking about. Salazar absolutely ran himself into the ground and ran hard all the time. This week I did 2 tempo runs, 1 long run and a bunch of easy runs. And I'd have to say it was one of my better weeks of training ever.

And I repeate, I can't think of anyone more conservative in his training approach than JK. We're talking relaxed mileage most days. I bet Ryan Deak runs way harder than I do on his easy days but he's a high schooler.

As for my mileage progression, I used to say JK "I thought you preached high mileage" and he would say I wasn't ready for it. I never averaged over 100 a week for a lengthy period of time until I moved to Flagstaff. Now I think 100 is a joke. And it is.

>>I bet Ryan Deak runs way harder than I do on his easy days but he\\\'s a high schooler. <<

Hey there Wejo! Getting this part of Ryan\\\'s training

in line was one of the most value things we have learned

from JK. Continued great success to you!

And JK: Your synopsis of the last 12 months of training

and all the details are spot on, of course!

Beautiful day here in Tally. Hope everyone enjoyed their

run!!

okay i may have missed this but what distance races are we talking about here? Do marathoners and 10k guys need this? yeah, i think so. Probably even 5k guys. But are you saying the middle distance require this amount of mileage also? just wondering.

deak wrote:

>>I bet Ryan Deak runs way harder than I do on his easy days but he\'s a high schooler. <<

Hey there Wejo! Getting this part of Ryan\'s training

in line was one of the most value things we have learned

from JK. Continued great success to you!

Good to hear.

I bet you don't know this, but we all follow Ryan's career pretty close. This summer/fall the joke was JK didn't care about me or anyone else anymore all he cared about was The Kid (that's our nickname for Ryan).

And then we'd make bets as to how much harder Ryan was running than us on easy days (I went to a HS running camp and couldn't believe how fast the kids ran) or whether we could beat him in a two mile or how bad he would beat us. These were just general impressions based on my knowledge of most top high school guys (except the part on the 2 mile, only as of this week I think I could take Ryan once again).

But glad to hear Ryan is running relaxed. I think the wisest saying in distance running is "relaxation is the key to running fast" by none other than Arthury Lydiard. That's the genius of the JK system. It is repeatable year in and year out and it leads to better performances. Very few times when you have to kill yourself, go to to the well, etc. Thus I have no doubt I can run faster than I did in the past.

And that brings me to the the guy posting that people who run high mileage only have 3-4 years at the top. I think they may have more than this, but what about the guys who run lower mileage and higher intensity? Most of these guys seem to last even less.

And conto you say you know guys who can only run 90 miles a week. Possibly true. But I doubt it. What if they ran 7-8 minute pace on their easy days?

A british guy went from not training at all (running 20 minutes a day) to running every run with me for an entire week in the span of 10 days. But as he said, "I've never run this slow before".

Granted I wasn't 40, but this sounds exactly like me before I moved to Flagstaff. 14:28, 29:49 prs heading into 2000 with around 90-100 max mileage average.

But ask my roommates. I said back then too that JK was the best coach in the world. I didn't know how fast I'd run, but knew I could run a lot faster and remember getting pissed off at a couple guys in the Reebok Enclave when they basically said I was just some local road race hack.

To say that in order to be successful you need at least 120 miles a week is absurd. Unless you are running stuff at or over 10k, there is no need to do that much mileage. I will admit I am biased towards Peter Coe and Dr. David Martins training methods, but I still think that 120 mpw is not always needed. Peter Coe said that Lydiards training, while not horrible, is too far at one end of the running spectrum (super high mileage, little speed). The thing that lured me to Peter Coe and David Martin is that contrary to what most people think, they are not trying to create a training program that is all speed and no distance. In fact, they believe that their training is almost smack dab in the middle. While they are big on intervals during the track season, they have said that the most important, and longest part of their training is doing mileage and increasing aerobic base. However, if you are a track runner, 85-100 miles a week is more than enough. Physiological testing has shown that doing any more than that does not produce the huge results that everyone believes, if the 85-100 miles a week is done correctly. I think a big problem in the way Americans set up their training is not that they aren\'t doing enough mileage, it is that they will do tons and tons of 100 mile weeks, peak, then take a sufficient break, and repeat the cycle. They try to have several peaks and breaks in a year, and it is better to take one prolonged break (4-8 weeks) at the end of your season and do consistent mileage year round. The Kenyans do not take multiple breaks every year, rather they take one big break, some lasting several months. Coe did this too, he would take a break at the end of track, and when he was running in XC season he would not taper, in the traditional sense. He would do 70-80 mile weeks, then every few weeks bring it down to about 45, run an XC meet and resume training. If you do this, bringing down your mileage somewhat signifigantly every few weeks, it allows you to train year round without feeling burned out and without having to take a break. It\'s no surprise that the most dominant college XC program in the last 20 years, Arkansas, does this. McDonnell does not taper his men for cross country the way most do, and they dont start any sort of harder workouts until October. He believes in year round strength, taking one break at the end of track and while running well in cross country they ultimately peak for outdoor track.

Oh and on a side note, Salazar's career was so short lived because of his asthma problems, not that he was burned out. His lung capacity was about 1/6th that of the average person, and after several years at the top it got too bad for him to train at the level he needed to in order to be successful

what about the hamstring injuries and the surgery required to repair them? overtraining was definitely the cause of alberto's troubles.

you may be a bit misinformed about lydiard-- during the speed phase you're on the track almost every single day...

you're dead on, however, about excessive peaking in the american schedule...

Wejo, I don't doubt that your assertion of excessive quality can also close the window of improvement for an aspiring WORLD class runner. I think history shows us that either extreme will do this. I made an assumption, possibly a wrong assumption, that to become WORLD class, high quality was a must, so when talking about high milage, I am talking about in combination with high quality. My original assumption was that national/world class athletes that suddenly jump to higher milage, tend to improve, but it is short lived. Nowhere have I said this is necessarily a bad thing. Many would give up longevity for quality. I did not say that cause-and-effect, high milage shortens a career. Are you implying that high milage without quality can produce WORLD class results? For a marathon (98% aerobic), this may have a case, but for 10K (75% aerobic) and down, physiology says that other energy systems must be addressed and quality becomes vital as well.

i don't think wejo is implying that at all-- but once you've built a REALLY good base, you're capable of carrying out MUCH more quality work... that's the key to long-term development...