7:59, 13:48, 28:39, 2:16 on 50-60 mpw

ghost wrote:

Posting fast times is not all about talent, but also about efficiency and doing the right kinds of miles, but not overdoing it.

Imagine what he could have done if he trained? Instead of being a nobody also-ran we'd already heard of him.

It goes to show you what doing the wrong kinds of miles will get you. Bob Holt.

that is actually VERY interesting...no sarcasm...thank you for posting that! =) its nice to know that there were/are sucsessful runners that didnt have to go bonkers on mileage [100mpw+]

those are relatively fast times, but were they fast times for him? did he reach his potential? i think the point of training is to try and reach your ultimate potential in racing. your point about not overdoing it and being efficient is taken, but maybe with a little more efficient work, bob would've been running faster.

One of the problems with letsrun.com message board is imbeciles like you (train properly) posting this sort of sarcastic crap.

Here's a thread started by (ghost) which is interesting - not everyone needs, nor are they suited to high mileage training. e.g. Bob Holt and what he achieved. It should be an interesting discussion. But you think you are being clever with your snide remarks. You are in error in your observations - and about being clever.

I just read Bill Adcock's autobiography - 'The Road to Athens' and it is very interesting. Early on in his career he achieved great success of moderate natural talent and very moderate mileage. Only later did he move to higher mileage.

But then, you probably don't know who Bill Adcocks is either!!

The fascinating part of the book is the truly amateur nature of the top runners back then; their dedication to and love of the sport; and how they trained and raced.

Maybe the young "elite" runners in the USA and GB could learn a bit from their elders??

I think we've gotten to the state where people have gotten into an all or nothing frame of mind regarding their training. A recurring theme of many posters here is that if they can't find a supported setup where that can train 100 or more miles a week, they might as well get a job, pack in the running, and become fitness runners/recreational racers at the most. The idea of combining a job with a moderate, yet serious approach to running seems like it's disappearing.

I actually do remember Bob Holt. Certainly he was not the greatest runner of his time, but he was well-regarded and quite successful. Perhaps if he'd "really trained" he'd have gone even faster, but that isn't exactly the point. He did very well on a program that anyone could manage. Any ideas what he's up to now?

Train properly wrote:

It goes to show you what doing the wrong kinds of miles will get you. Bob Holt.

Not everyone can handle 100+ mpw. I always broke down after about 70. Maybe he did too. I admire the guy for sticking to his training and being pretty damn successful at running.

You are exactly correct HRE.

Many of these guys worked full-time, got no shoe company support, and no prize money (except winning a TV or a radio or a sugar bowl at some handicap races) AND YET they were still more successsful than the wannabe's like the Mr. Sarcasm on this thread.

Bill Adcocks worked fulltime as a gas fitter for many years - crawling around on his knees fitting gas stoves. Allan Rushmer was, and still is, a full time gardner. Steve Jones in his prime worked fulltime. So did Mark Plaatjes. There are so many more who worked fulltime. The last two ran in an age of prize money and shoe company support also.

Any Brits out there will tell you the same story of the "old days" but that was then we thought 2:16 was okay, not great. Nowadays we get excited by 2:34!!

Maybe is the key word. Maybe if he'd have run 70 or 80 or 90 or 120 miles a week he'd have gotten a stress fracture in his ankle and limp every morning for the rest of his life starting at age 29, Oh wait, that was me!

Read running with the Buffalos again, the only rational way a coach can impose that volume on a team is if (surprise!) they start out with about 30 people at the front end of the meat grinder. Remember how in the book they didn't even have 7 healthy runners left? Very good, even great performances out of some of them but I might point out a very good case could be made that that methodology only makes sense if you are the one turning the handle on the grinder (i.e. the coach, team or school) it makes absolutely NO sense if you are the meat being fed in. Can some folks do 90 - 120 miles and stay fairly healthy? Sure, is it a fairly obvious path to success if you can survive it - yes also. Can most people survive it? No. Will most people therfore reach their potential by adopting that plan? No, they will break down via injury illness or burnout first.

Cheers!

Did he do anything alternative training? Aquajogg or cycling?

Not built for high miles wrote:

The only rational way a coach can impose that volume on a team is if (surprise!) they start out with about 30 people at the front end of the meat grinder. Remember how in the book they didn't even have 7 healthy runners left? Very good, even great performances out of some of them but I might point out a very good case could be made that that methodology only makes sense if you are the one turning the handle on the grinder (i.e. the coach, team or school) it makes absolutely NO sense if you are the meat being fed in.

NO Sense? I'm not sure. I think your point is valid, if 30 peoples train like crazy most will breakdowna and a small few will really excel.

BUT, why aim for mediocrity? Why not risk it all, train like a demon, suffer the tiredness and the denials for the small chance of being really really good? Isn't this the approach of the East Africans after all? As a nation the US (or GB) need groups of 30 willing 20yr old athletes who will train their socks off and go through the meat grinder. The result will be a small number of very high achievers (... and injuries/burnout for the rest).

Anybody can be mediocre. I dont know the ins and outs of Bob Holts training/lifestyle/commitments so its unfair to comment on him specifically BUT as a general comment anyone who has a 28'50 talent off 60mpw and doesnt try to step it up is not trying to reach their potential.

For every distance athlete, up to a certain point more mileage will help the athlete develop. Its unlikely that 'this point' is 60mpw for a 28'50 runner given that the vast majority of similar standard runners are running far more.

Bernard Lagat said he runs only 60mpw and has a PR of 3:26, so what do you think would he run if he would train 100mpw?

3:16?

Greg Meyer ran 2:09 in Boston 84 off an average of 99mpw in the 15 weeks prior to the Race, could he have run 2:06 on 150mpw?

Training is not only about volume but also about intensity and recovery.

I ran 14.10 and 8.03 doing 50 miles a week and my longest run most weeks during that winter was only 1 hour.

Jame Mcqueen wrote:

I ran 14.10 and 8.03 doing 50 miles a week and my longest run most weeks during that winter was only 1 hour.

Yeah, well i would think you didn't reach your potential. You should at least have tried to 'push the envelope' for a season or two just to see if the added training brought an improvement.

Swift: I did stress 'distance' athlete. Lagat as a 1500m runner doesnt fit that billing. Of course, there are other factors beside mileage. I never said there wasnt.

Infact, not to sound insulting (your PRs are better than mine) but my point is pretty well illustrated with your times. Your 5k time is well inferior to your 3k suggesting poor endurance. I would guesstimate a 13'50 time for an 8'03 3k athlete. Bang up the miles and you 'might' get there.

Of course, i dont know enough about you to make a complete assessment of your times etc.

Bob Holt had an identical twin brother that ran similar times (called Dave Holt). Did he train the same way??

Indeed - their best times are almost identical.

Bob Holt PBs

Track

1500m: 3.51.5 1969

3000m: 7.59.0 1969

5000m: 13.48.6 1973

10000m: 28.39.8 1972

Road

5miles: 22.58 1972

10miles: 47.55 1974

Marathon: 2.16.50 1975

Dave Holt PBs

Track

1500m: 3.52.5 1971

3000m: 8.04.4 1969

5000m: 13.50.0 1972

10000m: 28.41.82 1972

Road

5miles: 23.10 1971

10miles: 47.50 1973

Marathon: 2.16.53 1972

I ran 3.46 for 1500m the same season. I have only really flirted with the 5k only running it once.

[quote]Rob Swift wrote:

Bernard Lagat said he runs only 60mpw and has a PR of 3:26, so what do you think would he run if he would train 100mpw?

3:16?

[quote]

Maybe Lagat would have ran that extra .14 required to beat El Guerrouj.

It is not so much about who does more or less mileage, the important bit is what sessions does the person miss? If someone was to run 10miles a week further than another and that 10miles was made up of 2 high intensity interval sessions while the other person sat on the couch at home then it would make a big difference. If that 10miles more was simply just doing 2miles extra in the morning 5days a week while the lower-mileage athlete did swimming or worked out in the gym, then the lower-mileage athlete would be working harder and benefiting more.

Why don't we look at "hours spent training" or "calories burnt" as a measurement of how much someone is training, using "miles ran" is far too broad and means nothing.

Rob Swift wrote:

Greg Meyer ran 2:09 in Boston 84 off an average of 99mpw in the 15 weeks prior to the Race, could he have run 2:06 on 150mpw?

Averages do not tell the story. Meyer was having back problems during the winter and had many 70 mile weeks that distorted that "average." The last 8 weeks before his 2:09:00 win included this streak of 132, 131, 135, 110, 113, 107, certainly the profile of marathon training. During the full year proceeding Meyer's Boston win he had many weeks well over 100 miles.