Guy who has run sub-3 for 30 straight years reveals the secret - Don't run hard as "running hard beats the shit out of you"

amkelley wrote:

What a delightful read. This guy really seems to have his head on straight. Of course it helps that he is clearly a very talented athlete as well.

I too enjoyed the article and admire the guy. But many people have commented about his having talent. But I don't think bests of 14:55 and 2:24 in his prime and 2:50s in the marathon indicates much more than average talent.

I'm not taking any of his advice

There are no secret formulas or cryptic training methods. Frank Shorter

But running hard is SERIOUS BLOODY FUN!

I was a miler of sorts (4:01.0 1500 meter indoors), and I will say that miler training does sort of "beat the sh*t out of you". Fine.

Well, at age 61 I no longer run miler workouts, but I do run as hard as I can over 7 - 10 miles about once per week as part of my weekly routine, and it is an insane amount of fun. It keeps me going, it keeps it interesting.

What do you do when you have a couple miles to go and it hurts bad? PICK UP THE PACE!

" In just 4 to 5 months of this I was finding myself effortlessly cruising the loops of the Park at close to 6 min pace at the same HR 150. 7 months after surgery and after only 5 months of returning to running I finished the Marine Corps Marathon in 3rd place in 2:28"

if 6 min miles was effortless I wouldn't need advice or intervals

HRE wrote:

don't think bests of 14:55 and 2:24 in his prime and 2:50s in the marathon indicates much more than average talent.

I think you may have a skewed notion of what counts as average talent, especially if you count durability as a talent--which, imo, you should.

Meh...

I am 58, and certainly wasn't a 14:55 runner when young, maybe 17:00.

I ran 3:09:41 at Boston this year.

I train hard, and run as fast as I could 40 years ago.

If I were naturally gifted as he is, I could train easy and break 3:00.

But I'm not, so I train hard.

The end.

Beat up runner wrote:

Interesting article. I made a similar switch at about age 40, but still felt like I was 80 yo when I got out of bed every morning. Switched to lifting and erging and have no pain now. Couldn't outrun an old lady but I feel great.

Not being a smart ass, but what's erging?

Plain and simple, Mark has superior genetics, 90% of us would be able to accomplish what he does off of the same training. Although, I agree that as you age, consistent moderate workouts are better for marathon training, at some you need to do a few runs that simulate race effort. Also, to run a fast 5K or 10K for example, definitely require a hard run at least once a week.

456 wrote:

Beat up runner wrote:

Interesting article. I made a similar switch at about age 40, but still felt like I was 80 yo when I got out of bed every morning. Switched to lifting and erging and have no pain now. Couldn't outrun an old lady but I feel great.

Not being a smart ass, but what's erging?

rowing on a rowing machine, or ergometer

ninjarunner wrote:

Easy running is key wrote:

even going really slow is extremely hard on bodies.

No it’s not.

Are you serious? You cut out the part about running a marathon for some people, can be extremely hard.

You're the typical condescending poster here.

amkelley wrote:

What a delightful read. This guy really seems to have his head on straight. Of course it helps that he is clearly a very talented athlete as well.

What is most interesting to me in this thread is that many of you think this guy is a talented runner. He clearly is not very talented. He has every reason, it appears, to take pride in his,accomplishments in life, but he does not appear to be a very talented runner.

75 here(in a couple months). Logging road miles since 4/76. Currently at 88,956 miles and counting. Smoked cigs for 12 years before quitting and started running. 19 marathons- never broke under 3 hours. Have always trained about 3 min per mi slower than 10K pace. Old PR’s in my early 40’s-17:45 5K.. 10K - 36:35. Trained at 9 min +. Now around 55 min 10K’s/26 min 5K’s. Run around 11:15-30 per mile for 97% of my runs- weekly mileage 40- 50 per week. I feel very fortunate. And, guess what? I honestly love running more now than I ever have. I attribute my longevity to minimal speed work, some decent genes and realizing early on there is no finish line, well the cemetery:)

Don't try this at home wrote:

"Running a marathon fast, I mean, all of us have the speed to do it. "

Really?

He's another genetic freak trying to convince us that you can run sub 3 marathons solely on slow running in minimal shoes.

Sorry but that approach does'nt work for everyone, don't fool yourself.

He had his heavy dose of hard training done THEN changed his approach...

3 hr marathon is 25.6 sec / 100m. Almost anyone without serious disability could sprint 100m under 25.6, (And most people probably could run under 20.)

In that sense, everyone has the speed to run sub-3. However, if your all-out 1km is 4:10, then running 42.2 times the distance at 4:16 pace is practically impossible. So does that mean this 4:10 guy lacks speed, or endurance? Cucuzzella thinks it's the latter. I'd think he would need faster speed than 4:10 1km.

Ok I understand. This guy was dedicated and ran some decent times in college. He tried even harder because he came close to qualifying for olympic trials. Overtrained definitely, but still ran close to his best. Instead of trying again he quit and was confident to jog through every following marathon comfortably fir the next 30 years. Everyone who traines enough to sustain the distance can jog a marathon 15+ min. slower than his actual potential (whatever that means in terms of age and talent) without excerting himself too much. Nothing special about this. But if you want a good performance a bit more effort is necessary. For shorter distances < 5 k definitely. For me competition is trying to give your very best. Simple participation is not an achievement.

itt: "oh, sure, I could do that too if I wanted to"

k

Peppers pot wrote:

amkelley wrote:

What a delightful read. This guy really seems to have his head on straight. Of course it helps that he is clearly a very talented athlete as well.

What is most interesting to me in this thread is that many of you think this guy is a talented runner. He clearly is not very talented. He has every reason, it appears, to take pride in his,accomplishments in life, but he does not appear to be a very talented runner.

How did he possibly run 14:55 without being very talented? (And he could have run faster if he had continued to train after college.)

HRE wrote:

amkelley wrote:

What a delightful read. This guy really seems to have his head on straight. Of course it helps that he is clearly a very talented athlete as well.

I too enjoyed the article and admire the guy. But many people have commented about his having talent. But I don't think bests of 14:55 and 2:24 in his prime and 2:50s in the marathon indicates much more than average talent.

Average talent yields a time that less than 1% of marathon runners will ever reach. Sure. Why not.

In other news, the average American is worth $100 million.

Lean Machine wrote:

You are a good candidate for a leto-diet/fat burning approach. Chronic injuries are symptoms of chronic inflammation driven by a high-carbohydrate diet. Listen to Dr. Mark's podcasts for more details.

Eating fat is the OPPOSITE of burning fat. They are NOT the same thing.