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"

HRE wrote:

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.

swingus dingus wrote:

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.

I think my notion is skewed by living through a time when such times weren't awe inspiring. I envy and respect the guy but I don't think those times show much more than average ability and I think the durability thing is explained by not killing himself in training.

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.

I had not seen your post HRE but that I concur wholeheartedly. His talent is ordinary but his longevity in the sport may not be.

Notafatty is correct....Mark is now onboard with a fat based physiology....I should know, I was the person who first spoke to him about how he can get performance from fat 7-8 years ago via email and at The Running Event. Gave him both of Phinney & Volek's Low Carb Living/Performance books ( I was an editor, reviewer & proof reader, as well as mentioned in the Performance book profiles). It took him sometime as he really was T2 diabetic and metabolically compromised. Great guy and big supporter of what we are doing even though its outside and ahead of the science..

HRE wrote:

I don't think

You got it right there, and should have stopped at that point.

You're an idiot . wrote:

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.

Eating high (healthy) fat WHILE ALSO LIMITING CARBS switches the body to fat-burning, ketogenic metabolism. Eating high (usually unhealthy) fat while also eating high carbs is just the standard American diet.

If you don't understand metabolism, you won't understand this (or any) diet.

14:55 is 825 in the scoring table. 825 for 100m is 11.21.

So you think 11.21 does not take much talent?

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

14:55 is 825 in the scoring table. 825 for 100m is 11.21.

So you think 11.21 does not take much talent?

Yes, I do not think either requires much talent but I understand if somebody disagrees. This is somewhat subjective.

Peppers pot wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

14:55 is 825 in the scoring table. 825 for 100m is 11.21.

So you think 11.21 does not take much talent?

Yes, I do not think either requires much talent but I understand if somebody disagrees. This is somewhat subjective.

If anyone (male) ran the Carlsbad 5000 this year, a time of 14:55 would have been the 7th fastest time out of more than 2000 runners. This puts them in the top 0.33%. Are you saying that takes no talent? Would you agree that finishing in the top 0.33% is above average?

Top0.33%isNoTalent? wrote:

Peppers pot wrote:

Yes, I do not think either requires much talent but I understand if somebody disagrees. This is somewhat subjective.

If anyone (male) ran the Carlsbad 5000 this year, a time of 14:55 would have been the 7th fastest time out of more than 2000 runners. This puts them in the top 0.33%. Are you saying that takes no talent? Would you agree that finishing in the top 0.33% is above average?

I am not sure your example illustrates much. I never said 14:55 takes no talent. I say it is an ordinary amount of talent. Keep in mind that he ran 14:55 in college while ostensibly training to be a fast runner. I am not going to compare that with a mass of joggers at Carlsbad of various sizes, shapes,ages and genders.

OK I see you had only accounted for males. Well I do not see 14:55 requiring much talent for somebody who is training to run 5000m and they are a college kid. However, it does require some talent in the sense that many people cannot do it. It is by no means extraordinary, however. For a woman to do it it does require some real talent.

Last year, 13 ran under 14:55 in NCAA Division III championships. That's 13 among all the D3 schools.

https://results.deltatiming.com/ncaa/tf/2017-ncaa-d3-outdoor-championships/170525F012

I don't know how many more could have run under 14:55, but probably not many.

So you think those D3 runners are not working hard?

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Last year, 13 ran under 14:55 in NCAA Division III championships. That's 13 among all the D3 schools.

https://results.deltatiming.com/ncaa/tf/2017-ncaa-d3-outdoor-championships/170525F012

I don't know how many more could have run under 14:55, but probably not many.

So you think those D3 runners are not working hard?

I do not know if they were working hard. Many of them appear to have very ordinary talent for running 5000m, however.

Training slow...X

Running in sandals...X

A streak .........X

Fad diet......X

Attention seeking runner....X

Good fodder for a thread.

Rojo wins.

This story sounds like that of a someone who has the approximately the maximum amount of success possible in hobby jogging. It sounds like that's what he wanted too. Better than me.

Peppers pot wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

14:55 is 825 in the scoring table. 825 for 100m is 11.21.

So you think 11.21 does not take much talent?

Yes, I do not think either requires much talent but I understand if somebody disagrees. This is somewhat subjective.

Or, I'm just an idiot begging to be heard and agreed with.

cool, good for him wrote:

my friend is a 2:17 marathoner and when he's trying to get back into shape, he can run about 16:00 for a 5k in 4-6 weeks of training off almost no runing. My equivalent to that baseline would be like 17:30 off the couch. Talent and genetics...

natural talent and never truly falling too much out of shape is what matters here.

This.

My first sub 3 was in 1978 (age 20), my last one was 5 yrs ago, and going for one again (cross fingers) in next year..time running out.

Last 'marathon' en route to an ultra was two years ago , passed marathon in 3:15, off 3 months 'good' training ( 60 -70km/wk peak), just longer runs in that bracket because of time frame (had emergency abdominal surgery 6 months before ultra and one month totally off).

To the emboldened quote above, that month off was rare in 40 yrs. Even when not running competitively, or any marathons even for a few years, I always run at 'least' 3 or 4 5km runs/wk...it has just been part of life...never been out of shape, weight has never been as high as now (3kg over age 18 yo weight, and 10kg over PB era weight).

That is the key..consistency.

Usually I only do 60km to 70km weeks anyway for a marathon, never could handle high mileage, but could handle faster mileage, so I adapted to that, even at PB era only max 110/120km

To his comment...no everybody does not have the speed to run a fast marathon, but most can develop the speed to run the required 5km that will get you a sub 3 at the right age...you do need an 18:20 or better, some can get away with 18:40. That is not super fast, were it not for bad habits developed- body weight, sedentary lifestyle, poor form etc...

As for slow running teaching body to burn fat, no it doesn't, look it up in physiology textbooks. Everybody burns both CHO and fats, at their own particular max rates. CHO is quicker fuel. Both is burnt at every speed, so its logical that per km you will burn more fat at slower speed...but at approx the same time rate...you are out there longer. If you are going to run faster you are going to have to burn fuel faster, and that means CHO

In marathons, it is not the lack of fat that ever gets you down it will be a lack of available CHO

Think of it as having both petrol and diesel in the same car

Please don't flame or troll if you disagree

(sad that one has to put that disclaimer in almost every LRC post though...there will be someone ;-)

So happy to see an article on Mark! He is an amazing supporter of his local running community, really generous with his time and knowledge. I am helping out at a summer camp that he is directing this July, and it will be the first overnight camp our team has gone to. We have done his summer day camps in the past and I felt his approach to lifelong, healthy running was something I wanted my athletes to learn more about, so I am excited about this opportunity for my high schoolers. I will also mention that the camp will be a great place for Type 1 diabetic athletes (like my son Jacob) with an emphasis on learning to fuel properly for training while still maintaining healthy blood sugars (quite a challenge). Here is a link to the camp for anyone who is interested: http://naturalrunningcenter.com/2018/05/03/campriverrunners/

...having said all that (above)...there are some interesting stuff in the articles attached to this thread. Worth reading.

I have been going through (non running related) fatigue over the last year, affects the running though, good diet...and interesting to see the comment he makes on the contribution from improving his sleep, which is an issue I am dealing with.

The body is so multi faceted, hard to make an 'experiment of one' without changing more than one parameter and often attributing the wrong one to the outcome. You go and change your diet, and automatically you change lifestyle habist, you drink less so you go out less, you have more time, you sleep better etc etc

And then you say..."what did I change"..."oh, it was my diet"

Not quite so simple:-)