Advice: K-I-S-S Principle

1) If you're Kenyan you have a natural, sociological advantage. You don't need the help of science.

2) The reason this method of more, harder, faster is outdated (for the ultraelite) is that we have to run smarter instead of harder since the rest of the world population now is our competition instead of other Anglos.

roaming writer wrote:

2) The reason this method of more, harder, faster is outdated (for the ultraelite) is that we have to run smarter instead of harder since the rest of the world population now is our competition instead of other Anglos.

Been working out well for us so far, hasn't it?

i dont think hes talking about getting guys like webb or ritz to become world beaters. hes talking about getting the average high school and college kids to run quicker and realise their goals.

a lot of those scientists actually coach the kenyans. they are the ones that worry about when to do hills vs. 200s and crap like that. don't think the Kenyans do periodization?

Nice try. I appreciate your engaging, so don't let my response's tone get too imflammatory.

1. You chose to focus on, and then misinterpret, the Kenyan reference. What you term is their sociological advantage really just boils down to a simple emphasis on running more and running faster. Their desire to be better translated to more people running more and running faster. And, then still more people needed to run more and run faster just to keep up, not to mention being inspired by the success of those [you guessed it] running more and running faster.

K-I-S-S principle: See the recurring theme.

That's the sociology of distance running in that environment at its core - nothing scientific. That's their natural sociological advantage - pretty easy to replicate by anyone in any country. Let's forget the excuses for now (no, that's not bashing US distance running. That's not what this is about either).

2. They still train harder and faster than we do and that's why they are better.

But, JT is right, that isn't necessarily what this is about. It's about the abundance of people seemingly looking for magical answers in a workout schedule to get better or realize their goals.

And, Ground Swell - It's not necessarily that I don't think the Kenyans periodize, it's that I don't think that is what matters. Or, more clearly, whatever they happen to be doing in their period - they're doing more of it and they are doing it faster. Again, recurring theme. There's not much science in that. You or I could write workout schedules for them, an American or anyone else. It doesn't matter much. What matters is..... Chorus: "Running more and running faster"

you act like you just discovered "running faster and running more" do you ever visit this site? 80% of the time, that's what the anonymous experts proclaim. but it's not as simple as that, you have to know when to rest and when to push it. any moron can run faster and more, but it has to be controlled. otherwise, voila, you get injured.

Been There wrote:

What matters is..... Chorus: "Running more and running faster"

I agree, that's the number one principle in distance running BUT after a certain point (of mileage or speed) the physiological returns of running more or faster deminish in a big way, this is what Jack Daniels Ph.D likes to talk about. The difference in returns between, say, Lindgrens 300 mile weeks and 55 mile long runs is only slightly better than Joe College running 100 mile weeks, which is in turn only slightly better than Joe High School running 70 miles a week. Don't get me wrong, there is a difference in returns, but it is so minimal for the ammount of effort it takes to get there, and the risk of an injury or other setback is so great for the average runner over 100 miles a week that the little advantage someone gets from running 120 miles a week instead of 90 or so isn't worth the risk of an overuse injury.

In a perfect world, everyone would run super-high mileage at blazing fast paces, and the world records would fall left and right, but runners break down. They can only handle so much. Sure, maybe runners who are only running 50 miles in a week should step it up, but there is a ceiling to how hard and how far any given person should go. Daniels says 65 miles a week is perfect, my coach says 80, Wetmore says around 100, but you don't see people saying, "Well, if he only ran 200 miles a week instead of 100 he'd be faster," because more isn't always better. Just most of the time.

I think I might have missed the point, because I don't really think it matters waht runners do for those miles as long as they don't break down, but I definitely think MORE FASTER doesn't always equal results.

in the book train hard, win easy, by toby tanzer the training schedules of the kenyans look about the same as americans in the marathon, rodgers, shorter etc. and none of the kenyan milers trained as hard as steve scott, musyocki only ran once a day 1 hour a day, a couple of miles of 400's at 62-65 and a race every week and a day off, i guess he did not worry about overracing, 331, 1500 runner williiam tanui schedule looked light, kip keino looked light. i think the hardest training schedule i have seen by someone who was a world record holder was englands dave bedford who has a weeks training sample in noakes book. of the kenyans only ngugi really trained incredibly hard, he was banned for refusing a test though, juma ikanga trained very hard, i once read miruts yifter only ran 2-3 days a week 20 kilometers followed by 20-30 x 200 meter sprints on the grass.

I still say it's 99% genetics whether you go the scientific approach or as you put it run more, run faster. If you take 2 runners and do the same mileage, same speed and all other things being equal and one of the runners body produces more oxigen rich red blood cells than the other who do you think is going to be the faster runner? Maybe one training theory may get a runner to realise their own potential better than another but when it comes right down to it either you have the physical makeup to be a worlds best or you don't. I believe it's as simple as that. That is why the Kenyans by and large are better than most. It's not their training philosophies or their work ethic but their genetic make up.

Don't believe everything you read about the training of the Kenyans of the past, especially Keino.

I agree with the basic message of "been there." Run more, run faster. Do that, and you'll beat 99% of the people with heart rate monitors strapped to their chests.