japanese runner did 500k/310 miles the last 13 days before running 2:10

How slow was he training? Everything I know tells me he could have accomplished the same in a lot more efficient manner but I am still curious.

It would be more useful to see a 6 month cycle for this runner but we probably are not able to get our hands on that?

Oh, I guess it can be dug out of strava if someone wanted to

otter wrote:

How slow was he training? Everything I know tells me he could have accomplished the same in a lot more efficient manner but I am still curious.

It would be more useful to see a 6 month cycle for this runner but we probably are not able to get our hands on that?

All his training is on that Strava link. If you don't have a Strava account, or are not logged in, you won't be able to see everything. If you are logged in, click on the bar graph to see each training week (or month) as well as each activity that make up those weeks (or months). There's a pulldown to see previous years too.

I'll give a quick weekly mileage summary though, if you don't have an account. Most of his easy miles are in the 7:xx, 8:xx range, sometimes even slower (I see a 10 miler at 9:49 pace).

week ending July 21, 2019: 249.6 miles (his high for the year)

then weeks of 114.2, 197, 200, 154.5, 112.4, 139.8, 163.6, 131.3 (with 2:19 marathon), 60.5, 118.4, 117, 150.5, 140.7, 136.5, 128.2, 124.7, 172.2, 186.9, 157.3 (including 2:10 marathon), 139.8, 188.8, 69.4, 161.1, 66.1, 201.1, and 202.7 last week.

otter wrote:

Everything I know tells me he could have accomplished the same in a lot more efficient manner but I am still curious.

What do you know, and how do you know it is equally applicable to all? Did you follow all the Japanese training threads here back in the day (often started or with input from Jason Mayeroff)?

My experience with my own body tells me suggests that for a certain profile of runner at least, this is the kind of training it takes to be good. I recognized me and how my body reacted to different kinds of training when those Japanese training threads came up in the early 2000s, and I wish I could have had that knowledge 10 years earlier for my own running.

Shorter, "more efficient", more intense overall type of training is what wrecked me in high school (took two weeks to recover from typical interval workouts) and later gave me chronic fatigue syndrome/ overtraining syndrome. Meanwhile, I thrived when I did very high mileage, almost all easy miles. Maybe it's that I'm ethnically Asian (Chinese though, not Japanese) that made me fit that profile well (though obviously there are Asian sprinters that are another profile all together). But I see similar profiles in runners like Walmsley. In interviews he said that he recognized that mileage is what worked from him in high school and college, and the lower mileage program at Air Force didn't work well and the accumulated intensity made him burn out as a particular season progressed.

He'll try 2:08 at Beppu-Oita marathon next 2 february.

My knowledge also does not originate from lets run and I studied how Seko and his countrymen had trained before the "back in the day" period of lets run.

I would say more than 170 is not necessary no matter the make up of the athlete. It appears that he would only do this once or twice per cycle.

More efficient does not mean low mileage if that is what you are inferring? I am targeting the extreme mileage as being questionable and not efficient.

I should thank you for the info. It clears things up seeing how his weeks cycled.

otter wrote:

My knowledge also does not originate from lets run and I studied how Seko and his countrymen had trained before the "back in the day" period of lets run.

I would say more than 170 is not necessary no matter the make up of the athlete. It appears that he would only do this once or twice per cycle.

More efficient does not mean low mileage if that is what you are inferring? I am targeting the extreme mileage as being questionable and not efficient.

You were vague, so I didn't know exactly how to respond. I think with the variance of humans, picking a hard limit like 170 miles doesn't really make sense. 200 for someone might feel like 170 to someone else or 80 to another. And it might feel substantially different with the Vaporflies and Hokas vs. what people wore back in the day. And, like I've pointed out, this guy is doing the bulk of those miles at 8:xx pace. We often see 20+ minute 5Kers post thinking that's too slow for their own "easy" pace. Have you considered that variable when placing 170 miles as a hard limit?

There were also old threads here talking about the Japanese runners seen taking very long walks in Boulder to add even more miles on their legs.

There's a point of diminishing return with mileage. You can become as fast as your natural talent allows you with less extreme training.

This guy has surely the talent but overtraining and 10k warmups before a marathon won't make him any better.

zzzz wrote:

And, like I've pointed out, this guy is doing the bulk of those miles at 8:xx pace. We often see 20+ minute 5Kers post thinking that's too slow for their own "easy" pace.

Fffffffuhhh... this is me :(

RealityChk wrote:

There's a point of diminishing return with mileage. You can become as fast as your natural talent allows you with less extreme training.

This guy has surely the talent but overtraining and 10k warmups before a marathon won't make him any better.

I'm interested in this. How do you know that his results are based on talent and not the product of his training? Can you point me to some resources in regard to the "point of diminishing return with mileage"?

wickedgoogly wrote:

Can you point me to some resources in regard to the "point of diminishing return with mileage"?

Jack Daniels explained it pretty well, also dig old LRC threads.

RealityChk wrote:

wickedgoogly wrote:

Can you point me to some resources in regard to the "point of diminishing return with mileage"?

Jack Daniels explained it pretty well, also dig old LRC threads.

Thanks. This really helps me understand your position.

There’s a diminishing return with most everything

Perhaps a reasonable conclusion is that the point of diminishing returns depends on the pace you run.

If run 7:00 pace, there will come a point where persisting further will sap your energy stores to the point that you won't be able to get a useful workout the next day.

If you run 8:15 pace, you can run a whole lot further.

Even if you succeed in testing your point of diminishing returns at 7:00 pace, it doesn't mean that you have demonstrated anything conclusive about what happens if you slow way down and run much greater distance. While still mixing in quality workouts that your slow pace days leave you the energy stores to pull off.

Fukuda's 2:10:33 at Fukuoka is faster than any American ran last year (except for Leonard Korir). Many of the Americans in the top ten have 5000m PBs in the 13:30s or better.

Given Fukuda's 28:50 10000m PB, he can probably do better than his listed 14:09 for 5000m.

But even if he's in the 13:50's for 5000m, he's doing pretty well at the marathon, relative to his talent level, with his approach.

That's a fact . The rest is opinion.

Strava is expensive in Japan.

Its a team account.

:-)

RealityChk wrote:

wickedgoogly wrote:

Can you point me to some resources in regard to the "point of diminishing return with mileage"?

Jack Daniels explained it pretty well, also dig old LRC threads.

Do you understand that’s for the “average” runner (25%-75% percentile)?

Which means 50% of runners will not fall within his pretty little graph... and that’s OK.

RealityChk wrote:

Jack Daniels explained it pretty well

jack daniels...lmao

craig_ wrote:

RealityChk wrote:

Jack Daniels explained it pretty well

jack daniels...lmao

It's better to keep it simple with you LRC tards.

Keep on worshipping strava workout heroes.