RealityChk wrote:
It's better to keep it simple with you LRC tards.
Keep on worshipping strava workout heroes.
bro, your PRs?
japanese runner did 500k/310 miles the last 13 days before running 2:10
Training Advice/Discussion
Marathon
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
bro, your PRs? -
The guy has a PB of 2:09:52 , how many USA have run this or better in the last decade ..?
-
Natsuki Terada has run 2:10 at Fukuoka with similar 10k-5k pb, but on less than half of Fukuda's mileage.
https://www.strava.com/athletes/25469265
https://www.strava.com/activities/2903094824 -
takeshi wrote:
Natsuki Terada has run 2:10 at Fukuoka with similar 10k-5k pb, but on less than half of Fukuda's mileage.
Yes, we also know that Kawauchi runs less mileage. That only shows that the best style of training for any particular individual will vary. But on the whole, the elite Japanese marathoners are known for very high mileage, 150+ mile weeks. See the links on the first page of this thread to coolrunning and "Interesting Observations of Japanese training in China", or search the message board for "Japanese training".
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1736282 -
Why are you obsessing over Japanese runners and not African runners? Why not look at the best of the best?
Is it because you think all Africans are doped to the gills, and the Japanese are not? -
I wouldn't like to be one of his socks.
-
zzzz wrote:
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 is a limit to volume and the amount that would be beneficial for even the farthest outlier from the bell curve. I think we can all agree on that.
There is a point at which no matter how an athlete recovers will be too slow for effective training.
I guess the concept is to running tremendous mileage is to wear out all fibers slowly in training so the body can use the other fibers and effectively train them aerobically. Remember that motor neurons are either on or off. They do not partially fire and work a muscle group. There are different ways to activate them. You either run with enough force or you wear down the slowest twitch fiber groups which the body always chooses first.
Does anyone need 170+ miles per week to accomplish that? I'm saying no. My opinion is theoretical yes, but so is the argument against it. -
Covefefe or coevet wrote:
Why are you obsessing over Japanese runners and not African runners? Why not look at the best of the best?
Is it because you think all Africans are doped to the gills, and the Japanese are not?
No, I don't think all Africans are doped to the gills. Every individual makes their own choices. I'm not going to judge someone for something they have no control over, such as who they were born to, and in which country.
I've liked the threads about Japanese marathons since the beginnings of letsrun because they reflect a style of training that would have worked for me, had I known about it when I was younger. That's the why of the "obsession".
The longer story: I was a crappy runner, always tired and overtrained using more traditional training the people in the US do, only ran 4:46/10:00 in two seasons of high school running. Running high mileage on my own, up to 145 mpw at times, not even training for anything, hints of my real ability was exposed. I added a week 6 mile tempo just to spice things up, and fairly easily worked that down to sub-5:00 pace, all without the same tiredness and overtraining that I had in high school. But I hadn't learned my lesson yet. I then tried following a more traditional training program with a lot of intervals, and a couple months in, suddenly had what I thought was chronic fatigue syndrome, and what we call overtraining syndrome now (what Geoff Roes, and many other blown up athletes have). I recovered two years later, so I was lucky, but that was the last I trained "seriously". I run a sh!t-ton, even at age 50, but getting overtraining syndrome was the end of any running ambitions.
I realize that not everyone would respond that way to high mileage, just like I didn't respond to the more traditional training that US runners use. Go ahead and talk about African training too. There's more than one way to train. It's wrong to thing that there is one style that will be ideal for everyone.
In the context of recent talk on LR, I like to point this kind of training out because it's what Walmsley doing. He's said in interviews that he realized that he was a high mileage guy as early as high school, and it clashed with Juli Benson's training at Air Force. When people are talking about how (slow) his workouts are, they should be comparing them to guys that are also doing very high mileage training, like Fukuda, not guys doing much lower mileage. -
otter wrote:
There is a limit to volume and the amount that would be beneficial for even the farthest outlier from the bell curve. I think we can all agree on that.
There is a point at which no matter how an athlete recovers will be too slow for effective training.
I guess the concept is to running tremendous mileage is to wear out all fibers slowly in training so the body can use the other fibers and effectively train them aerobically. Remember that motor neurons are either on or off. They do not partially fire and work a muscle group. There are different ways to activate them. You either run with enough force or you wear down the slowest twitch fiber groups which the body always chooses first.
Does anyone need 170+ miles per week to accomplish that? I'm saying no. My opinion is theoretical yes, but so is the argument against it.
I think the athlete themselves must have feel for that though, just going by fatigue, recovery, and performance in workout and races. For example this guy had a 250 mile week. Then he didn't go much higher than 200. He probably found that 250 was too much. But he's still happily cranking out 200 mile weeks after running a 2:10 (and the 2:09 the year before). I trust that he has a better handle on his own fatigue and recovery levels than your theoreticals. -
zzzz wrote:
otter wrote:
There is a limit to volume and the amount that would be beneficial for even the farthest outlier from the bell curve. I think we can all agree on that.
There is a point at which no matter how an athlete recovers will be too slow for effective training.
I guess the concept is to running tremendous mileage is to wear out all fibers slowly in training so the body can use the other fibers and effectively train them aerobically. Remember that motor neurons are either on or off. They do not partially fire and work a muscle group. There are different ways to activate them. You either run with enough force or you wear down the slowest twitch fiber groups which the body always chooses first.
Does anyone need 170+ miles per week to accomplish that? I'm saying no. My opinion is theoretical yes, but so is the argument against it.
I think the athlete themselves must have feel for that though, just going by fatigue, recovery, and performance in workout and races. For example this guy had a 250 mile week. Then he didn't go much higher than 200. He probably found that 250 was too much. But he's still happily cranking out 200 mile weeks after running a 2:10 (and the 2:09 the year before). I trust that he has a better handle on his own fatigue and recovery levels than your theoreticals.
Would he have recovered the same or better with less volume? You and I will never know. Saying that he can handle his fatigue and recovery (adaptation) levels by feel better than what is known through applied science is not a very strong argument. Who knows? You might be right though?
I am trying to apply logic to sports science in that I believe muscular endurance for a 130 minute effort and cardiovascular development can be obtained with less volume. You can't say I'm definitively wrong. And, by the way, they are not my theories. -
How about this is Otter
-
how about this wrote:
Would he have recovered the same or better with less volume? You and I will never know. Saying that he can handle his fatigue and recovery (adaptation) levels by feel better than what is known through applied science is not a very strong argument. Who knows? You might be right though?
I am trying to apply logic to sports science in that I believe muscular endurance for a 130 minute effort and cardiovascular development can be obtained with less volume. You can't say I'm definitively wrong. And, by the way, they are not my theories.
Otter's own theoretical limit of 170 miles is applied science? That's news to me. -
how about this wrote:
How about this is Otter
No offense intended. I don't know who you are. What's to say this guy's coach's applied science doesn't saysotherwise? -
Covefefe or coevet wrote:
Why are you obsessing over Japanese runners and not African runners? Why not look at the best of the best?
Is it because you think all Africans are doped to the gills, and the Japanese are not?
Leaving aside the business of being doped, one thing we know about African runners is that they generally have very active, low tech, lives before they begin formal training. Japanese runners are much more likely to have grown up doing things more like US runners and less like African ones. -
I used that handle for a thread about past running experience while working.
I will not comment on your weak personal attack -
otter wrote:
I used that handle for a thread about past running experience while working.
I will not comment on your weak personal attack
No personal attack intended.
My point of view comes from not understanding why you think you more more about this guy's training than this guy or his coach. From my point of view, you are some random anonymous poster. Why should I assume you know more about training this guy than he himself or his coach? Why not assume better expertise on the part of the Japanese, who produce way more sub-2:10 guys? -
zzzz wrote:
otter wrote:
I used that handle for a thread about past running experience while working.
I will not comment on your weak personal attack
No personal attack intended.
My point of view comes from not understanding why you think you more more about this guy's training than this guy or his coach. From my point of view, you are some random anonymous poster. Why should I assume you know more about training this guy than he himself or his coach? Why not assume better expertise on the part of the Japanese, who produce way more sub-2:10 guys?
Training methods are not magical or mysterious. There a reason why things work or why they don't work.
There are always more efficient ways to do things. My point being is that I believe that he could accomplish the same performance or better without the enormous volume.
You disagree based on what they are doing and the results.
I am well aware of the Lydiard influence on Nakamura when he trained Seko and others and the high volume model is carried out from that era. This has been the Japanese way of training for the Marathon. I was and still am a huge fan of both but I think we have evolved with Marathon training since that time.
If we want to talk about performance as evidence of proper training consider that record holder Osako did not train at under this system of extreme high mileage. I'm not using this to prove my point but to show that not even the best Japanese Marathon runner of all time trained that way. Although he ran for the NOP so who knows right?
I have reasons why I believe what I do as I stated them. Most of what I know is from physiologists and high level international coaches that I am friendly with. Most of my opinions are interpreted from my education and these relationships and not from me.
We disagree. It's really as simple as that.
I said it before, you may be right. Try to stick to the subject though because personal attacks don't really prove anything other than the lack of maturity of the poster, and, you never really know who you are slinging mud at. -
^ wrote:
There’s a diminishing return with most everything
By definition, that means there is still some more "return". Will training 28 hours in a week at 8:30 pace (200 miles) make you a better marathoner than 12 hours at 6 minute pace (120 miles)?
Can that extra 233% of time training condition your body to be able to withstand faster running for a longer period of time?
There are many examples of extremely high mileage working out from Killian Jornet averaging over 20 hours per week running or skiing for years, Ed Whitlock doing 3 hour runs everyday in his 70s, Gene Dykes running 50-200 mile races leading up to a sub 3 marathon at 70, and Gerry Lindgren running far more mileage than possibly any other high school kid ever. Cam Levins had success running very high mileage, then went to NOP, ran much less mileage, had some short lived success and then a bunch of injuries. Back to high mileage, he set the Canadian marathon record. -
^ wrote:
The guy has a PB of 2:09:52 , how many USA have run this or better in the last decade ..?
-this poor overtrained individual... there’s only 4 USA citizens in the last two years (18 & 19) that have performances better than 2:09:52 on any course and any conditions; here we sit together wringing our hands over the fact he’s getting it done ...but he’s going about it so wrong. -
otter wrote:
We disagree. It's really as simple as that.
I said it before, you may be right. Try to stick to the subject though because personal attacks don't really prove anything other than the lack of maturity of the poster, and, you never really know who you are slinging mud at.
Do you know how arrogant you sound when you put a fixed number out there and basically say that anyone that's above that is dumber than you because of your applied science? I consider calling you out on that fair, not a personal attack.
