An interview with Brad Hudson (author, with the ubiquitous Matt Fitzgerald, of “Run Faster“) was promoted on LetsRun, from a site, RML (roads, mills, laps), that I’d never heard of but bears investigating.
It’s a good read, and emphasizes the importance/need for high mileage at the elite level, something perhaps lacking in in the 90s.
-
I think a lot of people are focused on speed and plyometrics. But the quickest way for U.S. athletes to get good is that they have to run a lot. They have to run aerobically at high intensity and have quite a lot of accumulated mileage. That is the only way we are going to catch up to the Africans, because they are so far ahead of us. So it’s got to be large volume, but not just that; it has to be long, hard stuff that raises threshold. Look, it’s no secret that in the fall Teg runs 140-mile weeks. So you can say that I am a huge proponent of developing that aerobic system. We are behind everyone in the world. Most American runners, a lot of the naturally fast guys don’t realize how aerobically fit they have to be. Look at Kenenisa Bekele, he runs 11.6 seconds for his last 100m in the final, but you have to understand he runs 150 miles a week as well. You have to have everything. For 18 months, Dathan did no speed work — zero — other than some drills and strides. He couldn’t do it because of a calf problem. I thought he was in 27:25 shape before the marathon — maybe even better. And that’s with zero speed. I think speed is so overrated. Yeah you need it at the end, yeah you got to sharpen up. I watch all these people periodize and they are so far behind on their aerobics that it never works., because they don’t have a base to bring it in. You don’t periodize as much, because we are behind aerobically. A younger athlete is so much better off working on higher threshold in order to get that good base underneath them.
Few of us are in the realm in which 120, 130, 140 mile weeks are possible, and one wonders about the marginal benefit of trying to get there. For us, then, the issue is what the over/under figure is, where can we get the maximum benefit for the least risk. And is there a point below which one dare not go if one plans to race a marathon? As I’ve noted, I think there is.
I have one caveat, however. I’ve been reading “From First to Last” by Charlie Spedding. One of his insights is runners’ over-reliance on the word “hard.” He prefers the word “perfect” to describe training. I will get into this when I discuss the book, but it bears noting that we should try to get away from describing work-outs as hard or easy but as part of an overall plan and psychologically at least this may help in getting through the hard ones.
RunWestchester 
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 23, 2009 at 10:26 am
threlkeld
I’m looking forward to a future post about that book. I suppose people use “hard” and “easy” to as shorthand to distinguish between race-specific and recovery (or the even more loaded “junk”) miles.
I’m of the mind that most people can handle a lot more mileage than they give themselves credit for. I also suspect it takes a year or two at consistent high mileage to start reaping the benefits at all speeds.
Maybe I’m strange, but the three or four “perfect” runs I do weekly are the ones I look forward to and, for the most part, enjoy. The only time I don’t enjoy them is when I’m not properly rested or otherwise ready for them mentally. I guess I’m lucky in that I love the training as much as I do the racing. In fact, as a marathoner I can’t imagine going half a year doing something I don’t like just to run one race.
September 23, 2009 at 10:34 am
joegarland
Ah, so they let you go.
In his context, “perfect” is not-too-fast, not-too-slow for the particular workout. You seem to have gotten that. I sometimes forget. Happy travels!
September 23, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Flo
“They have to run aerobically at high intensity and have quite a lot of accumulated mileage.” Note the high intensity qualifier. I like that. It’s risky, but it gets results.
“For us, then, the issue is what the over/under figure is, where can we get the maximum benefit for the least risk. ” Instead of running high mileage from the get-go, I’d rather do a little more intensity/less miles, then when that plateaus, add the miles. Julie and I are polar opposites. 🙂
September 24, 2009 at 4:28 am
Ewen
That was a good interview. By the way, RML is a new site from Duncan Larkin (who is something of an artist and writer). There are some links to other interviews on his old site – http://duncanlarkin.com/roads/
To me, the big eye-opener is “I thought he was in 27:25 shape before the marathon — maybe even better. And that’s with zero speed. I think speed is so overrated.” Maybe the problem in the ’90s for American runners was that they saw these races won with incredible closing speed and they thought that working on speed was the answer? Now 11.6 isn’t hanging around, but you need to be there to use that 11.6. Similar to Snell in the 800m in the ’60s. Of course, you need the genetic speed in the first place – some runners just don’t have the leg speed to win 10,000s.
The perfect over/under figure will vary from individual to individual. For marathoners, in general I’d say the more the better. I think that figure also changes with age. 50+ runners are losing strength and flexibility, so that issue needs to be addressed. For example, Steve Moneghetti’s perfect figure at his peak was 200k/week, now at 47 it’s 140k/week. It’s worth noting that Steve no longer races marathons, and his half is not as good as his 10k – which is a pretty incredible 30:00.