Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Are you inspired by Alex Vero's ambitions, or slightly insulted?
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
The whole argument is barmy in so many ways. Not least, the ability to sustain 100 miles a week without getting injured is to do with genetic endowment. I look like a penguin on acid when I ran. I can't run more than about 40 miles a week because I get injured. I get injured because my body isn't built for long distance running.
My partner and I once did a treadmill test which involved testing blood for lactic acid. We were doing identical training (because we trained together). Our profiles were completely different. I got a massive lactic acid deflection at 5 minute miling. She could not go fast enough to get a deflection. This is to do with genetics. Sure I could change my ability to tolerate lactic acid within certain parameters, but I was never going to be suited to marathan running like she was.
Hard work will get your somewhere, but it's not going to get your everywhere, and if you don't have the right genetics, then it isn't going to get you very far (in absolute terms).
*puts on flame suite*
Pug
36 (ladies 10k time) - 30 (ladies real WR) = 6
26(mens WR) + 6= 32minutes
so a time of 36 minutes for a lady is very approximately equal to a 32 minutes 10k for a bloke which it is entirely reasonable that 100 MPW + can't do.
If you're talking about a bloke in the age bracket 18-35 who isn't morbidly obese then I agree to a point with pugheaven, I think that with sufficient smart training you can take someone under 36 minutes.
Come on, you're having a laugh!
How about Big Daddy? Giant Haystacks? Frank Bruno?
There is absolutely no evidence to back up your statement. There is plenty of countervailing evidence (all those people who have trained bloody hard never to run those kinds of times).
Of course the people I knew were doing the "right" kinds of training. Hill work (every Tuesday); track sessions (every Thursday); long-run (Sunday); tempo work; etc, etc. They weren't old (under 40). They didn't have one leg. I could even name them, but I won't (in case they read this board).
The trouble with the "train hard you'll go fast" argument is that people make it unfalsifiable. They always say things like "Oh well it wasn't the right kind of training"; "Oh well maybe they overtrained"; etc.
But making an argument unfalsifiable doesn't do it. It is very easy to know when a particular truth-claim is in trouble. People spend an awful lot of time explaining away evidence that doesn't fit.
But I can't have this argument again, it's not good for the blood pressure (something else which is genetic!).
If someone is really putting their "all" into it, you'd expect a lot more miles!
My point once again was, someone capable of 100MPW (not Big Daddy!!!).... should if theyr'e training correctly be able to do 36 10k... simple!
Pug
Pug
You can count as many white swans as you like, and you're not going to show that the proposition "All swans are white" is correct (because it's always possible that a black swan will turn up). In order to demonstrate the truth of a proposition, the best practice is to attempt to falsify it. It only takes one black swan.
Analogously: If you want to show the truth of the proposition that running 100+ miles a week will lead to sub-35 10kms you *shouldn't* be looking at people training 100 miles a week who *can* run sub-35 for 10km (especially since there is a huge selection bias at work here, which is another story). You should be looking for those who run 100+ miles a week, and can't run sub-35 for 10km (since just one of these people falsifies the proposition).
"We CAN ALL run a 35 minutes 10k unless you're 110 years old with one legs."
And
"Do-able for anyone *willing* to put the work in"
But I'm out of here. Life is too short.
Pugheaven, you really don't mean that. Given that this thread is about the feasibilty of being able to run at the top end of generally accepted high levels of performance, you need to qualify your parameters a bit more carefully.
I'm not 11O years old and have two legs (which sometimes function at the same time!!) and I can't do it anymore, despite training really hard and having had some ability as a younger runner.
It's as Themoabird says, all the hard training in the world won't compensate for poor genetics (I blame the parents!), inadequate biomechanics or the passage of time.
As I've said countless times, no amount of wanting it badly enough will compensate for the lack of inate ability. This is running we are talking about not some pathetic wanabee TV reality show.
90% of youngsters who sigh up with professional soccer clubs fail to make the grade, you can't tell be that down to simply not trying hard enough.
Here's my last sentance on the matter:
If you're normal and under 40 years old man, aren't 200 stone in weight and you can train 60+ miles per week, if you train hard enough and the right training they should/would hit 35 minutes"..
there's no reason that they wouldn't as 35 minutes isn't very quick!
anyway, back on topic, Alex 2:15... blahhhhh
Pug
Andi Jones- debuted at around 3:50 for the marathon and now a reasonable chance to qualify for the olympics in 2008, a real case of the million to one chance maybe coming off.
Or is it just possible that rather than wanting to create a documentary about the oridinairy person possibly qualifying for the Beijing marathon this is a complete and total vanity project?
Just a thought.
Pug
Pug
Anyway, Bryn, what ya reckon?
Pug
Pug is arguing that a sub 35/6 10k isn't really that hard an achievement (not quite the kicking the ball in a straight line, but maybe playing for the local pub side) whilst others are setting it up as the making the grade at a professional club.
It's how you rate it as a physical achievement that makes the analogy work or not work and from that how many can do it or can't do it bringing us all the way back to our original problem :O)>
Name is Tom Salway NVH, you can check me out on athletics data.
But I'd still say that his plan was totally ridiculous as he doesn't seem to realise that he's just done the easy bit. From personal experience going from 40 minutes for 10k down to sub 35 was pretty easy given a bit of time and training, it's after that that the harder work comes in and I don't think he realises that this is a sport of diminishing returns in the same way that I didn't when I ran 15:55 and started thinking about if I could maybe make a junior GB team. That extra minute to take off is a bloody lot!
Vero may have the talent to run 2:15 (but I honestly don't think so at this point), but he needs a lot more time and a lot more hard work to get down there. Either you have ridiculous talent (Vero doesn't, someone like Dan Robinson does) and get down there pretty quick or you are a grinder and you work hard at it for years from a reasonably young age and even then you may not get there.
He has the potential to run quick, not that quick, but a lot quicker than he does, but he has totally failed to plan out how long this will take. In fact in setting his goals and targets he ignores all rationality. I'd like him to read a couple of chapters in Coe's Better Training for Distance Runners, about goal setting and see how it is really done!
Or maybe:
"Once White, now heading towards Black Swan".
You have to admit that an international vest would be an amazing achievement!
I think this is why Vero did it this way. However, saying that he was going to make the Olympics is where he may have fallen over. If his site was "JOUNEY OF LONG DISNATCE IMPROVEMENT" and it was going to detail him going from sub 4 hours to sub 2:20 maarathon over years, then all this hysteria wouldn't have been created.
I suppose he's caused a bit of it himself... however, I personally think he is in 2:36- 2:38 shape for a marathon, however, he hasn't proved it at the end of the day... and it'll be interesting to see what he says on his sight.
He's going to be coming home with his tail between his legs...
I myself with Edinburgh may well come back looking sheepish, but I'm man enough to stand by my predictions and have faith in my ability (or lack of it)... and if he's the man I think he is, he'll soldier on, maybe alter his schedule, train harder... plan differently etc etc...
It's a toughy, 2:15 was always a 1 in a million shot, he knew this from the start, we all know it... however, if he got to say 2:25 in London 2008 (which funily enough is my target), then surely he's done fantastically well in just that fact alone, and this may well inspire people which is what it's all about in the end?
kay, I'm sure now he's sitting there in his hotel room thinking "shit people are goign to crucify me " and what he's going to do... however, the only way he could've got anywhere near 2:15 in London 2008 is to run 2:30 today, he can't and he hasn't thus I think he needs to be man enough and say, it's beyond me. However I'm going to carry on, increase etc etc and see how far I can go? Also, keep the documentarty going, see and show hwo hard these national athlete really train... I think I'm trianing hard at 80 mpw... it's nothing, I'm a anothing and most of us on here are that also... and need to give the national runners full respect and making this documentary may just do that?
Pug
Bryn - do you think that anybody has ever run a 35 min 10km if they weigh more than 16 stone?
I've certainly never seen anybody that size at that speed in the 20 years I've been racing.
The point being, of course, that some people are just that big, and it isn't fat.
I don't think it is professional football club standard. I think it is good amateur football club standard. Most people who play football don't get anywhere near that.
The chance of someone being 16 stone and that being the lowest possible weight they can get to is fairly low as far as I know.
Those who I do see running sub 36 10ks I'll admit are generally a lot less. But anyone who trains hard will generally weigh a lot less than 16 stone.
So we really know very little about whether someone who at their lowest possible weight after a ten year intensive training plan is 16 stone and their ability to run 10k.
I'll willingly concede that I haven't seen someone who weighs 16 stone run a sub 36 10k (I think... there are a couple of people over the years that I haven't actually physically weighed).
But I also have never seen someone who was 16 stone after a ten year intensive training plan with a very low fat content, and I think they could run sub 36.
Remember most 16 stone people the majority of it is fat, and so they wouldn't be expected to run sub 36 without losing the fat, we're looking for someone that weighs 16 stone and it's muscle and bone only.
The guy had about 6 months at the most to turn himself into a very decent cyclist of the calibre that could cycle 100 miles in about 4 hours (ie 25 mph).
After about two months of training he managed to cycle at 20mph for 30 minutes to record a 30 minute 10 miler. The film made a really big deal about this as if it was a breakthrough which could see the guy in the team. In fact to anyone who has even half an idea this was nonsense.
The guy failed to make much more of an improvement and failed by such a wide margin that you were left wondering why on the earth the film had been completed and shown on TV.
All the film went to prove was that its maker had no comprehension of just how much of an unsatisfying experience this was for a viewer to watch. I hope Vero has more of an idea of what constitutes suitable material for a film.
There are no statistical errors there. It was a question. You might argue that it contains erroneous assumptions, but it has nothing to do with statistics.
I actually have specific kinds of people in mind. Rugby players. Rowers. Professional. Olympic standard. Enormous. No fat. Highly conditioned.
Can they run sub-35? Or even sub-36?
I'm not convinced that they can or would ever be able to do so.
If they cannot - or even if one of them cannot - then the proposition that everybody with some x of training can run sub-35/36 is falsified.