Xhristopher:

 

You know, at first I thought you were just a cocky basterd who thinks you can get away with running less if you run them all hard.  Lately, however, I've noticed what you post here makes more and more sense and I'd been very impressed with how you had progressed.  And I think your performance shows too.  Congratulations.

Thanks, I think.

Perhaps you've confused/combined me with another runner around these parts since I don't recall ever espousing the run less/run harder training theory. Ever. I've thrown out stuff about benefiting from crosstraining and admit to getting carried away with my own training, workouts, and racing now and then. Most of it is invisible in my log but I know where it is. The most obvious point I got carried away with that you know about was in my lead in to last fall's marathon when I essentially went off plan then off the rails after putting out too big an effort 3 weeks out. I don't think this qualifies as running less/harder unless you consider running 250 mile months leading to a fall marathon as "less."

I've had several transformative running moments over the last year and a half. Increasing my milage to over 200 mile per month after a steady period of ten 100 mile months was a big one. That alone took a minute off my 5K in a month and drove home the concept that building endurance was the foundation upon which faster running and racing is made. In fact, I had slowed my overall training pace and started varying my training efforts and workouts at this point. Like I've said here before, it's been a learning experience. I've been learning quickly but have a long way to go but have no regrets thus far.

My sharing my wife's training for her first marathon, in a way, was because of that.  She didn't train much at all; yet she did alright.  I guided her to her sub-4.  Her program was not just slacking workout; we put a lot of thought into it and I knew she'd do well.  But, like I said, I wouldn't recommend that for everybody. 

 

So I ask you, or anybody who had mentioned this "genetics" on this thread; "What is talent?" and "How do you detemine someone has it or doesn't?"

Since I brought the issue of talent/genetics up, I will try to clarify my point.  I agree that "talent and genetic attributes" are difficult to determine, and any method would be very subjective.  The fact you are a very experienced trainer, and note that you need to individualize the training program even for the same end goal, such as running a marathon, proves my point.  We are all different.  That is why the program you gave your wife may not, and probably would not work for the majority of people. 

I also agree that if we look at marathon times as an end point, none of us really know how low we could go - and we need to train, analyze, modify, etc, which is where coaching comes in.  That being said, I think all of us have seen some people that are able to run marathons under 4 or even 3 hours with less training than others - even if the training miles, pace, etc is the same.  Reason - talent or genetics, or just comes easier, what ever you want to call it, it is just fact. I don't believe we can all run sub 2:20 marathons if we just train enough.  That being said, most average runners are well below our potential, and therefore most of us can improve dramatically with training. 

As for the Paris marathon, I am not saying that  MK cannot run a 3:30 or 4 hour marathon, but based on what he gave us, most of us agree that it is not a realistic goal.  I do think there there are some people who could go from relatively little training to a marathon and break the 4 hour mark in 3 months.  I wish we could all be so lucky, talented, or whatever you would call it. 

At the end, I hope he enjoys the Paris marathon, runs it as fast or as slow as he wants, because no matter what, he will learn from it, and can improve on it. 

Since I brought the issue of talent/genetics up, I will try to clarify my point.  I agree that "talent and genetic attributes" are difficult to determine, and any method would be very subjective.  The fact you are a very experienced trainer, and note that you need to individualize the training program even for the same end goal, such as running a marathon, proves my point.  We are all different.  That is why the program you gave your wife may not, and probably would not work for the majority of people. 

 

I also agree that if we look at marathon times as an end point, none of us really know how low we could go - and we need to train, analyze, modify, etc, which is where coaching comes in.  That being said, I think all of us have seen some people that are able to run marathons under 4 or even 3 hours with less training than others - even if the training miles, pace, etc is the same.  Reason - talent or genetics, or just comes easier, what ever you want to call it, it is just fact. I don't believe we can all run sub 2:20 marathons if we just train enough.  That being said, most average runners are well below our potential, and therefore most of us can improve dramatically with training. 

 

As for the Paris marathon, I am not saying that  MK cannot run a 3:30 or 4 hour marathon, but based on what he gave us, most of us agree that it is not a realistic goal.  I do think there there are some people who could go from relatively little training to a marathon and break the 4 hour mark in 3 months.  I wish we could all be so lucky, talented, or whatever you would call it. 

 

At the end, I hope he enjoys the Paris marathon, runs it as fast or as slow as he wants, because no matter what, he will learn from it, and can improve on it. 

If you quantify the formula of talent as less training + fast time = talent; I'dsay you are vastly mistaken.  I had a chat with a young lady by the name of Shalane Flanagan a while back.  Her story was more or less featured in one of those "less is better" article a few years back.  I threw that question to her and she said she doesn't run as much because she gets injured if she runs too much.  With this formula, you are almost implying that, if those "talented runners" really work hard and train MORE, they would wipe out current world records in no time.  I highly doubt it.  They so happen to train (seemingly) less because that's their sweet spot. 

As for my wife, if you're implying that she cracked 4 with such small amount of running, again, you are vastly mistaken.  At that time, her job was quite demanding and she spent a lot of time on her feet during the day.  If she tried to follow "regular" training program, she would have been exhausted and wouldn't have even been able to run do those long runs at all.  Years later, she joined local marathon training group and trained very much harder and decided to ignore her husband's suggestion.  She slowed down.   Later, she came back and I erased about 30% of what local training group's training program asked for (but still stuck with the group for a running company) and achieved BQ.

All due respect, your thinking is, whether or not intentional, a typical of "I wish I were more talented becaue then I can run so much faster with working less..." when they most likely haven't even gotten close to max

Although I agree with this ... When I look at marathon results - even 80-90% of the sub 3:00 people seem to either crash and burn or jog it in ... as I see fairly significant possitive splits.

 

Running 1:20 / 1:30 for a sub 3:00 does not sound like fun to me.  Or 1:40 / 2:19 for a sub 4:00.

Yep. I have crashed and burned in a few marathons. Actually my first two marathons were my best paced marathons. I have also crashed and burned in my fair share of 5ks, but they did not leave the same mark.

I think different people have different willingness to blow up. Just ask Thunder.

Sure.. but almost certainly those people would have done a better time with a slightly more conservative first half.  

 

But sometimes you don't know what you're capable of exactly, so you might end up being too conservative at the start, or too aggressive at the start. Getting the pacing perfect is not easy!

Yes to this.  Of more than 30 marathons I think I've run too conservative in the beginning 3 times.  I can think of three races that I was dead-on in my pacing, there might be one or two more but that's it.  The initial pacing of the vast majority, including my PR, turned out to be too aggressive for my fitness.

To me that's part of the allure of marathoning - you just don't know exactly what is the proper 'marathon effort' for you on that particular day until it's done.  When you get it right it's a great feeling.

Ok -  I am going to run 3.30 or as close as possible.   At least under 4 hrs.

 

Here you go,interesting link an interview Steve Jones who still holds the british record in the Marathon at 2hr 07min 13sec.  Basically saying that sports nutrition, cross training, etc largely don't add that much value.  “To improve at running, you run,”  I think just looking at the content on this board there is too much "analysis paralysis"from runners.  

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/other-sports-news/interview-steve-jones-why-over-complication-of-a-simple-sport-has-caused-britain-to-fall-behind-africa-1.1016102

xxxxxxxx

I think different people have different willingness to blow up. Just ask Thunder.

I think being willing to blow up at races is good, it helps you gauge where you really are.  But man, blowing up at a marathon, with 4 months of work and whatever pegged to one day is tough.