We need a new topic around here.

When I was under 20, I believed in talent.  It was practically all I believed in, as far as success in sport goes.  Then, by thy time I was 30, I believed in Work, and maybe some people have a propensity to do this or that better.  But now, I can't get around it, I am in my 40's, and I believe in talent again.  But that talent might not be what I thought it was.

In running, maybe the most important talent is this infernal drive. Maybe it is short-sighted focus. Maybe it is long-sighted focus. Maybe it is ability to recover.  Maybe it is a slow metabolism or a fast metabolism.  Anyhow, I have come to accept that I must have some sort of talent.

Lately, I have been running... not many miles.  But it is increasing.  And I am way over-weight.  And I am older, but not yet "old" (that's always 30 years away, anyhow.)  But I have been running at least 1/4 mile, every single run, every day, at 12mph on the treadmill. Just mixed in the run with no break in stride, no rest.  Just crank it up, and then run on at 7:30 pace after a minute or two. And my easy runs are not really very easy.

There are all sorts of talent.  There is raw talent to be fast, which is what we normally think of.  Ritzenhein, clear talent from a young age.  But he lacks another kind of talent, the talent to train at a high level for long periods without getting injured.  Some people with raw talent to run fast seem to be so natural that they only need to run moderate amounts to perform their best.  Others can do 100+ mpw and keep improving.  There is no one solution even at that level.

Then there is the talent of recovery.  Mike Wardian is an example of someone who apparently has an extraordinary ability to recover from hard, long efforts.

I had no apparent talent when I started running at age 12, five years of running and I was still a high-19 5K guy at the end of my sophomore year.  But then I piled on a bunch of volume...both running and cycling...and suddenly was a low-17 guy.  Ran about the same in college and didn't improve a whole lot, 16:13 after a decade of running.

Post collegiately and training myself I nearly doubled the volume and really pushed the limits in every way...down to 15:18 closing a 10K.  So this was age 28, 16 years of running to get there.  I ran against and beat some obviously talented people, and I was proud I was willing to out-work them to beat them since I knew I had no talent.  But after awhile this felt arrogant; clearly, I was talented, but it just took more work for me to bring it out than others.

A couple years later, with a career, property, and family to derail my running, I found I could not come close to even maintaining base phase fitness without 80-90 mpw.  As soon as I was running 40-50mpw, I started runing pretty close to the same times I had run on 40-50mpw when much younger.  So I came back to a middle ground in my thinking.  I really WAS working very hard and that was what got me there.

So, different talents.  Some obvious, some not-so-obvious unseen as unrealized potential.

The only way to tell which applies to you is to work your ass off until you break yourself.

 

 There's another guy I know that will run 40 mpw "training" for a marathon and will consistently run in the 2:3x's.  

Asshole.

what kind of work can you do that will take you to the edge, and not break?  That's the perennial question.

 

Yup.  And it is individual.

My college's record in 5K is 14:53, run by a classmate.  He never topped 50 mpw because he got injured over that.  At my peak I probably could have edged him (6 years after the fact), but I was running 100-110 mpw to do that.  By my Achilles' heel was I could only train at that level 3-5 months before anemia set in.  Never figured a way around that, even with iron supplements.

Now I am just too busy, stressed, and fat to string together decent training.  Haven't totally given up yet though.  I was doing well this year until this damn virus got me.

Well... now that I've got "masters" status, I am eating the hell out of my lean red meats and fish, accompanied by dark leafy greens.  I kid you not, it has made a huge difference.

.....

Similarly, in my running before, I had pegged about 120 to 125 miles per week as my own sweet spot, with 90 miles once a week just to recover.  if I dropped to 70 mow for too long?  Forget about it.  Complete loss of fitness.

 

But there was always a formula of the real hard stuff : easy running.  Always hills, always short intervals. Always short racing or long intervals. And of course a long run.  But in this new experiment, I am breaking those rules.  And yet not breaking.  I can't make heads or tails of it, but I'll continue until something happens.

You've got a nice streak going.  Kill it.

Good to see you back Kelly.

I have no real running talent running story. I guess the only one is a cross training 20-something that was a low 15 min guy in college. Today he runs 3 times per week, mountain bikes, swims, does beer miles and other 20-something things (mostly involve being crazy). Last weekend he ran a 32-min 10k.  Of course, the two fastest runners I know are in the 80-90 mpw range. And the local 237, 50+, marathoner in town only ramped it up a few months out from CIM.

Cam Levins, famous for his 190 mile weeks, has cut back to 120. I guess its all relative.

Heh.. yeah.. well.. me too. I'm closer to 17 than 16. Just try hard and have fun along the way. You are a good, smart runner. You will get through the injury.

 

Everyone trying to go under 16 makes me frustrated. I want to be there too. /sigh...

 

-Kelly