1:59, The Sub-Two-Hour Marathon Is Within Reach

Dr. Maffetone is not doing barefoot running any favors with this book, he's reinforcing the idea that we're a lunatic fringe.
How do you figure? Have you read the book?
 
For all I know, they're ignoring a whole other angle that would leave any working scientist laughing or shaking their heads. So I do the easy thing. I read what sort of training philosophies and protocols have developed among those with a A LOT at stake, namely, pro athletes and their trainers.

That's funny you say that, Lee, because he's practically the only one exploring all those other angles that the so-called pros are overlooking. That's what this book is all about.

Dr. Phil is a pro and a trainer. He's been training endurance athletes for over 35 years. See his bio above for more credentials.

Besides, Dr. Phil says a 1:59 is going to come about by one-off experimenting and refinement, not following the training philosophies and protocols developed by others as a one-size-fits-all. As for those training calculators on Runner's World, etc., they're junk. Avoid them.

Seriously, get the book you guys, so we can all be on the "same page." It's hard to have an apples-to-apples discussion with people who are critiquing a book they haven't read and aren't open to new ideas and ways of thinking about the subject. Remember, I have only given a review, synopsis, of what he has written in a book that is about 250 pages. At least, after you read the book, if you still think what he says is malarkey, then you have the right to an opposing opinion.

Now, it's fine to have a discussion to broaden our thinking, therefore growth, but let's keep it friendly and be kind to one another.
 
That's funny you say that, Lee, because he's practically the only one exploring all those other angles that the so-called pros are overlooking. That's what this book is all about.

Dr. Phil is a pro and a trainer. He's been training endurance athletes for over 35 years. See his bio above for more credentials.

Besides, Dr. Phil says a 1:59 is going to come about by one-off experimenting and refinement, not following the training philosophies and protocols developed by others as a one-size-fits-all. As for those training calculators on Runner's World, etc., they're junk. Avoid them.

Seriously, get the book you guys, so we can all be on the "same page." It's hard to have an apples-to-apples discussion with people who are critiquing a book they haven't read and aren't open to new ideas and ways of thinking about the subject. Remember, I have only given a review, synopsis, of what he has written in a book that is about 250 pages. At least, after you read the book, if you still think what he says is malarkey, then you have the right to an opposing opinion.

Now, it's fine to have a discussion to broaden our thinking, therefore growth, but let's keep it friendly and be kind to one another.
Hey, I'm just a recreational runner with not even a passing interest in racing, let alone watching races (the only sport I watch is NFL, and even then, fast forwarding on Tivo). Alls I'm saying is that in my brief foray reading up on running a year or two ago, I was astonished that none of the writers--Hudson, Magness, Daniels, Hutchinson, Canova, McMillan, Pfitzinger/Douglas, Peirce/Murr/Moss, and a few others I'm forgetting, mention Dr. Phil, let alone bother to critique him. Yet he's quite popular here at BRS. So some cognitive dissonance there.

I'm not interested in reading his book, or debating this seriously. Like I said, I know very little about exercise physiology, and I'm a mediocre runner at best. I just find it preposterous that everyone except him could be all wrong about how to train for endurance running. Hence my quip. There is a lot of disagreement--some say training at threshold up to 35 percent of the time is key, others say hills are key--so it's not like there's a one-size-fits-all orthodoxy out there. And Magness documents pretty well the swings from aerobic to interval emphases, showing how, over the decades, trainers have been settling more and more upon some happy middle ground. But everyone seems to agree that you have to train all three energy systems to some extent, and the reasons they give, to the extent I understand them, are compelling.

So given the fact that I have a limited interest in, and ability to delve into, any of this, it makes sense to listen to the guys who are winning marathons right now.

It's just like lifting. So-and-so might claim to have a revolutionary new training method, but if you look at all the top powerlifters, Olympic weightlifters, and bodybuilders, they're all saying basically the same thing. They just disagree on the programming details.

So my solution has been to run aerobic, some tempo, and some fartleks/hills/intervals, with no real rhyme or reason to any of it. For lifting I do the basic lifts heavy at low reps. Simple. Fads come and go, the tried-and-true remains.

I didn't mean to be unkind to anyone, just tried to sum up my reaction with a quip. Should've kept it at that.

OK, I'll shut up now . . .;)
 
I just find it preposterous that everyone except him could be all wrong about how to train for endurance running.

But don't forget, everyone thought the world was flat too, and if you continued walking, you would just fall right off the side. Somebody had to go against the grain and prove them all wrong.

Look, I am not and have never been a competitive runner. I could care less about who has won this and who has won that. I was asked to review this book, and I was pleased to be able to do so. As a once recreational runner, it opened my mind, educated me, and I enjoyed it...and that's coming from someone who is just an average Joe.

For anyone wanting to increase their speed using less oxygen at the same heart rate, then this book is for them. Give it a try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: migangelo
But don't forget, everyone thought the world was flat too, and if you continued walking, you would just fall right off the side. Somebody had to go against the grain and prove them all wrong.

Look, I am not and have never been a competitive runner. I could care less about who has won this and who has won that. I was asked to review this book, and I was pleased to be able to do so. As a once recreational runner, it opened my mind, educated me, and I enjoyed it...and that's coming from someone who is just an average Joe.

For anyone wanting to increase their speed using less oxygen at the same heart rate, then this book is for them. Give it a try.
Yes, but flat-world theory was pure speculation--no one had actually been to the edge of the earth, whereas round-world theorists were trying to make sense of the evidence that didn't jibe with the flat-world model.

Trainers don't have to rely purely on theory; they are constantly getting ongoing feedback from real, existing athletes which can be integrated into their theoretical understandings, philosophies, and protocols, tweaking this or that parameter for this or that athlete or group of athletes, based on both theoretical understanding and practical feedback.

I know a lot of BRS people have had success with the Maffetone method. But the fact is, until you reach high performance levels, just about anyone who runs consistently at an aerobic pace will see improvement, regardless of how closely they're monitoring their heart beat. I traveled by bicycle for two years, almost 24,000 miles. I continued to improve my pace and endurance right up until the final day, with absolutely no understanding of exercise physiology or training protocols. It's really not that complicated.
 
Trainers don't have to rely purely on theory; they are constantly getting ongoing feedback from real, existing athletes which can be integrated into their theoretical understandings, philosophies, and protocols, tweaking this or that parameter for this or that athlete or group of athletes, based on both theoretical understanding and practical feedback.

You say all that like Dr. Phil isn't a trainer, like he has no credentials, has no experience.

I know a lot of BRS people have had success with the Maffetone method. But the fact is, until you reach high performance levels, just about anyone who runs consistently at an aerobic pace will see improvement, regardless of how closely they're monitoring their heart beat. I traveled by bicycle for two years, almost 24,000 miles. I continued to improve my pace and endurance right up until the final day, with absolutely no understanding of exercise physiology or training protocols. It's really not that complicated.

There's more to decreasing your time than just your aerobic heart rate. He details many factors that can help speed up a runner.
 
I have really benefitted from reading his book, even if I don't think all of his premises on physiology and nutrition are correct. It wouldn't be the first time someone was " on to something " but did't know exactly why. I also agree that the information shouldn't be judged on the basis of what all the other "experts" say. For this position, I cite the issue of handwashing in the medical field. As I have read it. the first doctor to say that other doctors were spreading infection was blacklisted and ignored for 100 years. They fought for their reputations more than they cared for the patients.
 
You say all that like Dr. Phil isn't a trainer, like he has no credentials, has no experience.



There's more to decreasing your time than just your aerobic heart rate. He details many factors that can help speed up a runner.
All I'm saying is that in the aforementioned books and sites I've looked at, there's no mention of him. Make of that what you will. My conclusion is that I can safely ignore him.

If you try to figure out all the contradictory advice and programs out there, it'll make your head spin. I have no time or inclination to investigate all that, so that's why I try to go with the pros and tried-and-true methods. This isn't theoretical physics, where people are free to speculate and leaps of imagination can lead to breakthroughs. I think it's more like engineering, where endless tinkering and small creative insights lead to progress.

I went through the same process lately with strength-training. At first you give everyone a fair shake, try to catch up on 'the core,' functional fitness, HIIT, and all that, but at the end of the day, the guys who actually have to be strong for a living are all doing more or less the same thing; they all base their training on a handful of compound lifts done heavy. Likewise, all the leading running coaches seem to advocate training three energy systems, which means incorporating three different paces into one's training. The debates are in the programming details.

I don't know anything about endurance racing, but I would imagine if Maffetone starts training winners, like Canova does, people will take notice. If he's already doing that, please excuse my ignorance, but that wasn't my impression the last time I looked into it.

Not saying Maffetone doesn't have anything to say, just saying that unless someone is well-versed in the theory, or enjoys reading about this stuff, there's really no need to look into it. The tried-and-true methods already exist and work. I like to keep things simple and that's good enough for me.
 
I have really benefitted from reading his book, even if I don't think all of his premises on physiology and nutrition are correct. It wouldn't be the first time someone was " on to something " but did't know exactly why. I also agree that the information shouldn't be judged on the basis of what all the other "experts" say. For this position, I cite the issue of handwashing in the medical field. As I have read it. the first doctor to say that other doctors were spreading infection was blacklisted and ignored for 100 years. They fought for their reputations more than they cared for the patients.
Once again, I don't think the analogy is exact. The reputation of a trainer lies solely in the success of his/her athletes. I sincerely doubt there's any conspiracy out there to ignore Maffetone's methods or blacklist him. When they've been proven to win marathons, everyone will switch. The competition is fierce, the talent pool huge, the cream will rise to the top.
 
Once again, I don't think the analogy is exact. The reputation of a trainer lies solely in the success of his/her athletes. I sincerely doubt there's any conspiracy out there to ignore Maffetone's methods or blacklist him. When they've been proven to win marathons, everyone will switch.
Comparison of not accepting methods, not an analogy, in my estimation. Maybe the results will take longer to see the effect of than with handwashing, and maybe there are more factors overall affecting the outcome, but I don't think that obilterates that this might have positive potential. I also know of plently of intelligent and thoughtful people that are so entrenched in the concept of shoes that they can't see how beneficial being barefoot is. I think this could fall in a similar category. :)
 
Comparison of not accepting methods, not an analogy, in my estimation. Maybe the results will take longer to see the effect of than with handwashing, and maybe there are more factors overall affecting the outcome, but I don't think that obilterates that this might have positive potential. I also know of plently of intelligent and thoughtful people that are so entrenched in the concept of shoes that they can't see how beneficial being barefoot is. I think this could fall in a similar category. :)
Analogy is a form of comparison.

In any case, no doubt, it might have positive potential, what I'm saying is that until that potential has been in some way proven, and widely accepted, I feel I can safely ignore it, given my humble goals.

Whether or not we believe the vast majority of pro trainers know what they're doing is a separate issue. I know endurance running isn't nearly as lucrative as, say, pro basketball, but there's still good money to be made by the top dogs and it beats teaching social studies while coaching high school track, right? I simply find it implausible that they're all doing things wrongly, given the fact that they're all competing with each other and have a strong interest in establishing a name/brand with unique methods. Given these selection pressures, it would seem odd if they all came to the same general conclusion unless the results necessitated it. What better way to secure the best athletes and sponsorships than by saying you've come up with a revolutionary training method that gets results? The fact that instead, they all agree that training should involve some ratio of aerobic to tempo to intervals/hills running, seems to suggest that that's what works, there's no escaping it. Indeed, given the success of the East Africans, my understanding is that the current trend is away from more traditional aerobic training to more 'hard' or 'quality' running, not the other way around. The innovation that's winning is running harder, bucking tradition. So tradition or entrenched mindsets don't seem to factor in too much here.

For me, it's almost comical how trainers try to differentiate themselves one from another by going into elaborate schedules and training protocols, e.g., 5x800, 3x1600, on Tuesday, 4x1mile plus sprints on Thursday, or what have you. (In Strength training, I've seen guys lay out meticulously varied set and rep schemes over a two-month cycle!) But they have to if they want to have any hope of successfully branding themselves. Because otherwise they're all just saying the same thing: Go fast, go sorta fast, go slow. If someone could say, just go slow, and win, they'd have a very unique brand indeed.
 
I tried to find something on this and could not, might be that the 1960 Olympic Marathon still holds that record?

Fastest barefoot marathon I found was Shivnath Singh 2:12:00 India's national record holder. So 12:01 minutes need to be chopped off to break 2 hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barefoot TJ
I don't know anything about endurance racing, but I would imagine if Maffetone starts training winners, like Canova does, people will take notice. If he's already doing that, please excuse my ignorance, but that wasn't my impression the last time I looked into it.

Mafftone has trained winners...some of the biggest in Triathlon...that's his claim to fame not marathons. I don't consider his methods much different than other coaches except for the use of heartrate monitor and his own formula for figuring a low aerobic pace. Other than McMillan I haven't really read anything or heard much of the other coaches you have mentioned. I have read Magness blog some but he seems more like a coach for a track team not the kind of running I would do. I like to use McMillan's pacing with Maffetones heartrate methods covers all the bases for me.
 
I think it's more like engineering, where endless tinkering and small creative insights lead to progress.

I'm sure he would say that's what he is doing.
 
Mafftone has trained winners...some of the biggest in Triathlon...that's his claim to fame not marathons. I don't consider his methods much different than other coaches except for the use of heartrate monitor and his own formula for figuring a low aerobic pace. Other than McMillan I haven't really read anything or heard much of the other coaches you have mentioned. I have read Magness blog some but he seems more like a coach for a track team not the kind of running I would do. I like to use McMillan's pacing with Maffetones heartrate methods covers all the bases for me.
I don't know anything about Triathlons. I know he got that one guy to stop over-training and turned him into a five-time champion, right? If, as Larry points out, he's good with donkeys, more power to him!

All I was saying, is that in the books and sites I've looked into, all about endurance running, he's a ghost, doesn't exist, and I've actively looked for references. I am not well-versed in the literature, but I believe I have covered many of the most popular trainers, their sites and books. For me, a person with limited time and interest, that means I can safely ignore him. If I were an endurance connoisseur, I would definitely investigate his methods in more depth. I know you, Chris, and many others here have profited from using them. I remain skeptical. The one time I used a heart monitor, I found that my feel for aerobic pace and the formula were pretty much in sync, although I think I was using the more standard Mayo Clinic formula, which is something like 20 beats higher than Maffetone's. For me, the limiting factor in running far is not my aerobic capacity, but rather my ability to tolerate the repetitive stress in my tendons, ligaments, and muscles. I feel confident that I could run a marathon in six months time if I set my mind to achieving the necessary conditioning. I've done it before with cycling. All you need is consistency and an easy pace and the body will adapt.
 
Lee,
for not ever wanting to talk about Maff again you sure do it a lot.

Skeptical means you haven't made up your mind. you obviously have. here i thought you had read his work but you just admitted you didn't. why not? why not give it a try? the time will pass either way. if you make gains, great. if not, move on.

you've also ignored my endless remarks about it NOT being only slow training. had you read my remarks or any of his books you would know that's not true. why would another trainer tout someone else's methods? they're trying to sell their own. read his books and you'll understand.

he is also semi retired from coaching. afaik he's only co-coaching Angela Naithe. she was good but no she's consistantly winning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barefoot TJ