I don't know if he uses MAF but Pat Sweeney tells me he runs most of his distances at about 10 minute pace.
He seems to win or place in a lot of the events he enters - whether they are 5km or 100 mile events.
Never have, never will.
Dead right!
Nothing is carved stone.
- Thread starter Barefoot Gentile
- Start date
If I could win a 5k at 10 mm pace, I'd be entering them right and left. For a 100 miler though, my understanding is that 10 mm pace is pretty good.
My point was simply that I've looked into a several 'serious' running sites and some books, even done 'Maffetone' keyword searches on some of the sites and indexes, and come up with Zilch. It's like it doesn't exist. Kind of like Ken Wilbur in social sciences and philosophy. Almost everyone endorses some kind of base-building and/or long, steady endurance training, with faster runs done as part of that training or in a later phase, but none of the LSD runs, as far as I have been able to figure out, are done at below normal paces, paces where you deliberately go slower than you could sustain for that distance with modest effort. Most Lydiard runners, for example, were running at comfortable, yet close-to-threshold paces, on their long runs. If I'm mistaken, please, someone, please point me to the evidence, because I'm genuinely curious about this. I didn't enter this topic with any preconceived ideas. But please no obligation. I consider the case closed, for me at least. To each their own. My main point is that, with the evidence for Maffetone training inconclusive at best, there's no reason to subject yourself to it unless you enjoy running that way. I will never try to dissuade someone from running the way they like, on in a way they feel is more beneficial than another method. I'm at least a year away from becoming the runner I would like to be, still trying to find out what works best for me.
I suppose that mathematically, he could be running one or two 5Ks and the rest ultras and would still be running "most of his distances at about 10 minute pace". He could be doing hills and intervals with slow jogs in between too. Actually, I think that I'm going to start doing that for my routine runs to spice it up a bit (though no hills here). Fartleks, right?
Beer running? Okay, it's clear that this guy is not your average runner... Maybe he's a Harrier? Those folks are umm... quite special!
[quote="Bare Lee, post: 112235, member: 2949". I consider the case closed, for me at least. To each their own. [/quote]
Mich auch!
It works for me.
Mich auch!
It works for me.
All those who weren't "born gifted" or raised by track coaches, should take heart. Getting better also takes a lot of practice and commitment. I can't find it, but maybe someone else knows the actual true story. I don't recall the specifics, but it went something like this:
A beginner was told by a famous distance runner that it would take him 5 years to become a great runner. So the beginner ran and ran, worked hard, and soon became a competitive runner, excelling and winning in races. Years later, the beginner also became known as a great distance runner himself, and he came across the famous runner again. He said to the famous runner, "You were wrong! With all my hard work, it didn't take me 5 years, it took me 7!"
The good news is that for those of us who merely want to become better recreational runners, and not great distance runners, all you need is consistency, whether you're running FIRST, MAF, or just going out for a jog.
I just read an article that makes sense regarding training pace. It stated the elite runners run 80% of their runs below LT, 10% at LT, and 10% above LT and recreational runners run 80% of their runs above LT.
The reason it said that elites run 80% below LT is simply because it allowed them to run more miles per week and that miles run per week is the strongest indicator of race performance.
The reason it said that elites run 80% below LT is simply because it allowed them to run more miles per week and that miles run per week is the strongest indicator of race performance.
I think that's how it used to be, but I read somewhere that the trend now is to reduce overall weekly mileage and get in one or two more 'quality' runs. Ryan Hall, for example, now runs 100 mpw instead of 120, and the Kenyans supposedly run 35-40% of their training at or close to LT. Then I read somewhere else that sprint times, even for endurance runners, are the best predictor of performance, while conversely high volume is the best predictor of injury rates.
Is any of this true? I have no idea. Just throwing it out there.
I would make some snide comment about Lee hijacking threads but Nick was not involved in this one so it doesn't feel right!.....the dangerous duo
I've got BG's original post right here with me. You can talk to it if you like, but you're not seeing it again until I get a top-of-the-line Garmin deposited in my Swiss account.I would make some snide comment about Lee hijacking threads but Nick was not involved in this one so it doesn't feel right!.....the dangerous duo
ripple (in still water)
Dannis trains via the Maffetone Method, doing all of her training runs and races in very specific heart rate zones. It’s an unconventional approach, but one that’s helped her transform herself from a relatively average runner to one of the best American ultrarunners in just a few years.
Dannis trains via the Maffetone Method, doing all of her training runs and races in very specific heart rate zones. It’s an unconventional approach, but one that’s helped her transform herself from a relatively average runner to one of the best American ultrarunners in just a few years.
Maybe I'll give this Maffetone thing another re-consideration again. I'm just very, very hesitant to encumber myself with technology. I really would like to tone myself a little tighter/faster though. I think I have a faster runner inside me, and ran much faster just a couple years ago.
Hmmmmm....
Hmmmmm....
last year I tried to make a new PR on half-marathon with no gadget,
so I trained without gadget during 3 months,
and I made it : 86 minutes (my PR was 89 minutes six months before)
at the starting line I wasnt very confident
it's a big challenge,
I would like to do the same on the marathon distance, but wow, I need more time to prepare this, it takes time
anyway, it's an interesting experience,
it's about feelings, sensations, self-confidence also.
so I trained without gadget during 3 months,
and I made it : 86 minutes (my PR was 89 minutes six months before)
at the starting line I wasnt very confident
it's a big challenge,
I would like to do the same on the marathon distance, but wow, I need more time to prepare this, it takes time
anyway, it's an interesting experience,
it's about feelings, sensations, self-confidence also.
I'm going to show this to my 14 year old son who's just recently feeling out his body's new powers. I think he'll maybe give it some thought.
