skuj wrote:
Hey elflord.
IMHO, H being humble.... :)
Sprinters must sprint. When they can no longer sprint (after no very much running!) it's time for a break. How long a break after 5x40m starts for example? A few hours.
Marathoners, in the future, will visit the special zone above 90min more often, and leave the "5 Miles in the morning in order to boost my weekly mileage" type runs behind. They will do Marathon worthy sessions. How long a break after 6x5km?
Obviously, successful Marathoners do "hi mileage", but I honestly believe we get too caught up in weekly quotas, and that 100 is magic. I beleive 2:03 runners in the future will run 80 ish miles a week. The miles will be distributed in accordance with the above principles.
Cheers
Skuj
This theory was espoused 20 years ago around the time the record went to 2:08, then 2:07, then 2:07-08 was run with greater frequency.
Even Dellinger actually wrote it down. Marty Liquori said it too. It all centered around the mistaken notion that the "runner of the future" will run "less miles" and maybe do a lot of hills to somehow transform the "average" 2:08 marathoner into a 2:05 runner (nice round number) or a sub-2:00 marathoner. Lydiard had it right when he said he didn't think the record could go much below 2:08 (or whatever he predicted) on a loop course. He didn't forsee the advent of the blood drugs though. But that makes sense as he used to defend the Finns against accusations of blood doping, when some of them had admitted it.
Anyway, all those predictors of 2:05 and 1:59 marathons back in 1985-87 were all wrong. I can't prove it but the "runner of the future" from 1985 are now the dozens of guys who run 2:04-2:05-2:06 like it is nothing and they are not running just 90 miles per week.
The man who may run 2:03 or faster someday will not either. If that was the way to get to a 2:03 marathon, why wouldn't the 2:08 guys of today just start running less to move up several minutes?
It is flawed logic.