How does Wejo run 7:00 miles all day, then run 28:06???

Blincoe does all his miles in sub 6:00.

"MR: When you won the NCAA 3,000m title in 2002 you were running remarkably low mileage for a distance runner. What were you at then mileage-wise and what are you at now?

AB: Then I was averaging about 40-some a week in both the indoor and outdoor seasons. It's fairly similar now. Maybe I'm running 10k more a week. I'm running 55 a week now, during the track season, which is down from being up around 80 a week in cross. It's still fairly low but I've always been a low-mileage guy. I ran 30 a week when I was in high school and my dad was my coach. I know I can run a lot of miles, but I feel I can get the same benefit with lower mileage at faster pace. All my mileage now is six-minute pace or faster. Six-minute pace isn't that fast, so it should still feel easy. "

http://www.mensracing.com/athletes/interviews/adrianblincoe02.html

Perhaps the way Wejo trains is the reason he has ran good 10k's, but hasn't put it together in the marathon. He runs his quality workouts hard, but the % of his total mileage at 10k pace or faster, is small. Just enough to prepare him to race successfully at this distance. He will need to devote a larger % (long tempos, long intervals) of his weekly mileage at sub 5min pace, to be successful at the marathon distance. Or be patient, and just get enough years (accumulated volume) in his legs and lungs, and it will click.

What do you think?

wejo,

how many easy runs would you say you need a week?

i mean how does your week break down?

do you pound any training runs? or how bout your long run?

'Dr Van aaken's Method works'

I've read 'the Van aaken Method' and although I do agree with some of the principles some of them are very obviously out of date bullshit, for example training in the evening up to 30km but making sure that throughout the day you consume only 600 calories, mind you, you can have 2000 calories after your run, if you are still alive! I know distance runners from the past and some with great success have tried this method, in an attempt to keep his weight down and improve their body's ability to process fat, Ian Stewart often used to fast 1 day in every 10 and run a 20 miler at good pace. Van Aakens method is based in a lot of ways around the principle that fat is a more economical form of fuel and the more you teach the body how to use it and feel comfortable with it the better you will perform, this is dubious in my opinion and must differ from individual to individual, as everyone burns fats at a difefernt rate. I remember readung about scott tinley at Ironamn who would eat soggy greasy fries on the bike because he worked better off fats than off carbs. van aaken also advocates a minimal intake of water, becasue it slows you down!

However i do agree with the long 'recreational' runs with 'galloway' breaks, in a sense its similar to ceruttys methods, Herb elliot did many long mountain hikes, with beneficial effects.

I think what this post tells us due to the many varying methods is that everybody is different and different methods suit different people, I dn't think you can say 'this is the way' its arrogant and in many cases its wrong. I have just come off a winter of slow high mileage with my usual sessions and I ran poorly, I've now reduced my mileage and picked up the pace of my steay runs, maybe I am benefiting from the winter of sloggng along but my running is going well.

bakken advocate wrote:

runningart are you the same runningart from marius' board. the only thing i question about what you say is the part where you run around 10k pace. i think the object for these sub threshold efforts is to not accumulate any lactic acid which for alot of people would be marathon pace not 10k pace. this is the way many runners push there threshold up by running for about 35-60minutes right under the point of the accumulation of lactic acid. even just for 10 minutes at 10k pace that might be a little hard and dangerous, but it would be alright if you hit actual marathon pace for the last 10 minutes but not go faster than it. if you run 35-60 minutes at a tad slower then marathon pace you'll be fine.

Well, I'm probably overestimating my pace and time spent as I don't time every mile and usually don't time my runs anymore at all. I'd say it's likely closer to 5 minutes at 10k pace or thereabouts and likely somewhere between halfmarathon and 10k pace. Either way, in those last minutes I feel a slight increase in tightness as lactic begins to build up but I'm not dead legged the next day and can usually do the same thing the next day, so I don't think it's hurting too much.

Alan

Does 2:45 faster (2:15:25 for Paula vs. 2:18:10 for Wejo) really qualify as WAAAYYY faster? Sure, Paula's far better relative to other women than Wejo is relative to other men, but that wasn't the question.

Altitude advocate wrote:

Also, Wejo has not been running well recently (Dnf at World XC Trials, 24mins+ for 8k on the road, DNF at harry jerome).

Or is Wejo just a legendary talent who would race a good 10k whatever his predominant steady run speeds?

Which perspective is more likely true?

Granted wejo hasn't been tearing it up this spring, but he's been coming back from injury. If he's such a talent then how come he didn't break 14:30 in college or 30 minutes and wasn't even close to making nationals?

He tore his hamstring at XC nationals that's why he didn't finish. The 8k thing I believe he said was a training run and he was out late the night before. Harry Jerome was pretty bad I think he said and messed his confidence but nationals are when it counts.

But I don't think he is some enormous talent.

Of course, you need hard-work to progress but...the kenyans do it,the ethopians,the spaniards,the lydiard-kiwis did it, the daily recovery jog

D_Gordon,

it was a JOKE.

Please don't dissect message board jokes in the future.

Pete wrote:

Yes, but let's don't forget that Paula has run the marathon WAAAYYY faster than wejo...

Pete:

Yes, and Wejo would have lapped Paula almost twice in a 10K! Clearly, Wejo's best marathon (based on his 10k times) has yet to be accomplished. I'm betting he could run WAAAYYY under 2:15.

A 4:28,9:35 high schooler running 28:06 for 10k,you can't do much wrong to improve like that.

Ok, 2 different schools of thought (and many variations within) - one says go really easy on easy days and really hard on hard days, the other says go hard as often as possible with few or no slow days. Everyone argues that their way is better.

Isn't it entirely possible that both ways eventually could lead to the same results? If I go the way of Wejo and run a 30 flat 10K, I'm fairly convinced that I could run hard most of the time and be in the same ballpark - not much faster and probably not much slower. If that's true, I realize that it's kind of a bummer since we all fret over our training and training methods so much.

The longer I do this stuff, and tinker around with different approaches, I'm leaning toward the realizations that it really doesn't matter which school of thought you subscribe to. You simply, as Hodgie points out, have to stay with it consistently, and race as much as you can without getting injured or burned out. Perhaps worrying more about racing and less on the little details of training would produce better results than fretting about the pace of every step taken and the nutritional breakdown of everything eaten (for crying out load, am I really sounding Malmoish??). Train consistently and get out and race.

I wasn't doing much progress on 6:45 miles and can cope easier with 10 minute miles.

But I heard you should train at all five levels of intensity as described in Serious Training for Endurance Athletes by Rob Sleamaker and Ray Browning.

4 x 400 in 57

4 x 400 in 57

Do this in the 2nd last week of Wego(Lydiard buildup), and yea shall see the holy time that was once prophecied to the chosen.

Amen,

now kiss my ass.

i hammered everything in the summer and i was in 25 shape for xc but my best time was 27:14 and it was early in the season..my body was shot by october and i couldnt run conference or regionals....just chill and take easy runs easy....

The goal of easy runs is to increase aerobic capacity. If you go so hard that your legs are overly sore, you've run "too hard" for the goal of the run. Slow runs accomplish this goal and save your legs for workouts (which have other goals). For this reason (and I believe Daniel's preaches something to this effect) a "faster" easy run can actually be worse for you because you're accomplishing no more by working harder and your workouts will suffer because of sore legs.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that they say there are three different types of 800m runners. I read there are endurance types who take more time to recover from track work and do more progress with tempo runs and easy long runs.

You are refering to this article by Frank Horwill:

http://www.serpentine.org.uk/advice/coach/fh52.php

I understand running slow on a 'recovery' day.

How bout when you are doing your base training WEJO?

Do you run faster then when there are no real set workouts outside of tempo runs?