Great informative article on altitude training and devices--(don't tell Hodge, he might learn something!)

I never thought the day would come where I agree with Mr. Hodge but hear it is. This year was a year to be proud of as we had a mild upswing in the marathon. 6 of the top 14 runners this year had nothing to do with altitude. Baker, Hauser, Verran, Jurcevich, and Jimmerson. and Dowling had his best year ever in the thon after leaving elevation. I am not saying altitude is a bad thing but it is not a cure all. If I understand Hodge correctly he is just saying that not enough guys are busting their asses and that is more of a problem than anything else. We agree. Here is some advice go out and run 140-160 miles a week for the next 2 years and then we can talk about what things you need to do to tweek your marathon training. That is what is going on with Johnson, Jurcevich, Verran, and every other athlete that you never heard of that is improving. If you are looking for ways to improve without doing the first part (2 years at 140-160 mpw) the question is moot.

Guest,

Articles of interest:

http://iuhoosiers.com/menscrosscountry/staff/

http://www.sportscience.org.nz/publications/report/report3.html

He ran 2:11. I'd wallow in my past glory too if I did that. Keep wallowing Bob.

Hodgie-san wrote:

Guest,

Articles of interest:

http://iuhoosiers.com/menscrosscountry/staff/http://www.sportscience.org.nz/publications/report/report3.html

Yes, they are interesting. Also old.

Something you wouldn't know: Mr. Chapman (or someone from his people; hard to know over the Net) wrote to a friend of mine out west in 1995 who had written into a general forum asking about specific trails on behalf of a few friends going to altitude for the summer. Mr. Chapman/whomever pointed out quite EMPHATICALLY (and without being asked) how altitude training DOESN'T WORK and that they should stay home and save their money.

My friend wrote to me and I gave him some things for Mr. Chapman/whomever to think about, including a rough version of high/low training as these people were to be living in Nederland, Colorado, and working/training in Boulder.

Next thing we know Mr. Chapman is on board the high/low bandwagon. Coincidence? If memory serves, I think Chapman had something printed one way or another on the Runner's World Online site, too.

Still not certain what you are aiming for here, Hodge.

Somehow in a debate about the modern uses of training aids and environment for world-class and national-class bordering on world-class athletes, a collegiate situation becomes relevant?

And for that matter, what does Indaiana's success or failure (and Chapman's resultant achievment plaques) have to do with anything outside of a conference level?

What does this have to do with anything?

guest say,

>Still not certain what you are aiming for here, Hodge.<

I am not "aiming" for anything. I thought you & others might be interested in the articles.

Thank you.

Here's another that discusses how important it is to maximize your training environment to achieve optimal results:

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/general/features/2002_RadcliffeSupportCrew.html

Assuming, of course, one doesn't believe drugs are the only things responsible for top-level success, Radcliffe or Moroccans.

Opps! Forgot this one from "lasse viren"'s earlier thread:

http://www.langrenn.com/index.php?id=58937&cat=1743

Unless one doesn't believe the Norwegiens (sic?) don't know anything about cross-country skiing...

I do believe in Drugs but I also believe that Hodgie-san pisses more knowledge about real running then you'll ever know. All of the top folks are on Drugs, stop thinking otherwise. Santa is not real.

a guest wrote:

Assuming, of course, one doesn't believe drugs are the only things responsible for top-level success, Radcliffe or Moroccans.

So it's the drugs AND Flagstaff that makes the difference. Thanks, now we know.

Go pack. wrote:

He ran 2:11. I'd wallow in my past glory too if I did that. Keep wallowing Bob.

He ran 2:10:59