|
Mar 2018
9:48pm, 22 Mar 2018
34,537 posts
|
GlennR
Damn right Fenners.
|
|
Mar 2018
11:48pm, 22 Mar 2018
1,844 posts
|
Canute
Without diminishing Hill’s great performances it is reasonable to speculate on whether he might have performed more consistently if he had trained differently. He achievements include winning Boston in 1970, and the Edinburgh Commonwealth games marathon in 2:09:28, but his disappointing performances included 9th in Fukuoka in 1970 (maybe too many marathons in the same year), and 6th in the 1972 Olympics.
In his analysis of the training of elites chapter 6 of Lore of Running, Tim Noakes concluded:
‘Hill’s racing record again confirms that heavier training is as likely to produce worse racing performance as it is to produce better performances’
Like Radcliffe, Hill missed Olympic gold. Whether he would ever had achieved 2:09:28 with a training regime that was kinder to his body we will never know, but I think it is plausible that he would have performed more consistently if he had done so.
|
|
Mar 2018
7:54am, 23 Mar 2018
14,491 posts
|
Fenners
Thanks Canute, I would like to strongly deny I was in any way diminishing Hill's performances, just daring to suggest with slightly smarter training he could have been even better/faster?
|
|
Mar 2018
7:57am, 23 Mar 2018
989 posts
|
flyingfinn
All fair points Canute and in Hill's case he almost certainly over raced (at all distances) but is it simply a risk/reward equation? Hill risked breaking himself and in the process produced some outstanding performances that have stood the test of time. The modern science based trend, governed by HRMs etc (and I speak as someone who has used one for nearly 25 years) may produce more consistency with less risk of breaking but is it at a lower level and at the expense of producing outstanding individual runs? Hill and Radcliffe may have both missed out on Olympic golds but would they have swapped their outstanding pbs for an the possibility that it might increase their chance of winning a single race given all the other factors (many of which they couldn't control) that could impact that?
|
|
Mar 2018
8:23am, 23 Mar 2018
25,732 posts
|
SPR
Arguing consistency makes more sense to me than better. Very hard to say someone at that level would have been better (especially as it unquantifiable), consistency is a different question though as you're saying they would have stayed closer to their best times.
In Paula's case though, she was very consistent when she was fit. Guess the question is did training cause the injuries or was there always something underlying?
|
|
Mar 2018
10:11am, 23 Mar 2018
1,845 posts
|
Canute
We will never know whether either Ron Hill or Paula Radcliff would have achieved their brilliant performances using a more ‘body friendly’ training program. Nonetheless, it is well worth discussing the issue of whether as aspiring elite (or indeed a serious recreational runner) should place a strong emphasis on the ‘body friendliness’ of their training.
‘Going for broke’ can look like a good strategy in hindsight, I doubt it is the most sensible strategy when planning one’s future. There is abundant evidence that the many of the world’s best marathon runners have achieved excellent performances with an approach that take greater care of the body. For the era before the African dominance of the marathon, Rob de Castella is an interesting example. As I understand it, he was careful not to push too hard in training. He won the 1981 Fukuoka Marathon in a time of 2:08:18. However he too failed to win Olympic gold. He was a disappointing 5th in the Los Angeles Olympics. He lost contact with the leaders when he stopped to drink.
As indicated by Canova, in the current era, most of the Africans do a substantial amount of low intensity running. However, as we have recently discussed, Canova also recommends an appreciable amount of at S4 intensity (roughly speaking ‘sub-threshold’)
My view is that the 80:10:10 recommendation is the best strategy if you want to achieve longevity as a top level runner. But perhaps, if you want to achieve your ultimate best and are prepared to take a small risk, you would be better advised to include a somewhat larger amount of ‘sub-threshold’ effort in the mix. But take careful note of how well you recover from these sessions.
It noteworthy that Hadd specifically identified the importance of the sub-threshold zone. As I see it, Hadd largely followed the Lydiard approach to base-building, but with more specific guidance based on heart rate. In contrast Lydiard advised listening to the body. From the anecdotes regarding the famous Sunday morning runs in the Waitakere hills, I think many of Lydiard’s athletes turned that run into a progressive run. In Canova’s terms, it might have been described as starting in S3 and increasing to S4.
When I was a serious runner 50 years ago, I used breathing as my main guide to effort. Apart from specific interval sessions, I mostly ran near VT1 (upper level of Seiler’s zone 1) but often increased into the subthreshold zone in the final stages.
|
|
Mar 2018
10:22am, 23 Mar 2018
1,079 posts
|
J2R
Canute, what are you meaning by sub-threshold here? Would Ninky Nonk's MP + 15s pace be the sort of thing you mean?
|
|
Mar 2018
10:34am, 23 Mar 2018
1,846 posts
|
Canute
J2R
I think it depends on your state of fitness. When you are very fit you can probably get to MP +15s without excessive stress, but for many people I think MP+15 would be a bit too demanding for regular sub-threshold.
For me, 'sub=threshold' meant moderately effortful breathing that was exhilarating rather than unpleasant.
You are unlikely to do harm with a few MP + 15s runs , but take note of how well you recover, before deciding how often to do such runs
|
|
Mar 2018
10:37am, 23 Mar 2018
2,728 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
Be interesting to see if Dennis Kimetto training was polarised?
|
|
Mar 2018
10:57am, 23 Mar 2018
2,729 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
Regarding sub threshold runs they might be 'low intensity' but the duration often makes them a hard session. As canute suggests watch the recovery.
|
80/20
Jun 2019