I’ve been watching that thread for a while, and it’s not something I want to add to. So I can run a sub 3, and only started running in my 40’s - However, I train a load, and no idea if I have any genetic advantage, so what does it prove?
I do believe that if you told 100 random 30-40 yo that they could get $10m for running sub 3 then most would do it.
A friend of mine, works for a trading company, he is 35 years old, and has run a sub 3 marathon this year. His boss bet him $50k that he couldn’t run sub 17:30 5km within 3 months and if he failed he would just pay $5k. He didn’t take the bet.
sub 3, 4:15k’s isnt it? For me, I’d say no chance even if I had the perfect time to train/recover. Maybe 3 years of hard work and Id get closer but genetically I’m too tall, therefore too heavy, and whilst an eJC could help with my technique and efficiency somewhat, I know from swim coaching that it’s very hard to teach and old dog new tricks. It would require some level of mobility and strength work AND plenty of running whilst not getting injured. Id say a year of skill based short training to start, no runs over 5k (at least not continuous) whilst developing skills and then going from that platform to see where it takes you.
All humans are genetically gifted compared to most other living creatures. Especially when considering the ability to run long distances at a reasonable speed.
Like the vast majority of ST threads on performance and times it can be distilled down to a root plea: “tell me I’m special”. Whether directly or by inference via crude reverse humility.
Perhaps one for the Existential thread but ultimately all this is a bit of fun and no one cares. Run 2.10 marathon if you want, but in two generations you’ll be forgotten.
even 5k is too long for skills development phase. As with swimming there are reasons things are kept short for the kids, so that form is the priority and that fatigue never interferes with it.
Is there any evidence that would be necessary and what exactly would it improve? Not being argumentative, just interested to understand. I get it for swimming which is very technique dependent but less so for running at the speeds required for a <3 mara.
running is a skill, building efficiency would be key to staying injury free and building distance with that good form. Running easy for the average say “25min” 5km runner like me currently is so slow that you wouldnt be much better than walking. a Z1 run would be 11odd min miles, it promotes plodding, so until you can run shorter distances efficiently at lower heart rates then i don’t see much long term use to doing longer runs (and 5km is a distance run, its probably ~5000 steps) One of the problems with adult triathletes is they go out, do their long runs and will never get above a ceiling. That’s fine, but if taking a below average runner to sub 3, then fine isn’t enough for many.
Absolutely, my context on women was that person making the statement is that they are also making the statement that “any man can run 2:45” (at least, even that is assuming women’s performance is currently soft for cultural etc. reasons) and I doubt many would really believe that.
Nope, the variety in running economy means the above is not enough, there would be another group who simply would not generate enough speed from the power output above, so that’s another proportion chopped out of your limits.
But is that is two separate things. One is saying drills improve efficiency while running, is ther evidence to support that?
The other is that this improved technique (& maybe the increase in efficiency) reduces the risk of injury, is there any evidence for that?
I agree with you here and think for most slow runners long brisk walks are the best way to improve their aerobic base, rather than long runs. Although again not sure efficiently is the word I would use. If walking no longer pushes the heart rate up then add a bit of easy running.
physiologically yes, but you need to make the best use of the body that you have by working on good form, utilising the fascia / elastic system. Its very hard to do that by running 11/12min miles for long periods. (unless you know how to do it. Have you watched the Kenyans in early stages of a long run or warm up, they look elastic even when going very slowly) . Its not just about “drills” but short burst of technical focus.
But I said add a bit of easy running not long periods at very slow paces. So I would advocate moving from long brisk walks to progressing to long brisk walks with short spells of easy running within the walk.
I have seen the ‘Kenyan shuffle’ and would agree that runners need to improve their use of ‘elastic energy’, I think we mean the same thing here but are drills needed for this. Would doing something like ‘strides’ not help? Or is that the sort of thing you mean by technical focus?
I am interested in the technique aspects you mentioned rather than advocating people who run quite slowly should be doing log runs.
I am the opposite to you in stature and maybe that’s why I get away running OK on relatively low volume, albeit with some swim and bike added into the overall fitness (& fatigue)? Until lockdown 1 (or maybe 2?) I have been robust or lucky with running injuries. Personally, I think my run form improves with my fitness and I start travelling faster, rather than I improve technique and that is the cause for me running faster. If that makes sense?
I think that’s the same thing as swimming. I watch some of the kids do drills at the athletic club and do wonder what benefit they get. For swimming I have said the more i learn the less i use drills and use “focused swimming”. I’m thinking utilising things like “strides” with a particular focus have a bigger benefit than just “drilling”. Some of the drills that promote a high turnover, light/fast feet and utilising elastic energy are probably useful though. @explorerJC needs an input in this as I know the “running as a skill” is something he is a big advocate of and running is something he has a lot more knowledge than me at.
I get ya. Again I don’t know if my high cadence is a form thing or just as an oompa loompa it’s the only way to prgoress? In that case I mostly agree with that, just not sure about all that and the reduction of injuries. I think gradual loads increases are more important. Let the connective tissues adapt to the loads before progressing as that’s the most comon tissues injured. I don’t think we run fast enough for proper muscle injuries unless a trip, slip or slide happens.
The 3 of us and a bottle or two of quality red discussing all this would be ace.
