It's unclear who would be reading this kind of story even had its author consulted knowledgeable coaches and exercise physiologists instead of self-stroking dupe-magnets
Many moons ago I was talking to Peter Snell and we got around to discussing how interval training had gotten to be such a precise and "sophisticated" thing and how far away it had gotten away from Lydiard's "We all go to the track. I run 440s, you run 220s, and the other guy runs half miles. We all create a big oxygen debt and we all get faster. It's a lot of eyewash" quote. I asked Peter the value of these complicated and sophisticated sessions. He said "Their value is that they allow coaches to justify their existence." Later I mentioned that quote to Ron Clarke. He absolutely loved it.
In my money earning years one of the things I did was teach graduate psychology classes. There had been, at Stanford, something called the Mental Research Institute. To some extent they researched the business of mental illnesses and what to do about them but a lot of their work was on the learning process in general. One of the things they discovered, and did a pretty good job of backing this hypothesis with research, was that people have a strong preference for complicated explanations over simple ones even when the simple explanation was the correct one. (It would take a LOT of typing to get into details here.) But this phenomenon has absolutely taken over the world of distance running and coaching in the US over the past thirty or so years and it allows people who have poured over "Daniels Running Formula" and have a subscription to an exercise physiology journal and are good at self
promotion to create coaching businesses and attract customers who prefer complicated explanations and processes to that business. If you ever misplace your personal integrity your time in med school would set you up perfectly to be the next David Roche. But I'd probably drop my subscription if that happens.
Now if I am a 4 hour base marathon runner there is a good chance I have not developed aerobically. The upside is obvious. I do my few marathons and then it is ultra time. I get a few slogs in, enjoy the vibe, and the travel options. Then you start reading there are special people out there who can really help. You pay them and they enlist you in the way. There is a huge population who is willing to pay. They see the obvious results, tell friends, and the cycle continues. All they needed to do was just become a regular runner, fit for purpose and see the exact same results. Just my opinion.
In my experience the 2 harder efforts would maybe get me 5-10 minute improvement and the coach maybe a handful of minutes over that. Let's use 2:50 as the aerobic baseline.
If your talking about ultras, which are almost all trail nowadays, what else do you need to know or develop in terms of extrapolating the workload over the specific types or terrain. I think the same principles apply. There is no trick workouts in my mind just balanced hard work. You learned from that and make adjustments.
Many moons ago I was talking to Peter Snell and we got around to discussing how interval training had gotten to be such a precise and "sophisticated" thing and how far away it had gotten away from Lydiard's "We all go to the track. I run 440s, you run 220s, and the other guy runs half miles. We all create a big oxygen debt and we all get faster. It's a lot of eyewash" quote. I asked Peter the value of these complicated and sophisticated sessions. He said "Their value is that they allow coaches to justify their existence." Later I mentioned that quote to Ron Clarke. He absolutely loved it.
In my money earning years one of the things I did was teach graduate psychology classes. There had been, at Stanford, something called the Mental Research Institute. To some extent they researched the business of mental illnesses and what to do about them but a lot of their work was on the learning process in general. One of the things they discovered, and did a pretty good job of backing this hypothesis with research, was that people have a strong preference for complicated explanations over simple ones even when the simple explanation was the correct one. (It would take a LOT of typing to get into details here.) But this phenomenon has absolutely taken over the world of distance running and coaching in the US over the past thirty or so years and it allows people who have poured over "Daniels Running Formula" and have a subscription to an exercise physiology journal and are good at self
promotion to create coaching businesses and attract customers who prefer complicated explanations and processes to that business. If you ever misplace your personal integrity your time in med school would set you up perfectly to be the next David Roche. But I'd probably drop my subscription if that happens.
Now if I am a 4 hour base marathon runner there is a good chance I have not developed aerobically. The upside is obvious. I do my few marathons and then it is ultra time. I get a few slogs in, enjoy the vibe, and the travel options. Then you start reading there are special people out there who can really help. You pay them and they enlist you in the way. There is a huge population who is willing to pay. They see the obvious results, tell friends, and the cycle continues. All they needed to do was just become a regular runner, fit for purpose and see the exact same results. Just my opinion.
What if I trained these ways for a marathon?
70 miles a week aerobically
70 miles with 2 harder efforts per week
70 miles a week with a seasoned coach
In my experience the 2 harder efforts would maybe get me 5-10 minute improvement and the coach maybe a handful of minutes over that. Let's use 2:50 as the aerobic baseline.
If your talking about ultras, which are almost all trail nowadays, what else do you need to know or develop in terms of extrapolating the workload over the specific types or terrain. I think the same principles apply. There is no trick workouts in my mind just balanced hard work. You learned from that and make adjustments.