Sorry to pile on at the end of a discussion many are surely tired of (and for the sake of those of us on digest mode: PLEASE delete any portions of old messages that aren't directly relevant to your reply). But there are several things along this thread that I wanted to comment on:
1) First - I have said for the last seven years that I saw the greatest 10k ever run, the final in Atlanta, with a 13:11 last 5k in tough conditions to run 27:07 and win Olympic gold in a race that was contested until the end. Paris was surely cooler, and they didn't have to run heats, but 12:57 to cap a 26:49 World Champs victory in a race that closely contested and unrabbitted (or was Geb the rabbit?) is probably better. What holds the previous claim for fastest race ever without a pacemaker? For that matter, has there ever been a faster 5000 without a pacemaker? 2) On the issue of speed, I would grant that Malmo is somewhat better informed than me on the habits of world class American runners, but I am skeptical about many of the extreme claims about the lack of speed on the part of top Americans. As noted, the issue was how fast CAN someone run for 200, not what do they do in a workout. I haven't done a flat out 400 in my life other than on a 4x4 in high school. That does not mean I would claim 60 to be my capability because that was the fastest I did in workouts when I was running my best. Someone said that many of the top American distance runners could not run 26 for 200. That could only be true if you extend the definition of "top" so far down as to include me five years ago, when I was 20th on the US list in the 10000 (29:23) and probably in 2:18 or so marathon shape. I don't consider those national class times, even if in a given year they might rank reasonably well. But I was an extreme outlier in terms of speed. With apologies to Joseph Heller, some men are born slow, some achieve slowness, and some have slowness thrust upon them; with me it was all three. I had relatively bad speed compared to my other abilities, spent years not working on it, and didn't get mentally into the fastest speedwork when I did do it. I've got PR's of 29:04 for 10k and 2:06 for 800, and if you think the 800 time is the result of not running it since I was 19, my 1500 PR from the same month as the 10k is 3:59. It is possible that there is not a single American with a fas! ter PR than mine in the 10k who is slower for 1500. And even I could run 28's for 200s (that is plural) in a workout with relative ease when I was fit. It is inconceivable to me that are people who truly deserve the lable national-class, say sub-28:30 runners, who could not run under 26 for a single all-out 200 during the peak of their track season. And if that is true, it seems also likely to be true that the sub-27:45 guys could mostly go 24.5-25.0 or better. 3) The discussion about training is in part one of semantics - differing definitions of hard, high mileage, etc. I would say that the only people who would refer to 150 mpw as "moderate" for their own training would be considered extremely high mileage runners by most - especially since this discussion started exclusively in the domain of 5k/10k, and it has been fairly well documented that the big increase in people running sub-2:09 in the marathon has coincided with the move away from 5k/10k type training by marathoners. The description of the DeHaven and Hanson team workouts (I haven't looked at the websites so I'm judging from what I read here) are NOT multiple hard workouts in a row. I would only apply that description to training in a very intense fashion 3-4 times a week IN ADDITION to the long run. This does seem to be a component of both the big 5k/10k breakthroughs in the mid-90's and the marathon improvements a few years later, with different emphasis in the workouts. The key in both cases seems to be alternating the direction of emphasis (different types of hard workouts on consecutive days) so that you are not always stressing the same systems. But even if that system is now the state-of-the-art for world class runners, it does not follow that everyone should be doing it or that Michael Contopoulos was wrong about being overtrained in college and right now to belated salute his coach. It is important to remember, especially for those of us who are coaches, that most people are not world-class athletes. Even 10 years ago, before I had read about any of the training plans discussed here, I was convinced that the greatest talent that set Todd Williams apart from the rest of the Americans was a greater than average ability to tolerate a very intense workload. This is a critical talent in succeeding at the highest level, as much as leg speed or a naturally high oxygen uptake ability. If you are working with a group of 100 or more people and care only about how fast the best of them run (a la the national program, formal or otherwise, in some African countries, or China's women) then you should work everyone at an ex! treme level. Most will not tolerate it well and will get hurt or overtired, but a few will benefit to the max from doing the most possible work and have outsized improvements. If, on the other hand, you are trying to choose the program that will produce the best results for a single individual that high probability of failure with the highest workload must be considered. If you want to compete at the highest level (or even your own highest level) you may decide to test those limits, but there is a great risk in doing so. Some people want to look at Gebreselassie's workouts, make an adjustment for the difference in pace, and do the same things. They miss the point - Geb does not just exceed them in talent for speed and VO2max; he also exceeds them in talent for the volume of work that can be tolerated. That is why he is the best ever. david
