What it takes... a philosophical rant

[MichaelMc]

Discussions in running circles seem to swing from thinking people can make massive gains in very short time periods to (other people) thinking improvement is some dark secret or that speed is merely a genetic gift: "you got it or you didn't". I don't believe either one. I don't think there is anything particularly confusing how some people get consistantly faster while others don't, and while I believe genetics have a very real effect on our progress I think they very rarely deserve most of the credit or blame they get. I think the basic answer of what it take to become a fast distance runner is very simple and can be boiled down to two things: ambition and patience. You have to have the ambition to work hard enough to challenge your body on a consistant basis, and the patience to do it GRADUALLY enough that your body CAN adapt to the stress. A huge effort over a short period of time won't do it, nor will an inconsistant effort or "just putting in time". There is a good sports quote which gets attributed all over: "LOTS of people have the will to win, what is rare is the will to PREPARE". With some poetic licence, I'll use one word for it: tenacity.

You may all be saying "No ****, Sherlock: that's obvious!" yet thread after thread on running forums overlooks this. Everyone is either looking for the miracle program that will allow them to make massive gains in a month or get off the plateau they've been on for years. Galloway, McMillan, Daniels, Stanton, Higdon, Pfitzinger, FIRST... who has the answer? Simply put, all of them: virtually every program out there will work, including a program we can write ourselves if they include a couple of simple features.

Any program that starts off from your current fitness and simply increases the difficulty from week to week at a gradual enough pace for your body to adapt (rather than break down) will make you faster, and over time a LOT faster. In fact, if you vary the type of difficulty it will continue to work until you reach your ultimate potential. You may think the "black magic" is in figuring out the best difficulty (I'll switch to "stress" now) to apply to get maximum gains. While I enjoy researching and experimenting with that I think that is mostly "window dressing", or maybe "the icing on the cake". The cake is having the tenacity to run a little more or a little harder each week including the patience to NOT rush it. One overuse injury can set us back weeks, months or years, so running the fine line of constantly pushing the envelope without going over the edge is the "secret", not whether you run 800m repeats or 20 minute tempo runs. To me what I admire in the best runners isn't their VO2max, leg speed, or 6% bodyfat, it is being ambitious enough to put in all that work and patient enough to not let that desire lure them past what their body can take.

I'll use Ian as an "in-house" example. Last year Ian ran a bunch of fantastic races and dramatically improved his speed and endurance. What was the trick? I don't know what Ian will say, but my theory would be he progressively trained a little harder (longer/faster), making him faster AND capable of training even harder and faster yet. He built on what he had, and the miracle of "compound interest" paid huge dividends. How quickly he was able to add stress without getting an injury (last year, anyway) may have been more or less than you or I, but the exact same principle applies to us all: no magic. If I'm wrong on that Ian, and there is a shortcut, you'll tell me... right?

Next time a runner runs a great time I suggest you think about the investment, rather than thinking they are either "special" or simply genetically lucky. Each of us can make huge gains, probably WAY past our percieved limitations, but it will take a lot of ambition and a lot of patience to reach this potential: tenacity. Jeff has put in 2300k of running this year and 3500k of biking: not sure what that works out to in hours but his race times reflect this investment. I put 7-8 hours a week into running, not so much, but year to date that is 280+ hours. My memory sucks, but I think Ian put in >4000 km last year... he earned his times. More importantly, everyone who puts in a ton of work has ALREADY put in a ton of work over time to build their capacity for work. Simply going out and doing what they do NOW won't get you there, even if you have the same or more potential. The truly great athletes out there ARE genetically advantaged, but this is merely a prerequisite and they probably didn't know that when they started out TENACITY is what made them special. Anyone interested in the theme might want to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell. Not directly running related, but it applies.

Rant over.

[turd ferguson]

Great post - thanks. A lot of what you said here applies not just to running but to life.

I think the basic answer of what it take to become a fast distance runner is very simple and can be boiled down to two things: ambition and patience.

At the risk of messing up your simple approach, I'd add "hard work" to the list.

[Tori]

Great post - thanks. A lot of what you said here applies not just to running but to life.

I think the basic answer of what it take to become a fast distance runner is very simple and can be boiled down to two things: ambition and patience.

At the risk of messing up your simple approach, I'd add "hard work" to the list.

+1

[mas_runner]

That's a great rant there. You can't say, "oh well, he has the genetics, that's why he's so fast", without realising that a great deal of work went into achieving that potential. We all have a potential, whether we reach it or not is up to us, if we can push the limits whilst remaining patient, we can get there or close to it.

I have seen this first hand, I am running at paces I only dreamed about last year, why? because I have put in the work, pushing my lactate threshold, putting the miles on my legs, and taking rest when needed.

[eljeffe]

You hit the nail on the head with PATIENCE. It's a timely reminder for me. I was able to get faster than my friends early in the year because they got impatient, jumped up and tested themselves with too hard of efforts too early in the year while I stayed the course and did the work. I've learned about timing.

[La]

I'll use Ian as an "in-house" example. Last year Ian ran a bunch of fantastic races and dramatically improved his speed and endurance. What was the trick? I don't know what Ian will say, but my theory would be he progressively trained a little harder (longer/faster), making him faster AND capable of training even harder and faster yet. He built on what he had, and the miracle of "compound interest" paid huge dividends.

And to a lesser degree, my 2007-2008 season was like that, but with a twist: for me it was an issue of weight loss. Losing weight allowed me to run/train faster, which translated into faster race times and a whole bunch of new PBs at 10K, 21K and 30K.

Next time a runner runs a great time I suggest you think about the investment, rather than thinking they are either "special" or simply genetically lucky. Each of us can make huge gains, probably WAY past our percieved limitations, but it will take a lot of ambition and a lot of patience to reach this potential: tenacity. [...] More importantly, everyone who puts in a ton of work has ALREADY put in a ton of work over time to build their capacity for work. Simply going out and doing what they do NOW won't get you there, even if you have the same or more potential. The truly great athletes out there ARE genetically advantaged, but this is merely a prerequisite and they probably didn't know that when they started out TENACITY is what made them special. Anyone interested in the theme might want to read "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell. Not directly running related, but it applies.

I completely agree. Again, it's the whole nature vs. nuture debate. My position on that debate is that it's BOTH.

[purdy65]

Thanks for the post Michael!

These are things I always try to remember. I have been known to be tenacious (I get that from my Dad), but the patience I have to work on.

I KNOW I have no natural gifts in terms of speed, so I KNOW that every second I improve is through effort. Quick fix programs won't work for me - at least to be able to achieve the goal (BQ) I want to achieve. I need the miles and consitency. Through all this, my goal is more realistic than ever!

We'll see if it pays off! If it doesn't - knowing me -after some rest, I'll pick myself up, dust myself off and try again!

If it does pay off - you can call me lucky. Legendary Buffalo Bills coach Marv Levy always defined "luck" as the meeting of effort and opportunity.

Lisa

[LadyV]

It is like the question: which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

If you take, say, 3 runners, who have put in the same efforts, the same time and the same running volume during, say a 16-week training period, they will not run the same time in the same race on a given day.
There will be differences between these 3 runners - one might run a marathon in 3:45, another in 4:15 and a third one in 3:05
Why a difference between these 3 runners who have put in the same effort on a very consistent basis? It could be all kinds of factors: it could be talent, genetics, determination, nutrition, etc.

Faster runners don't like that slower runners say "its genetics", because that doesn't take into consideration all the necessary efforts that were required to get a good result
Slower runners don't like to hear faster runners saying "its not genetics, it is effort and tenacity", as it sometimes imply that slower runners are not tenacious enough to get good (or faster) results

Also, maybe, the best runner out of these 3 (meaning the fastest one) might be more easily motivated to train harder.
My point is that if you do run faster, it is more motivating and you might persevere more, because you are more confident in the result.

This is just the point of view of a slower runner...

[La]

Faster runners don't like that slower runners say "its genetics", because that doesn't take into consideration all the necessary efforts that were required to get a good result
Slower runners don't like to hear faster runners saying "its not genetics, it is effort and tenacity", as it sometimes imply that slower runners are not tenacious enough to get good (or faster) results

Very good points!

[alexk]

Well said, Michael. And just as there are people with more speed and talent, there are people with more patience and tenacity!

A couple of questions for you: when do you know you've reached your limit; when nothing (not hard work, patience or tenacity) will get you faster times? Do you believe in that 10 year rule (the idea that you can expect to improve as a runner for 10 years after you begin)? I'm thinking in terms of speed here, not strength and endurance.

I have no firm opinion on this myself, just curious about what people think.

[MichaelMc]

It is like the question: which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

If you take, say, 3 runners, who have put in the same efforts, the same time and the same running volume during, say a 16-week training period, they will not run the same time in the same race on a given day.
There will be differences between these 3 runners - one might run a marathon in 3:45, another in 4:15 and a third one in 3:05
Why a difference between these 3 runners who have put in the same effort on a very consistent basis? It could be all kinds of factors: it could be talent, genetics, determination, nutrition, etc.

Faster runners don't like that slower runners say "its genetics", because that doesn't take into consideration all the necessary efforts that were required to get a good result
Slower runners don't like to hear faster runners saying "its not genetics, it is effort and tenacity", as it sometimes imply that slower runners are not tenacious enough to get good (or faster) results

Also, maybe, the best runner out of these 3 (meaning the fastest one) might be more easily motivated to train harder.
My point is that if you do run faster, it is more motivating and you might persevere more, because you are more confident in the result.

This is just the point of view of a slower runner...

The issue I would take here is you are comparing different runners. Saying they all did the same training for 16 weeks is irrelevant; only identical twins have the same genetics and even they have different histories. There is no "everything else equal" in humans, so we are not promised equality of outcome. On the other hand we have remarkably similar systems and most causes and effects remain consistant in nature, although not in SCALE. In other words, usually you can apply the same principles and expect things to move in the same direction, you just can't know how MUCH.

For that reason I judge runners by how smart and hard they train and race, because they have control over that, not by their absolute or comparative (to other runners) times. There are runners who do all the right things, yet get beaten in races by others who don't. Races assign value to people by finishing order or time; I judge results by comparing the runners to what I THINK they should have run, and their training by what they USED to run. Only each one of us can honestly judge whether we are exhausting every opportunity, but having spent time among some elite athletes I can say truly remarkable results usually come along with remarkable efforts.

And to Alex, I have yet to reach a point in any sport where I thought I'd exhausted the posssibilities for improvement. I've reached the point where I wasn't willing to invest the effort for more improvement, but I can't think of a single top athlete that honestly thought "Yup, I've done everything possible". Age can (and ultimately will) take away faster than training can add, but we'll run out of time before running out of routes to improve IMO. Certainly explosive power is an area where Men peak early, so the time of peak potential AND peak training/experience/knowledge is short. The cruelest sport for this may be Women's (Girl's?) gynastics: washed up before emotionally maturing enough to know what you want!

For distance runners (and many other sports) I think the "10 year rule" is more a reflection of our interest rather than a physical limit. If one dedicates themselves very seriously to a sport for a decade, sacrificing many other things in the process, you reach a stage of diminishing returns and most simply choose not to go that one step further. As you age and gain perspective, often the monomaniacal pursuit of "slightly better" loses its appeal, especially as the investment required for it climbs. Some people don't lose the love and continue to strive because they love the process itself.

[VeloCarrie]

I can't believe I'm posting in the 'Speed Zone' . . .

Being a firm BOP'er and having absolutely NO speed or running genetics whatsoever, I've found the more miles I put in, the faster and longer I can go. People may beat me, but I put a lot of work in, and been rewarded because of it.

Just my 2 cents . . .

[richie-rich]

IMHO another good example is our very own Robbie-T .

[mcshame]

Love the discussion, but I have a bit of a problem with patience. Patience for some people may hold them back from their potential, not pushing hard enough. I like the word persistence, to face adversity and not give up. Yes you may get injured if you are overly not patient, but you require persistence to come back for more.

[Jwolf]

Love the discussion, but I have a bit of a problem with patience. Patience for some people may hold them back from their potential, not pushing hard enough.

Holding back is not patience. That's tentativeness.

Patience means it takes time for the hard work to pay off. I think it's the perfect word.

Persistence ties in more with ambition, actually.

But I also like the word "consistency." Not "constant" training, but "consistent."

[RayMan]

But I also like the word "consistency." Not "constant" training, but "consistent."

Yes I like the way you put it!

[Nicholas]

When people ask me what is the best training programme...I always say the one you will follow and will follow consistently. Agree with Michael here on the basic principles. Now, if you want to run in the Olympics you will need to optimise your training a bit more but the same basic principles apply.

[fingerboy]

Do you believe in that 10 year rule (the idea that you can expect to improve as a runner for 10 years after you begin)? I'm thinking in terms of speed here, not strength and endurance.

I thought it was the 7 year rule? with a gradual decrease in abilities.

Also, maybe, the best runner out of these 3 (meaning the fastest one) might be more easily motivated to train harder.
My point is that if you do run faster, it is more motivating and you might persevere more, because you are more confident in the result.
This is just the point of view of a slower runner...

The ultra group will have your head (or feet) for this! How can we say what is better to run 100m in 9.5 seconds vs running an 100 mile race in 20 hrs? It's subjective as the chicken and egg point you brought up.

Faster runners don't like that slower runners say "its genetics", because that doesn't take into consideration all the necessary efforts that were required to get a good result
Slower runners don't like to hear faster runners saying "its not genetics, it is effort and tenacity", as it sometimes imply that slower runners are not tenacious enough to get good (or faster) results

Anyways to my opinion in the debate,

I think there are genetic and trained aspects in this - obviously it depends on the individual - people have a maximum but most will never reach that unless they push and push and push. However, people also have an endurance aspect that they rarely meet. I know two Badwater finishers personally. It's not something I choose to do or can comprehend that I would be focused for, but I understand that it would be possible.

I think patience is a good term because of the 7 years rule that I'm referring to in the first quote. If you're going to peak, its after 7 years of intense training, and usually around 27 years of age seems to be it as well. So example: an African who as a kid got used to running and built up distance and then devoted 7 years to speed maybe at 15-22 or maybe 20-27 and then that was it, but 28 he's beaten by the next 27 year old and by 30 he'll never be as fast again. We see the idea of time played out again and again - in the Gladwell book "Outliers" he refers to the 10,000 hours principle. Him saying that if a person has put in 10,000 hours, he/she is an expert and if at the right opportunity can exploit it. So in running it's putting the 10,000 hours in from 20-27 and kicking butt. Thankfully there are many venues for people to take advantages (marathons).

Now what we reward is a different question. It's not necessarily correct to say we are more impressed with a 2:05 marathon than a 12 hr 100 mile race (I think that's the record). However it's certainly more exciting to watch. And because spectators are important, and as human beings we are especially obsessed with speed, speed will always be more important to us than endurance. However it is but one tool of running:

1) Speed
2) Endurance
3) Hills
4) Recovery time

The attributes one needs for each is of course things like patience, effort, hard work, perseverance etc. but the attributes certainly apply to all tools.

[Double Bellybuster]

Agreed with your post Michael.

Discussions in running circles seem to swing from thinking people can make massive gains in very short time periods...

I think this stems from the number of people that get terribly out-of-shape and then take an interest in athletics that sticks. When this happens, it gets a lot of discussion among impressed friends, and the amount of discussion has some correlation to the amount of starting excess baggage on the subject individual. While the improvement is dramatic, it has more to do with the below acceptable starting point than the result.

Not casting stones, I was such an individual.