Justin covers both the local action and the broader MUT stuff.
Fascinating read on Kip Litton, a guy whose name won’t ever rise to the status of Rosie Ruiz, but given his creativity, maybe it ought to.
=======
Ramble …
We all know runners that when they “turn it on” they have a laser focus. It seems that everything they do is geared towards the goal. The workouts, the recovery, the diet, the sleep, the other activities. It seems simple when you look at it from afar, but when you observe it up close, you realize that is not easy. These folks are also often the ones that when they turn it “off” completely step away from the sport. They take complete time off and let go, sometimes becoming a physical person that hardly resembles what they were.
The guy in Pikes history who perhaps best personifies this is Scott E. Scott won Pikes several times, before just dropping out of the sport. By his own admission he did not run a step for three years. Then when observing the Ascent finish in a time that he thought was too slow, he went on a mission to get back to his former fitness. His physical transformation was ridiculous: I have spoken with people who said he lost 50+ pounds in this year.
Imagine that for a second. You see the typical guy at your office. A bit overweight, out of shape, and he is basically saying, “yeah I am on a mission to win Pikes Peak next year.” You are the regular runner and you look at this guy and think, “good luck with that buddy, you’d be lucky to beat more than half of the folks to Barr Camp.” Except next year he does kick your butt and everyone else’s except one. He came back in 99 to take 2nd in race, then won it outright in 2000 (and again in 04 at the age of 40).
The amplitude of such athletes in intensity is highly varied, both low and high. Scott is an extreme example (few people have 8 wins at Pikes), and everyone is their own case study, but I see a lot of variations of these “Elliotts.”
I have encountered many friend runners that are of a similar mindset. I sort of look at these folks in awe. They step in and out of the sport not casually, but with almost a hard flick of some mental fabric switch. Alternatively, you have folks like me who seem to chug along along all the time. They never seem to burn out, and they get rewarded by their consistency. But I am left wondering what sort of athlete I would be if I could “turn it on” in the same manner that “Elliotts” do. Would I be able to get more out of myself physically in those periods? Or would I be more frustrated coming from zero fitness in trying to get back and so never come back? I know guys who I have run with who just stopped running once the competition alluded them. Once the game of having their nose in it at some level, their interest waned. I recall talking to one guy who was once a sub 30 10k racer. I asked him if he’d do Bolder Boulder, figuring he could break 35, which would do pretty well in the masters ranks. He had little interest in “running so slow.” He still jogs but has not appetite for toeing the line given the result it would give him.
I have wondered how much of this mental focus is yet another element of nature, genetics … no different than your V02 max, or bone structure. Is it something you really could choose? That bugs me because I’d love to think it was just a choice, but as I get older and I see certain physical patterns in my children that mirror me, I realize that there are some things are not a choice but are what you get dealt.
=======
Waking resting HR was 43. I slept pretty hard last night. And I ate the lid off the grill as well (we made kabobs). And the gauc was awesome. So I felt a bit sluggish to start the day.
Mid day – 5.7 miles easy, some with the Lucy dog. Pretty warm (87) compared to what we have had so I did not take her for much.
Evening – 5.3 miles easy. Felt pretty good.
I had more to say until getting to the last paragraph, and then you said it. Definitely a combination of talent and hard work with plenty of historical support for both (With a clarification that your examples of VO2max and bone structure are also, themselves, also combination of genetics and environment). . It's always a difficult topic, because it's impossible to quantify the mix, and it can sometimes sound like you're detracting from an athlete that works hard by even mentioning genetics. On the flip side, it's scientifically inaccurate to ignore genetic influences, so once you identify someone who has remarkable talent, you can use that information to promote training hard to reach world-class goals. The best make the most of what they're given, and high-level competition is built for discovering that. And if it's not obvious enough in running, take NBA basketball instead. Why in the world would we expect huge differences in some phenotypes, like height or myriad possible diseases and disorders; or see child prodigies that are excellent at music or language or chess at age 3; and then be surprised that some people are 10% faster than someone who trains just as hard?
ReplyDeleteBut I see that as a huge difference from this:
ReplyDelete" You see the typical guy at your office. A bit overweight, out of shape, and he is basically saying, “yeah I am on a mission to win Pikes Peak next year.” "
That's oversimplified and a vastly different thing. Someone who already was competitive already made a de-facto discovery of their talent, and have some of that residual ability in addition to the knowledge and confidence to do it again. We know that "detrained" athletes come back quicker than those that haven't trained at all. That's much different than a person deciding, in one year, to become the best runner (or singer or basketball player or whatever).
Lastly, inter-person competition is a zero-sum game, unlike an objective goal like climbing Mt. Everest. The fat guy at the office could train to climb Mt. Everest. If 20 guys at the office train for Pikes, at least 19 of them aren't going to win by definition.
Mike - true, Scott is a case study of an individual as he had both physiology and psychology to be successful. My point in mentioning that was really to illustrate how much he would step out of the sport, and then pour himself back into it. His results are an extreme reflection of that, but that sort of approach (even without such results) is one I have seen in quite a few runners.
DeleteAh, I get the focus of your angle now -- how the "all-in"/"all-out" approach strategy works for some people, and how it's a different mentality. And it of course depends on why a person enjoys running in the first place, to a degree.
Delete*
If you enjoyed Kip (and have too much time), there was another thread on Letsrun (deleted, but archived) involving a couple more confirmed cheaters, who sometimes picked up awards. I think the whole thing is fascinating: the desire to cheat in the first place at moderate/amateur level, as well as the extreme dedication of some of the people in pointing it out. It reminds me of your pointing out a few weeks ago about being able to claim medals in RnR marathons without actually running it -- strange psychology! And they still sleep at night.
The extreme dedication of some to point it out is also interesting, but a mentality I can more easily relate to. But I think I'd only be compelled to do that if I was impacted by the issue. Not sure if I'd make the chase if not ...
DeleteInteresting, Kathleen from Happy Trails and I just have this conversation yesterday on a long bike ride, about those with intense focus and drive. I personally feel that certain people live a lifestyle that allows them to be a little more devoted than others....but Kathleen said I was pretty "intense" for someone who juggles so much.
ReplyDeleteAnyhoo....
Okay, so no more gushing at the coach nor talk of trail running on my blog, got it :). And Ryan ran a 1:56 at regionals last week...1:58 is old news! Let's see what happens on Thur at state. Thanks for the comment! :)
Hey Jill - was talking to Cynthia F today (we both work at the same place). Say hi to her at dinner next week!
DeleteA bit late to the party...but I think there is not way you can discount some genetic influences. Just like basketball players are genetically selected by height, there is certainly a running body type that tends to lead to success. Just look at an elite field of 2:0X marathon runners. There are obviously some anomalies, but statistically speaking elite runners tend towards a similar body type. Just think if Killian was built like an NFL lineman...he might not be quite as good at running uphill ;-)
ReplyDeleteI imagine the mental focus thing has to have some sort of genetic component. I think we all know people (in and out of running) who can be extremely focused when needed, and others who just do not seem to be able to really focus in on something no matter how important it is.
Right. Genetic differences like the body type are easy to measure (or easier). I am not sure how we could ever measure some of the mental genetic differences I am wondering about in the realm of competition. But that might be because I am genetically stupider than others who could figure that out.
Delete