Max speed endurance

P

paul

Guest
I've never really known how fast I can run so have tried a few runs on a treadmill at the gym.
My aim was to see what speed I can run a mile at. After a couple of attempts, I realise that I
can do a mile
(1.6km) at the max speed of the treadmill, i.e. 16kph, but can't run much further than that at that
speed. So I've upped the distance a bit and managed 2km at that speed so far. So my question is,
is increasing the distance at a constant speed a useful form of training if, say, I want to
eventually be able to run 5km at 16kph, or would I be better off pursuing some other method? I'm
also doing longer around 10 miles or so.

Paul

On 25 Feb 2004 16:39:26 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>I've never really known how fast I can run so have tried a few runs on a treadmill at the gym. My
>aim was to see what speed I can run a mile at. After a couple of attempts, I realise that I can
>do a mile
>(1.6km) at the max speed of the treadmill, i.e. 16kph, but can't run much further than that at that
> speed. So I've upped the distance a bit and managed 2km at that speed so far. So my question is,
> is increasing the distance at a constant speed a useful form of training if, say, I want to
> eventually be able to run 5km at 16kph, or would I be better off pursuing some other method? I'm
> also doing longer around 10 miles or so.
>
>Paul

Paul, stop jabbering. You're making the Brits on rec.running look bad.

Establish precisely what you're trying to say, then say it in one grammatically correct post of less
than forty words.

Many thanks.

In article <[email protected]>, Aiseopos wrote:

> On 25 Feb 2004 16:39:26 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>>I've never really known how fast I can run so have tried a few runs on a treadmill at the gym. My
>>aim was to see what speed I can run a mile at. After a couple of attempts, I realise that I can
>>do a mile
>>(1.6km) at the max speed of the treadmill, i.e. 16kph, but can't run much further than that at
>> that speed. So I've upped the distance a bit and managed 2km at that speed so far. So my
>> question is, is increasing the distance at a constant speed a useful form of training if, say,
>> I want to eventually be able to run 5km at 16kph, or would I be better off pursuing some other
>> method? I'm also doing longer around 10 miles or so.

> Establish precisely what you're trying to say, then say it in one grammatically correct post of
> less than forty words.

Didn't think it was so complicated...

I can run 2km at 16kph. I want to be able to run 5km at 16kph. Is attempting to increase my distance
each time I run, while maintaining the same speed, a good way to reach that goal?

There you go, 38 words.

Paul

On 25 Feb 2004 20:26:43 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Aiseopos wrote:

>I can run 2km at 16kph. I want to be able to run 5km at 16kph. Is attempting to increase my
>distance each time I run, while maintaining the same speed, a good way to reach that goal?
>
>There you go, 38 words.

Such effort merits a serious reply...

It's one way, and it'll probably work, but it isn't the best way.

5k isn't far but it does rather test your ability to run anaerobically. To this end you need to
develop the ability to feel comfortable (and this is relative) near your anaerobic limit. Strangely
enough, the best way to achieve this is to spend some considerable time training beyond this limit.

You'll find there are 10,000 different training plans that will achieve your goal. Google '5K
training plans' or wait until Donovan picks up your question. However, I did promise some advice so
here it comes...

Day 1 Run 2k Day 2 Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps Day 3 Run 1k Day 4
Rest Day 5 Run 3k Day 6 Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps Day 7 Run 2k
Day 8 Rest Day 9 Run 4k Day 10 Rest Day 11 Run 3k Day 12 Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute
rest between reps Day 13 Run 2k Day 14 Rest Day 15 Run 3k Day 16 Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three
minute rest between reps Day 17 Run 2k Day 18 Rest Day 19 Run 5k Day 20 Rest Day 21 Run 4k Day 22
Sprint 400m on track x 8 with three minute rest between reps Day 23 Run 2k Day 24 Rest Day 25 Run 6k
Day 27 Rest Day 28 Run 5k Day 29 Sprint 400m on track x 8 with three minute rest between reps Day 30
Run 2k Day 31 Rest Day 32 Sprint 400m on track x 4 with three minute rest between reps Day 33 Run 5k
time trial.

The ONLY runs you time will be your track sprints and your 5k time trial. Warm up and cool down
THOROUGHLY before your track sessions. You should sprint HARD during these sessions. Your final 5k
time will be sub 20 minutes.

Have fun.

In article <[email protected]>, Aiseopos wrote:

> On 25 Feb 2004 20:26:43 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>>I can run 2km at 16kph. I want to be able to run 5km at 16kph. Is attempting to increase my
>>distance each time I run, while maintaining the same speed, a good way to reach that goal?

> It's one way, and it'll probably work, but it isn't the best way.

> 5k isn't far but it does rather test your ability to run anaerobically. To this end you need to
> develop the ability to feel comfortable (and this is relative) near your anaerobic limit.
> Strangely enough, the best way to achieve this is to spend some considerable time training beyond
> this limit.

> You'll find there are 10,000 different training plans that will achieve your goal. Google '5K
> training plans' or wait until Donovan picks up your question. However, I did promise some advice
> so here it comes...

> Day 1 Run 2k Day 2 Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps
[snip]
> Day 32 Sprint 400m on track x 4 with three minute rest between reps Day 33 Run 5k time trial.

> The ONLY runs you time will be your track sprints and your 5k time trial. Warm up and cool down
> THOROUGHLY before your track sessions. You should sprint HARD during these sessions. Your final 5k
> time will be sub 20 minutes.

When you say "Run 2k", what sort of pace would I aim for? As fast as I can, or some other
effort level?

Now I just need to find a track...

> Have fun.

Thanks!

Paul

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Aiseopos wrote:

> When you say "Run 2k", what sort of pace would I aim for? As fast as I can, or some other
> effort level?

I think (certainly hope) he means that the other runs are supposed to be fairly comfortable.

> Now I just need to find a track...

Or just measure out a 400m stretch (if you can't measure one out, estimate it)

Since the rests are 3 minutes long, you should have plenty of time to jog back to the "starting
line" of each rep. Doing so should take you between 2 and 2.5 min -- they're supposed to be rests.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 23:48:42 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> When you say "Run 2k", what sort of pace would I aim for? As fast as I can, or some other
>> effort level?

>I think (certainly hope) he means that the other runs are supposed to be fairly comfortable.

The recovery run the day after your track sessions should always be a steady jog, i.e. a pace at
which you could maintain a conversation. For the others, I'd push as hard as you feel. If you're
feeling strong, work hard. If you feel 'tender', take it easy.

>Or just measure out a 400m stretch (if you can't measure one out, estimate it)

No. Find a track. It's more focussed and it's accurate. With any luck you'll find others doing
interval work (that's what you're doing) who'll be happy to offer advice.

>Since the rests are 3 minutes long, you should have plenty of time to jog back to the "starting
>line" of each rep. Doing so should take you between 2 and 2.5 min -- they're supposed to be rests.

Agreed, but not too much of a rest. The aim should be to assist lactic dispersal NOT to recover
completely. I'm trying to build a degree of lactic tolerance within the bounds of common sense for a
newbie runner.

The nice thing about this trackwork is that in the fifth and sixth session he'll cover 3200m MUCH
faster than his 'time trial' pace and around 2500-3000m in his recovery jogs. He'll probably spend
around 34-36 minutes on his feet covering over 6k, most of that time being spent with lactic acid
whooshing round his leggies. I'm guessing a 6
min/mile 5k won't feel too hard after that.

Funnily enough, this is almost exactly how I started running. Concentrate on maintaining speed
through regular interval work and the distance will take care of itself. As I said somewhere else, I
ran some spectacular road, track and cross country races - up to 10 miles
- off 35 mpw, but at least half of those miles were track based (and I didn't count the recovery
jogs) and bloody hard work.

A 5K is not very "anaerobic" at all. It is an aerobic event, most of the time should be spent
building the aerobic system first and then adding some lactate threshold work.

Paul, I would recommend starting with running at an easy pace (conversation pace) several times a
week for several weeks before doing anything hard. Run 5x/wk for at least 30min at a time. Come back
after 6 weeks and I'll share more. "Aiseopos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 25 Feb 2004 20:26:43 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Aiseopos wrote:
>
> >I can run 2km at 16kph. I want to be able to run 5km at 16kph. Is attempting to increase my
> >distance each time I run, while maintaining the same speed, a good way to reach that goal?
> >
> >There you go, 38 words.
>
> Such effort merits a serious reply...
>
> It's one way, and it'll probably work, but it isn't the best way.
>
> 5k isn't far but it does rather test your ability to run anaerobically. To this end you need to
> develop the ability to feel comfortable (and this is relative) near your anaerobic limit.
> Strangely enough, the best way to achieve this is to spend some considerable time training beyond
> this limit.
>
> You'll find there are 10,000 different training plans that will achieve your goal. Google '5K
> training plans' or wait until Donovan picks up your question. However, I did promise some advice
> so here it comes...
>
> Day 1 Run 2k Day 2 Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps Day 3 Run 1k Day 4
> Rest Day 5 Run 3k Day 6 Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three minute rest between reps Day 7 Run 2k
> Day 8 Rest Day 9 Run 4k Day 10 Rest Day 11 Run 3k Day 12 Sprint 400m on track x 6 with three
> minute rest between reps Day 13 Run 2k Day 14 Rest Day 15 Run 3k Day 16 Sprint 400m on track x 6
> with three minute rest between reps Day 17 Run 2k Day 18 Rest Day 19 Run 5k Day 20 Rest Day 21 Run
> 4k Day 22 Sprint 400m on track x 8 with three minute rest between reps Day 23 Run 2k Day 24 Rest
> Day 25 Run 6k Day 27 Rest Day 28 Run 5k Day 29 Sprint 400m on track x 8 with three minute rest
> between reps Day 30 Run 2k Day 31 Rest Day 32 Sprint 400m on track x 4 with three minute rest
> between reps Day 33 Run 5k time trial.
>
> Total 46k road/grass, 17k track.
>
> The ONLY runs you time will be your track sprints and your 5k time trial. Warm up and cool down
> THOROUGHLY before your track sessions. You should sprint HARD during these sessions. Your final 5k
> time will be sub 20 minutes.
>
> Have fun.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Aiseopos wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > No. Find a track. It's more focussed and it's accurate. With any luck you'll find others doing
> > interval work (that's what you're doing) who'll be happy to offer advice.
>
> [snip]
> > The nice thing about this trackwork is that in the fifth and sixth session he'll cover 3200m
> > MUCH faster than his 'time trial' pace and around 2500-3000m in his recovery jogs. He'll
> > probably spend around 34-36 minutes on his feet covering over 6k, most of that time being spent
> > with lactic acid whooshing round his leggies. I'm guessing a 6
> > min/mile 5k won't feel too hard after that.
>
>
> Paul

Paul, based on what you have been doing, this seems like moving into this realm awfully fast.

the 5K is an aerobic event dammit!

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:06:50 GMT, "Sam" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Paul, based on what you have been doing, this seems like moving into this realm awfully fast.

Piffle. Based on his statement that he's fit enough to sustain a 16 kph pace for 2k, he's fit enough
for that programme.

He didn't ask for a programme to introduce him to a lifetimes running, he asked for a plan to get to
5k at 16 kph. That'll do it.

>the 5K is an aerobic event dammit!

Sure. *Everything* is aerobic to the rec.runners. Go google for a table displaying the relative
aerobic/anaerobic components of the 5k. Or better still, go run one fast. Then come back here and
tell me it's an aerobic event.

For the few of you that have any inclination to actually *run*, you'll have to become familiar with
speed. If you've mental discipline for it, I'd suggest fartlek, but it's damn hard to push yourself
as hard as you should when it's only you and your god watching.

OTOH, track work is blindly straightforward. You have the track, your watch and your schedule. You
do the work, it hurts, but you get faster. I've seen a slightly modified version of the programme
work many times, although it's fair to point out that it's also broken a few spirits too.

It's a pure guess of course, but I'll happily bet than anyone who could respond to my original post
in the manner Paul chose has the personality to achieve his goals via the most direct route.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:04:58 GMT, "Sam" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Come back after 6 weeks and I'll share more.

Ha! In six weeks he'll have completed his aim and be windsurfing in the Med, whilst you, my little
plodder, are still churning out your pointless miles.

Try running on a road. A treadmill is only a simulation, and a poor one at that.

In article <_3n%[email protected]>, Sam wrote:
> Paul, based on what you have been doing, this seems like moving into this realm awfully fast.
>
> the 5K is an aerobic event dammit!

I don't think I said what I've been doing. Just got back from a lunchtime run: 11.5 miles at
07:55/mi. I started running at the beginning of January and am running about 3 times a week and
playing squash twice a week. My aim was just to get fit and lose some weight. I've lost about 17
pounds and gone from 24.5% fat to 17% (according to a tanita body fat monitor scale).

Paul

In article <[email protected]>, Paul Robeson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:06:50 GMT, "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Paul, based on what you have been doing, this seems like moving into this realm awfully fast.
>
> Piffle. Based on his statement that he's fit enough to sustain a 16 kph pace for 2k, he's fit
> enough for that programme.
>
> He didn't ask for a programme to introduce him to a lifetimes running, he asked for a plan to get
> to 5k at 16 kph. That'll do it.
>
>>the 5K is an aerobic event dammit!
>
> Sure. *Everything* is aerobic to the rec.runners. Go google for a table displaying the relative
> aerobic/anaerobic components of the 5k. Or better still, go run one fast. Then come back here and
> tell me it's an aerobic event.

Ingrid Kristiansen was a former record holder for the 5k and yet was a lousy sprinter.

http://ingrid-kristiansen.com/holisticfitness/running.htm

Sure it's fast, but it's all about endurance. Tell me something -- who is a likely to be a
better 5k runner, an elite marathoner or an elite 400m runner ? Could Michael Johnson beat
Martin Lel in a 5k ?

Of course the 5k is fast, but it's still largely about endurance.

> For the few of you that have any inclination to actually *run*, you'll have to become familiar
> with speed.

Even then, you need to be able to not just sprint, but actually sustain a fast pace. I've found
1200m repeats very effective -- the distance is short enough that one can do them at a good pace
(faster than 5k pace), but long enough that you can't just sprint through them. I found that the end
result of doing 400m repeats was that I could beat other runners in short interval sessions, only to
have the same runners kick my butt in races.

> If you've mental discipline for it, I'd suggest fartlek, but it's damn hard to push yourself as
> hard as you should when it's only you and your god watching.

IMO fartlek is better done in groups or as an "entry level" speed workout that one could use in
weeks leading up to serious speed training (to me that means "track work" or hill work with a
training group)

> OTOH, track work is blindly straightforward. You have the track, your watch and your schedule. You
> do the work, it hurts, but you get faster.

You get faster at something anyway.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Paul Robeson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Sure. *Everything* is aerobic to the rec.runners. Go google for a table displaying the relative
> aerobic/anaerobic components of the 5k. Or better still, go run one fast. Then come back here and
> tell me it's an aerobic event.

You may find this hard to believe Paul, but the 5k *is* an aerobic event. I believe your idea of
what aerobic means could be misunderstood. It would be impossible to run anaerobically more than a
very short time. Even distance such as the mile and 800m have major aerobic significance.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:27:46 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ingrid Kristiansen was a former record holder for the 5k and yet was a lousy sprinter.

You'd like me to list the 5k record holders who are good sprinters? And what would that prove? That
we can both make lists?

>Sure it's fast, but it's all about endurance. Tell me something -- who is a likely to be a
>better 5k runner, an elite marathoner or an elite 400m runner ? Could Michael Johnson beat
>Martin Lel in a 5k ?

You're being disingenuous. We both know it's *easier* to encompass 5k and marathon running than it
is to encompass 400m and 5k running. That wasn't the point. The OP asked for the 'best' way to reach
5k at 16 kph, and noted that he was already running up to ten miles. I provided a minimum mileage,
track based, answer. It isn't the only answer but, in this instance, I believe it to be the most
straightforward way for the OP to achieve his goal.

>Even then, you need to be able to not just sprint, but actually sustain a fast pace. I've found
>1200m repeats very effective -- the distance is short enough that one can do them at a good pace
>(faster than 5k pace), but long enough that you can't just sprint through them. I found that the
>end result of doing 400m repeats was that I could beat other runners in short interval sessions,
>only to have the same runners kick my butt in races.

We're all different, but 400m repeats are a good place for a newbie to start To suggest that someone
only able to sustain a fast pace for 2000m should commence at any other level would be ridiculous.

>IMO fartlek is better done in groups or as an "entry level" speed workout that one could use in
>weeks leading up to serious speed training (to me that means "track work" or hill work with a
>training group)

Donny, Donny, Donny, you keep telling me what you believe, rather than what may be useful to the OP.
Frankly, I consider much of your advice to be a little too theoretical and research based, rather
than founded on personal experience or observation. Would you be insulted if I used the phrase 'book
learning'?

Give yourself ten years of national-standard running and you'll develop a more rounded approach to
running theory and practice. As I said elsewhere, Paul will achieve by attitude and effort what you
would seek to diss through theory and statistics.

Give me an athlete with a clear ambition over a head full of theories any day.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:35:28 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You argued that the running 5k was "anaerobic". That was the point I took issue with.

No. That was the point with which you took issue. A Yankee grad student that can't write. Now
there's a surprise.

>FWIW, I didn't think your schedule was all that bad, and it wasn't your schedule I was disputing.

And this is meant to make me happy? Now I'm convinced my schedule is wrong.

>So I think it's a silly argument.

And boy, do you know all about silly arguments...

>I was commenting on your post, not giving advice to the OP.

Well don't bother, for I have neither the time nor the inclination to point out the many technical
and logical faults in your inane and self-congratulatory musings.

>In this case, I call "********".

Of course. It's your standard response when you run out of words which, regrettably, isn't
that often.

>Not only do I *understand* it, through *experience*, I get a refresher on it every week. I'm not
>drawing on distant memories of great workouts in the distant past.

Therefore, when offering advice, experience carries no value, currency is all. Donny, you are
verging on the offensive. May I suggest an apology would be appropriate here?

>I've done my track workout in the last week. Have you ?

Why, yes. I have a race this weekend.

>I've done fartlek running before, in groups and alone. I've done a lot of track training, it's been
>my primary source of interval work, so I've probably done more track work than some of the more
>experienced runners here.
>
>You yourself said track work is "more precise". I'd argue that track work not only gives you
>precision, it gives you *structure*. When you go to the track with a watch, the track is simply a
>vast, barren, merciless landscape, and the watch is a brutal taskmaster. You can't fool the track
>or your watch. That's what makes it so demanding -- the transparency of it all. Track workouts are
>just brutal.
>
>You can possibly make fartlek as demanding physiologically, but it doesn't come close mentally.

Donny, you're telling me what I've already written.

> If you don't understand this, go outside and do some track work instead of trolling usenet.

Surely even you can tell the difference between a post and a troll? I made my aims in this thread
perfectly clear in my second post to Paul.

>I'm out there doing the miles, doing my track work, doing my tempos, doing my races week after
>week, while you're drawing from distant memories from back in "the good old days" when you felt
>more like a winner and less like a has-been.

Oh dear! Perhaps Wobbot was right, you are all hot air, testosterone and a strong right arm.

A 'has-been' I most certainly am, but may I point out two things? Firstly, at least for some portion
of my running career I was 'there', which you most certainly will never be. And secondly, based on
your posted run times, this 'has been' could still comfortably whip your ill-mannered ass over 5k,
10k and 10 miles. Frankly, if I ever find myself in New York, I would consider it a pleasure to
provide you with a lesson in both manners and running. For free, of course.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:44:20 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Fair enough -- I understand that your time is an extremely scarce and valuable resource.

I'm more than happy - when the mood takes me - to offer what I can to those prepared to listen with
an open mind. I find it tiresome in the extreme to waste my time talking to someone who has nothing
to learn, and who has an answer for everything.

Donny, you will never rise above the herd if you insist on being right all of the time. One
intelligent probing question is worth a thousand trivial answers. Concentrate on discovering what
you don't know rather than expounding upon what you do.

>They are both important.

Then why suggest otherwise?

>I'm sorry ``verging on the offensive'', or challenging your experience. I try to do better
>than this.

You misunderstand. Challenge all you want. All I was asking was that you manage to do so with a
degree of politeness.

>Scientific curiosity drives my interest in theories and lab results, but I can assure you that such
>interest does not in any way inhibit my desire to run a great race, and do the required training.

I'm wondering if this is true. I think sometimes you let your 'knowledge' define your athletic
expectations. In short, you may have been a better and more adventurous runner had you 'known' less.
Does that make sense?

>> Oh dear! Perhaps Wobbot was right,
>I see your humorous side is showing.

I wasn't making a joke. He may have you sussed.

>Neither your ability nor your unique experience places you in much of a position to trash mine.

Au contraire. They place me in *exactly* that position. I can spot an emperor without any clothes
with ease.

> Ability is a gift, not a virtue. When a newbie who looks like he's going to be the next Roger
> Bannister posts here, I have little doubt that your unique insights will be more relevant than
> mine (assuming of course that you're being honest about your ability/achievements).

If/when that happens, he/she won't be looking to me for advice. They'll have the balls to find
things out for themselves.

>Until that happens, and I'm sure we can agree that it may not happen terribly soon, perhaps we can
>both offer interesting and relevant perspectives.

Fine words, Donny. I somehow doubt that either of us - for very different reasons - will live up to
these idealistic goals.

>I'd be happy take you up on the running lesson.

Oh, it wasn't a friendly offer. I'd simply find out what race you were in and grind you into the
ground. I'll even do my 'you're a pathetic loser' dance as you stumble over the finish line.

Sometimes I enjoy running for its own sake, and sometimes I enjoy it for the misery I can bring to
the lives of those less talented...

On 26 Feb 2004 21:46:23 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Speaking as one of those less talented...

Now, now. Don't limit your expectations of yourself. You may be more talented than you think.

>Well, I've located a track about 5 miles from home. Now got to figure out the logistics of getting
>there before work. I just have one more question about the training schedule. Is there anything
>special about the 2-5k recovery runs? Would swapping them with easy 6-10 mile ones do any harm, or
>must they be so short?

OK, I'll be honest. The track work, done properly, is a killer. You won't feel like doing 6 - 10
miles unless you have recovery powers that place you in the top 10% of an athletic population - in
which, of course, it's entirely possible that you may be.

As I seem to be stuck with you, pop down to the track at the weekend and do 4 x 400 flat out. Don't
rest for more than 3 mins between each rep. Then do 2 x 800. Rest for 5 mins between reps. Note the
times for each rep. Post them here.

A few pointers. Be HONEST about your times. No-one will laugh at you if you're slow - it's your
first track session after all. Expect your times to slow over the reps, but make an effort to
maintain your running form - don't get all gangly, keep it neat. REALLY concentrate on maintaining
your stride pattern over the last 50m when you're shattered. Don't run on the inside lane if others
are at the track, use lanes 2 or 3 unless you're doing a time trial. Warm up by jogging a couple of
laps, then perform some stretches, then do some strides - a jog easing into a sprint for 10m-20m
then easing back into a jog - then do your reps. Perform the cool-down in reverse - i.e. a few
strides, some stretches, than a couple of laps gentle jog. Oh - and if anyone talks to you, be nice,
you never know who they might be.

Christ, at the end of this we'll have turned you into an athlete

BTW, if you do turn out to be the next Coe, I expect 5% of whatever marketing deals you secure and a
namecheck every time you're interviewed by the BBC.