Too Slow For "High" Mileage

Yes, run by time. I'm not sure about doubles at advanced ages. I've sometimes found that the things that hurt seem to hurt more the next day if I've run twice on the previous day and then I chicken out and don't double. If you don't experience that then I'd say doubles are the way to go but with one or two longer days in the mix.

the 90s bashing here is misguided and ignorant. most of the improvement in US running is due to the realization that speed and stamina are connected, not independent of one another, faster milers now race the distances. more importantly, no US record holders 800-5000m were actually doing high mileage.

secondly, the demographics were at a low point in the 90s. 1:44 8, 3:32 15, 809 steeple /13:00 5 were competitive then and still are. none of these achievements require high mileage.

in the 90's it was a big deal for a sub 4 miler to race the 10000m. only low 3:50 milers approach 27' for 10000m. now we have low 3:50 milers in the steeple, 5000 and 10000m and the times are better.

if you look at ethiopian and kenyan running the biggest difference is not added mileage but added quality running. (and the kenyan men are currently getting stomped on the track for neglecting the speed requirements and replacing it with mega-mileage). The best Kenyan marathoner (Sammy) was nowhere near the highest mileage runner.

modern training is high quality running. also note that US marathoning is more or less at an ebb aside from two runners, both who were sadly overtrained and had to adjust/recover. Hall ran 2:04 (wind aided) on lower mileage than he ran the 2:06. Ritz eventually figured out long mileage buildups were counter productive. Hall and Ritz have serious track backgrounds.

now older guys tend to lose much more on the muscle power side than stamina side. I would advise focusing on health first, getting the most out of your 1h/day and trying to get some speed back.

Old_Fat_Slow wrote:

Question for older/slower/higher mileage runners:

Former D1 runner who became a jogger in 30s and 40s. Now almost 50 and would like to get back in race shape. Came of age in the low mileage 90s so even in college never did doubles with any regularity.

Problem now... a 10 miler takes me 2 hours. A 40 mile week would have me out there at least 8 hours.

Is that too much pounding for a 50 year old? Would I be better at going by time? An easy run used to be 8 miles in an hour. Should an easy run now be 60 minutes at whatever pace?

Would doubles (30 min and 45 min) run a bit quicker be a better way to go?

Thanks

Run by time. Doubles, if you can do them, are a good way to spin your training back up.

The other thing to consider is loss of muscular strength. As much as it annoys me, some time spent in the gym instead of running helps me run faster now.

Old_Fat_Slow wrote:

Is that too much pounding for a 50 year old? Would I be better at going by time? An easy run used to be 8 miles in an hour. Should an easy run now be 60 minutes at whatever pace?

Would doubles (30 min and 45 min) run a bit quicker be a better way to go?

Yes. Easy should be easy, regardless of the pace, so 60 minutes is okay, provided you feel rested the next day. If not, slow down or reduce running time a bit. Gradually, you can increase both a bit.

I don't know about twice a days. I do it, but the second workout is cycling to take the pounding off my legs.

You need some speed at least once a week. Either do 10x100m strides or an interval workout. As another poster mentioned, you need to lift as well. As we get older, high intensity short duration exercise boosts testosterone levels. I think this is a key workout to age slower.

Don't run marathons.

dont forget recovery days. no more 2-3 hard wkouts a week. if you do some quality take 3-5 days inbetween! sounds like too much but it might just keep that calf attached to your foot!