---

HRE wrote:
Avoiding hanging out with real people has been a lifelong goal.

---

---

jerrry wrote:
not to blow your mind but I am 52

this summer I have run
200, 170, 127,180.... (ave 130 for the last 16 weeks)

212 was my highest 7 day total

and I didn't die...I got really tired, but that is expected

I'm not an ultra marathoner
or even a marathoner really (though I have done one)
it is not what I am training for (2m - 1/2 marathon Is my target)


You should know back in the day, runners regularly ran over 140 miler per week - the good ones, that is. I maxed out a 100 in college.

---

---

Follower of Miles wrote:
I follow a 52 year old guy on Strava and he regularly runs 150+ mpw. He topped the LetsRun leaderboard on Strava for months. He does most of his mileage around 7.20-8.00. He only runs a max of 6 days per week too. One day he did 30 miles at about 7.40 pace and then went out a few hours later and ran 14 miles as an 'easy to moderate' progression run, doing a half in around 1.30, having started out at about 7.30 pace. He's injured now but not a running/overuse injury.

---

---

Pretzel Man wrote:

jerrry wrote:
not to blow your mind but I am 52

this summer I have run
200, 170, 127,180.... (ave 130 for the last 16 weeks)

212 was my highest 7 day total

and I didn't die...I got really tired, but that is expected

I'm not an ultra marathoner
or even a marathoner really (though I have done one)
it is not what I am training for (2m - 1/2 marathon Is my target)


You should know back in the day, runners regularly ran over 140 miler per week - the good ones, that is. I maxed out a 100 in college.

---

So your not married and have no sex life, because with that kinda milage wood don't come easy.

---

ScriptedConnection wrote:
Not completely related to the topic, but may I ask those who have had run 140+ mpw here what your PRs are?

---

---

Well that settles it... wrote:

HRE wrote:
Avoiding hanging out with real people has been a lifelong goal.

---

Looks like your efforts in this regard have paid off handsomely.

---

Kenyatta moombatta wrote:
Believe it or not, I know a guy who did 140/wk, every week for at least 10 yrs. He was also on a string of running days of over 30 yrs.

---

---

jewbacca wrote:

Runnertrotts wrote:

johnny bean wrote:
it's difficult to fuel someone who isn't professional and has to set themselves on a diet for running 100+ miles a week. anything above 80 mpw is really when you begin to get intestinal problems and deficiencies if it isn't carefully monitored.

---

Can you explain more of what you mean by this? I recently increased my mileage to 80+ a week and have been noticing some GI discomfort. What should I be looking out for and how do I monitor it?

Thanks

Johnny Bean is blowing smoke. Running high mileage doesn't cause GI problems.

---

jewbacca wrote:
Johnny Bean is blowing smoke. Running high mileage doesn't cause GI problems.

---

---

Bleu wrote:
Guessing these guys never had overuse injuries at 20 yo. Some people don't get injured

---

---

Bleu wrote:
The reasons why some 55 yos don't run as much or at all often has nothing to do with injuries.

---

---

Bleu wrote:
I know a guy who ran the marathon trials in his 20s and 30s and works out twice as much now. Runs, bikes and swims every day! Not the same mileage but a lot more time. It takes all Sun to do a long ride 60-100 miles. I would be bored out of my mind.

---

---

Twinn wrote:

Famous American clock cleaner wrote:
Mathematically, no. The risk of running 110 mi a week will always be greater than 90. I don't know why you're making the argument: seems like a moot point. If you progress correctly you will always have a better chance of running a higher mileage safely.

The training principle of individuality suggests that 90 miles a week will be better than 110 for some people and vice versa. Someone might have more slow twitch fibers and require more easy and threshold running to develop them, thus higher mileage

Twinn wrote:

Runrincerepeat wrote:
I will always agree that for most more miles the better. My point is for some guys 90miles may be better for them than 110 and for some guys 110 is better than 90.

---

What makes you say that? There is one good answer, and that is they risk more injury/fatigue at higher mileages, but as I said, if you train right, progress correctly, then the risk of injury at 110 and 90 is the same.

Look, I understand your perspective. But I am trying to get you to change your perspective.

Training is not math. Injuries are not probability. You're pretending they are and using that to justify less work being better.

And principle of individuality? I don't think you know what you mean when you say that. All things being equal, any individual will be a better runner with higher milage, as I said before. Ignoring injuries, fatigue, boredom, dude getting made fun of by his neighbor, all things being equal, more mileage will make a better runner, for every individual.

Your concern over those other factors, injury, fatigue, etc. is justified. But those aren't absolutes. You train to avoid injuries. You eat and sleep well to avoid injuries. Your body doesn't have an odometer, and doesn't know the difference between 10, 90, and 160 miles. All it does feel is the stress, all it does in response is to try to adapt. Years of progression, upping milage and its stress in that sweet spot, and any individual can be running safely at a higher mileage (what is individual is that sweet spot: some can bump into new territory 10 miles at a time, while others might push 3 new miles and take a down week. That progression is the individual part.)

You talk about training as individual, which is good, but you're thinking about it as a paint by numbers game: 90 good, 110 bad. All I'll say is you're making the choice to work less hard than others.

---

giver of explanations wrote:

Pretzel Man wrote:

jerrry wrote:
not to blow your mind but I am 52

this summer I have run
200, 170, 127,180.... (ave 130 for the last 16 weeks)

212 was my highest 7 day total

and I didn't die...I got really tired, but that is expected

I'm not an ultra marathoner
or even a marathoner really (though I have done one)
it is not what I am training for (2m - 1/2 marathon Is my target)


You should know back in the day, runners regularly ran over 140 miler per week - the good ones, that is. I maxed out a 100 in college.

---

So your not married and have no sex life, because with that kinda milage wood don't come easy.

Please search letsrun for PNSO.

---

Forcerunner wrote:

ScriptedConnection wrote:
Not completely related to the topic, but may I ask those who have had run 140+ mpw here what your PRs are?

---

Sorry for double post... but here is a progression from 2012 on

PRs (yearly mpw average in parentheses)

2012 (45) - 15:30 road 5k, 26:02 8k, 32:12 10k

2013 (67) - 4:26 road mile, 15:04 road 5k, 15:09 track 5k, 25:48 8k, 31:51 10k

2014 (92) - 4:23 indoor mile, 8:45 3k, 14:57 road 5k, 14:58 track 5k, 25:30 8k, 31:24 10k, 69:06 HM

2015 (102) - 8:33 3k, 14:45 track 5k, 25:02 8k. 2:31:58 marathon.

2016 (112) - 5k 14:31, 24:46 5mi, 30:47 10k, 67:32 HM

2017 (120 so far) - 5k 14:36, 24:10 5mi, 30:10 10k, 67:43HM through 25k race. Running fall HM and fall marathon.

---

Pretzel Man wrote:
[quote]giver of explanations wrote:
[quote]Pretzel Man wrote:
[quote]jerrry wrote:
not to blow your mind but I am 52

this summer I have run
200, 170, 127,180.... (ave 130 for the last 16 weeks)

212 was my highest 7 day total

and I didn't die...I got really tired, but that is expected

I'm not an ultra marathoner
or even a marathoner really (though I have done one)
it is not what I am training for (2m - 1/2 marathon Is my target)


You should know back in the day, runners regularly ran over 140 miler per week - the good ones, that is. I maxed out a 100 in college.

So your not married and have no sex life, because with that kinda milage wood don't come easy.

Please search letsrun for PNSO.

Searched, please explain further PNSO ??

---

---

Just some guy... wrote:
Go have a look at Renato Canova'sp posts, his guys (and Kamworor, cheptegai, kipchoge...etc) ran up to 230 km a week.

---

---

Twinn wrote:

Famous American clock cleaner wrote:
Mathematically, no. The risk of running 110 mi a week will always be greater than 90. I don't know why you're making the argument: seems like a moot point. If you progress correctly you will always have a better chance of running a higher mileage safely.

The training principle of individuality suggests that 90 miles a week will be better than 110 for some people and vice versa. Someone might have more slow twitch fibers and require more easy and threshold running to develop them, thus higher mileage

Twinn wrote:

Runrincerepeat wrote:
I will always agree that for most more miles the better. My point is for some guys 90miles may be better for them than 110 and for some guys 110 is better than 90.

---

What makes you say that? There is one good answer, and that is they risk more injury/fatigue at higher mileages, but as I said, if you train right, progress correctly, then the risk of injury at 110 and 90 is the same.

Look, I understand your perspective. But I am trying to get you to change your perspective.

Training is not math. Injuries are not probability. You're pretending they are and using that to justify less work being better.

And principle of individuality? I don't think you know what you mean when you say that. All things being equal, any individual will be a better runner with higher milage, as I said before. Ignoring injuries, fatigue, boredom, dude getting made fun of by his neighbor, all things being equal, more mileage will make a better runner, for every individual.

Your concern over those other factors, injury, fatigue, etc. is justified. But those aren't absolutes. You train to avoid injuries. You eat and sleep well to avoid injuries. Your body doesn't have an odometer, and doesn't know the difference between 10, 90, and 160 miles. All it does feel is the stress, all it does in response is to try to adapt. Years of progression, upping milage and its stress in that sweet spot, and any individual can be running safely at a higher mileage (what is individual is that sweet spot: some can bump into new territory 10 miles at a time, while others might push 3 new miles and take a down week. That progression is the individual part.)

You talk about training as individual, which is good, but you're thinking about it as a paint by numbers game: 90 good, 110 bad. All I'll say is you're making the choice to work less hard than others.