HRE wrote:
Avoiding hanging out with real people has been a lifelong goal.
Looks like your efforts in this regard have paid off handsomely.
HRE wrote:
Avoiding hanging out with real people has been a lifelong goal.
Looks like your efforts in this regard have paid off handsomely.
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.
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.
C'mon man!...what's going here with these "anti-aging" wonders that defy all logic & scientific evidence of the physiological decline of aging. Wake up & smell coffee.
Like I said before, I'm in my mid-50s and breakdown significantly around the 50-55 mpw range. 90% of my overuse injuries occur in this range. I know other cats around my age that can go upwards toward 80 mpw before they start sustaining overuse injuries. However, most of these middle-aged, high-mileage wonders are little dimuinitive flyweights, and even some of those have told me that they use testesterone replacement therapy (TRT) for recovery!
52 yr old cats regularly running 150 mpw like they're a 25 yr top elite...not buying it!
Guessing these guys never had overuse injuries at 20 yo. Some people don't get injured.
The reasons why some 55 yos don't run as much or at all often has nothing to do with injuries.
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.
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.
I've done up to 160. I really had to slow down and was tired all the time.
I did 130-ish periodically, anything more was an occasional stunt. North of 120 I could not recover enough to keep a real training load within that week.
I do think there is a place for very high mileage weeks, but just like you don't run everything at race pace you don't have to run excessive mileage all the time. I'd do it once in awhile for the stimulus, then back down and recover, and do a few lower (100-110) weeks where I could hammer workouts again. Worked well for me.
ScriptedConnection wrote:
Not completely related to the topic, but may I ask those who have had run 140+ mpw here what your PRs are?
I was a 16:30 5k runner in high school. Ran low mileage for half of my college career and when I ran 100+ mpw I went from a 26:30 8k, 32:30 10k to...
5 mile - 24:40
10k XC - 30:40
10 mile - 51 min
I also ran a 2:32 marathon after a small build up averaging 50 mpw for a few months. I attribute this performance to the base I built from years of running super high mileage.
I did it barefoot lol only 4:38/km pace but the 20 mile long run was 4:27/km only because I'm a new runner 3 years.
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.
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.
I don't know how you'd know this but the efforts have not paid off all that well although there has been some success.
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.
Believe it or not, I know a guy who did 160/wk, every week for at least 12 yrs. He was also on a string of running days of over 35 yrs. He was known in our running community as "Mega-Mileage Mike," and was a supposedly a heavy user of T. 😄
jewbacca wrote:
Runnertrotts wrote: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.
Well...it certainly can cause you to spend more time on the toilet.
jewbacca wrote:
Johnny Bean is blowing smoke. Running high mileage doesn't cause GI problems.
It certainly does if you're on a high fiber diet! High mileage + high fiber = bad news. Don't get near me at the start of a race or draft off me...you'll be sorry.
Bleu wrote:
Guessing these guys never had overuse injuries at 20 yo. Some people don't get injured
If that's the case, I would chalk it off to superb genetics.😉
Bleu wrote:
The reasons why some 55 yos don't run as much or at all often has nothing to do with injuries.
I disagree; most of the time it does have to do with injuries. I'm in my late 50s & have been at it for 40 yrs with an major increese of chronic injuries starting in my early 50s (who would have thought). About half the guys I ran with when I was in my 30s are no longer running anymore. Overwhelming, it's all due to a wide variety of chronic injuries and some with OA. Many still want to stay competitive and have transitioned to cycling while a few are trying to run on joint replacements.
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.
Couldn't agree more.
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
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.
...and what makes you so confident that it's impossible and untrue that people are made differently? What knowledge of physiology, anatomy, and genetics lets you be so certain that what you can do, all others can definitely do?
I would bet all the money I have that more than 90% of all doctors in the country would disagree strongly with you, when you say that your body doesn't know the difference between 10, 90, and 160 mpw.
It's so laughable -- for every 1 guy like you, there are dozens like me, who are practically burned out at 60 to 80 miles per week, and have no prayer of 140.
For every person, there is a point at which more mileage is deleterious, no matter how slowly they work up to it.
giver of explanations wrote:
Pretzel Man wrote: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 ??
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.
Wow. Awesome progression. That is incredible. Definitely shows a focus on the long term.
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 ??
You might want to search who has a 2:09:35 marathon PR
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.
Cheptegai is coached by a Netherland coach and don`t do up to 230 km weeks. I have chatt with him so I know better then you in that case. And what happen to Kwemoi who was coached 180- 220 km per 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
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.
Training individual and correct is more math than most will understand.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year