It doesn't seem that impressive to me. My HS coach had 100,000 miles before he was 40. My wife is 52 and has 100,000 miles.
I'll bet that nearly every runner over 65 years old has 100,000.
It doesn't seem that impressive to me. My HS coach had 100,000 miles before he was 40. My wife is 52 and has 100,000 miles.
I'll bet that nearly every runner over 65 years old has 100,000.
Damn few people have done it. Have to average 200 miles a month for 40+ years. The population that has done that is very small.
That is a losing bet if you do the arithmetic
Back in the 70s nearly every runner I knew ran over 3000 miles a year. In high school. We had 1000 mile summer club and 1000 mile winter club and that doesn't even count in season mileage. Anyone that ran in college would log a minimum of 4000 miles a year for 4 or 5 years. At 22 years old I had over 30,000 miles and I knew hundreds of guys that were in the same situation. Times were different and over 1000 people a year were running sub 2:40 at the Boston Marathon. These were all people running somewhere between 4000 and 6000 miles a year. I averaged 5000 miles a year for the next 10 years and I wasn't that good 2:26 marathoner that no one ever heard of. That meant that I had over 80,000 miles by the time I was 32 years old and that was not unusual 1986. I got married in 1986 and started a family but still averaged 3000 miles a year as a high school coach. I reached the 100,000 miles before I was 40. I am now 62 years old and am proud that I have never had a year with less mileage than the year. This year was my lowest since I was 13 and I'll still be over 2100. I'm sure that my lifetime mileage is somewhere around 150,000 miles although I am more of a shuffler today.
Merry Christmas.
Impressive numbers but a massive outlier. I use a running site with 90000 registered users and my mediocre 1400 miles this year puts me at approx 700th in the league of miles logged for 2017
That's 50 miles a week for 40 years. To put that into perspective i'm in a strava group with 380 members, only 19 people hit 50 miles a week last month and of those 19 probably 0 will be running that peak mileage for even 1 year yet 40. Lastly, i'm willing to bet that most people who think they have run 100k miles are lieing, confused or can't do the math.
What percentage of people doing 50 miles a week for a year don't get injured to the extent that they have to reduce mileage?
I suspect that "The older I get, the faster I was" has a counterpart of "The older I get, the further I ran"
Thank you for taking me back to a different time.
In 1979 Boston Marathon when qualifying time was 2:50 almost everyone ran 80-100 miles a week. Now people think 70 mpw is big mileage. Different time and different attitude toward the sport.
I started running when I was 12, I'm 58 even at 30 mpw that's 146,000+
I usually ran more than that (45-60) but had injury time.
Ohio is my real home wrote:
It doesn't seem that impressive to me. My HS coach had 100,000 miles before he was 40. My wife is 52 and has 100,000 miles.
I'll bet that nearly every runner over 65 years old has 100,000.
It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I think it's mostly a matter of continuing to do decent mileage once you aren't getting PRs from it. I had several years in the 70s in the 5,000-5,500 range and then dropped to 4,000-5,000 until 3-4 years ago just because I like doing an hour and a half or more each day. I still do that much but am not covering anywhere near as much distance as I used to.
70's were different wrote:
Thank you for taking me back to a different time.
In 1979 Boston Marathon when qualifying time was 2:50 almost everyone ran 80-100 miles a week. Now people think 70 mpw is big mileage. Different time and different attitude toward the sport.
Yeah, now they all have afib and other health complications.
HRE wrote:
Ohio is my real home wrote:
It doesn't seem that impressive to me. My HS coach had 100,000 miles before he was 40. My wife is 52 and has 100,000 miles.
I'll bet that nearly every runner over 65 years old has 100,000.
It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I think it's mostly a matter of continuing to do decent mileage once you aren't getting PRs from it. I had several years in the 70s in the 5,000-5,500 range and then dropped to 4,000-5,000 until 3-4 years ago just because I like doing an hour and a half or more each day. I still do that much but am not covering anywhere near as much distance as I used to.
Merry Christmas HRE.
The BIG favor is of course a running career ending injury which usually gets almost everyone at some point. If you are fortunate enough to avoid a major injury that would prevent you from running then it is achievable. It is still an accomplishment to get to 100000 miles for most people. It takes a lot of discipline over a long period of time, and the love of running of course. I have run over 100000 miles but I can no longer run without damaging already bad knees, however I walk 49 miles a week which is better than nothing at this point.
It's an interesting question indeed.
How about someone who has run over 100,000 miles mostly above 6000 or 7000 ft? Wonder how many miles that would be at sea-level? At 6000ft a 7:20 mile is about a 7:00 mile at sea-level under the same conditions. You can ask Jack Daniels about that.
For perspective if someone can avg. 100k a week then that's 62.1 miles which puts them right at 3238 miles a year. If they can about another 100 miles per year on top of that then it would be 3333.3 miles per year. That is knocking out 10,000 miles every three years so at that pace it will still take them 30 years non-stop to hit 100,000 miles.
Anyone who has run over 100,000 miles has put in some serious time on their feet for many years and endured some aches and pains. Not an easy task on many levels. It would be a very small percentage, far less than 1% of all runners. Very confident in saying that. No way 10 out of every 1000 runners has run over 100,000 miles.
I passed 100,000 in my late 40s. It is and it isn't a big deal.
It isn't in that you don't have to run crazy high mileage for decades upon decades. I would bet I've averaged an hour of running a day since I started in 1979. If you like it, that's not a big deal.
It is a big deal in that you need to stay healthy enough to avoid repeated major injury. Even minor injuries can really cut into annual mileage if you get in a bad cycle.
I bet a lot of those who have done it have two things in common:
First, they simply enjoy running; they don't view doing it as a sacrifice or something that takes lots of discipline. (Which is different than dedication--dedication entails anticipating and trying to avoid obstacles to getting out for a decent run most days.)
Second, at some point they consciously choose moderation and self-care as guiding principles; this increases their chances of continuing to run a decent amount for the foreseeable future.
Same to you. And Happy New Year. I wouldn't be surprised if you're walking nearly the "speed" I'm running these days.
I didn't run from 19 to 37. Losing 18 years of prime running would easily be 50k miles.
Cool story bro wrote:
What percentage of people doing 50 miles a week for a year don't get injured to the extent that they have to reduce mileage?
I suspect that "The older I get, the faster I was" has a counterpart of "The older I get, the further I ran"
Yep , you called it. Plus , there are two parts to this ; run 100,000 miles and keep documentation for 40 years to prove it ,
Sounds to me that a lot of the 100,000ers here think they’ve run it but don’t have the records to prove it . That’s a lot of documentation to keep
HRE wrote:
Same to you. And Happy New Year. I wouldn't be surprised if you're walking nearly the "speed" I'm running these days.
Ha ha...thats funny, but I am sure you are way faster. Actually when I started I was terrible at walking, not as fluid for me as running. I have improved considerably by walking with a high cadence and not over striding. I usually walk 7 miles, sometimes further but I like 7 miles. I can now average 14:00-14:30 per mile which is still slow but I am happy with it.
Certainly a real generation gap here. I'm a 46 year old who started running in 1990. Lots of time off, a fair number of injuries, and this is the first calendar year over 3000. I'd be shocked if I'm even close to 30,000 miles.
Compare that to those who came of age during the initial U.S. running boom in the 70s and who stuck with it. To them, it doesn't seem like a big deal. I think those folks really are outliers, but I suspect my own experience colors my perspective on that.
Still, there are fewer and fewer of those 1970s era runners around every day; so I really do expect that 100k miles is really uncommon.