Does everyone run about their times on this board??

Damn we were supposed to lie about our times? No wonder I am so far down the lists. That's it time to make up and alias and start bragging about how fast I can run, ha.

Agreed..I run with some guys who tell me I run too much.. 50 to 60 miles a week..they are fast and they win local races..and they never go above 40 miles a week..

Dudes, 45-50 mile weeks running a fast 5k and 10k are totally possible. Just think, on day you run a 1500 or 800 and all you do is warm-up and cool down. You take an easy day or two before one after if not a day off. Mileage sux when you are racing, that's just the fact of it. That is because you care more about your performances then you do the mileage. I see too many people, including myself at times training through races I should try and run fast in just to have the numbers. Experience has shown me that it is your performances that count, not your training log. Why do 15 miles the day before a race or run in the evening after a hard 10k? Just let it be and run your best in the race. And adding to the arguement, I know a guy who ran 28:16 off of 50 miles a week that season (granted he had done more the pervious year and was fighting off injury).

Why does every thread turn into a mileage debate? Here is an idea EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT.

Old Man by the Sea, what local runners claim to be running less that 50mpw and winning local races? All the local results that I see are being won by the guys like Naz, Tom, Wallbank, Sheremeta, Hamlin and a couple of others who are all running 80-120mpw.

I have won plenty of local races off of 25-30 miles a week. But the fields were weak.

There a lot of liars here, and also a lot of runners who were once really good but not now. And there are a small group of runners who are still quite good and tell the truth.

Remember, that Statman list covers PR's that span decades, includes people from all over the country, and as we said, a few lies. So don't be intimidated by it.

Racing is not about who trains the hardest. No points should be awarded to those who overtrain and don't race well. As for my 35 miles, they were the hardest miles I could ever do and I hope to never go back to that type of high intensity training again. I agree that more than 60 miles a week is ideal for distance runners, but the idea that 15:15 can't be done on less than 50 miles a week is ridiculous.

I agree that the idea that people can't run fast without doing a lot of miles is ridiculous. Especially when you are talking about distances as low as 1500m!! I know a lot of guys who ran under 3:50 on 30 miles per week but the miles were quality.

Personally I am a high mileage advocate but aren't most miles junk miles anyway when you run high miles. i.e morning runs 5 days per week equals 25 extra miles!!

A few years ago when I was 18 going on 19 I only ran about 50 miles per week in the track season. My PR's were 3:51 and 14:32. In cross I moved up to 60 at most and ran under 30 mins for 10k on the road.

My main point is that if you have reasonable talent and run 30-40 quality miles per week you can run very fast (I know one guy who ran 3:44 for 1500 like this). The extra miles will make you stronger but they don't always make a great difference. It also ofcourse depends on the type of runner you are but I won't get in to that!!

I agree. At some point your improvement will not be much at all

as the miles get tacked on. Sometimes the more miles that get tacked on the worse you get. Alberto Salazar got worse when he went from 100 to 120 miles per week. If the gold medal was awarded to who ran the most, then there would be guys trying to run 500 mile weeks.

I personally prefer about 70-80 miles per week on singles. I don't know if I would see any benefit by tacking on some filler miles in the morning and putting the weekly mileage to 110 miles per week. I am guessing I would not show any significant improvement for this extra effort and I would probably come down with an injury. Just a guess though.

One thing is for certain, a lot of people have beat me by only running 40 miles per week. My teamate of mine ran 14:20 5000m off of 40 miles per week. He was very light and was able to handle the massive amounts of intervals where I was more of a stocky runner and broke down from the intense workouts.

It's not as prevelent but it does happen without a doubt.

Just the other day at track had a guy complaining about guys who lie about miles they run. So I figure since this is a running board that most 90%+ are telling the truth. If you consider that only a few post here for the golbal nature of letsrun. I personally post under multiple names.

The fake numbers are probably a projection of what they could run under ideal conditions. Perhaps they consulted the vdot table, and according to that with good aerobic corrolation you should be able to run x time. So they extrapolate and apply that time across the board even though their times might be better or worse than that table implies.

There is probably a lot of tinkering with PR's on this board for all I know. I just have a problem with the fact that somehow you need to run huge miles to run a pedestrian 15:15 5K. According to Noaks ("The Lore of Running"), Kip Keino won Olympic gold in 1968 off of about 25 miles a week. Talent plays a big role in sports. There would be no earthly way for me to beat Kip Keino no matter how hard I trained. Pre used to say he was the toughest and hardest worker etc. The fact is, he had one of the highest VO2 max readings on this planet. So, one persons kick ass 15:15 5K is another persons easy/moderate run.

I am sure Gebreselassie trains very hard, but that is so he can beat people with similar abilities as himself. He could probably sit on the couch for a year and still beat most of us.

My 3 yr old daughter can run a 2:59 800m.....sike...

i have never run much mileage, during the summer when i went on to get top 20 at division 2 nationals i did 3 to 4 hard workouts a week with low mileage. i hate running distance runs. i averaged maybe 60 miles when i was top 20 and in track when i ran 30:25 i didnt go over 50 the entire season. it can be done, just do quality over quanity.

I ran 12 min 5K, too bad no one in sight to witness the event. Oh well. Shit happens. No lie.

I am sure Gebreselassie trains very hard, but that is so he can beat people with similar abilities as himself. He could probably sit on the couch for a year and still beat most of us.

He could sit on the couch for two decades and still run sub 14.

I heard one of the Africans ran like a 4:05 mile after not running for about a decade. I think it was when all the mile world record holders got together for the 40th anniversary of sub 4. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.