Why would anyone who isn't doing something professionally look at their hobby in such a transactional manner?
In the broad scheme of things running 14 flat on 40 miles a week vs 16 flat on 120 are equally meaningless. Certainly neither is going to support you financially or garner you fame or adoration. It really comes down to what you enjoy and the intrinsic value you reap from the training and corresponding performances.
DIII runner here, ran up to 100mpw to run 15:15ish. Average 80mpw. Now I’m one of the best runners at my school and I get to represent them at important meets. 100% worth it. I’ll do more if coach lets me.
Why yes, yes I would. It's a relatively small price to pay for what I consider to be a pretty respectable hobbyjogger time that would make me feel good about myself. But I would also probably get injured, especially throwing in the required amount of speed and interval work. I'm actually focusing on the 5K again here at age 32, averaging 50 mpw so far this year. I ran a 16:45 a month ago and I'll be trying to run under 16:30 tomorrow. I'll try to make sure I hit 4600 in less than 15:25 so that I can tell myself I wouldn't get lapped by Natalie Cook lol.
Depends whether you are male or female. If male, you should be able to run 15:30 off fewer miles, say 50, with proper training; that is, a couple of workouts and a longish run per week.
is this the generic 'you' being used here? because if so, the idea that *any* male runner should be able to run 15:30 on 50mpw is pretty ridiculous
Not sure what the downvotes are for? Slow pokes getting jealous?
80-90 miles is 8-10 hours and for most people that is a lot if you also work full-time, have a family and other things to occupy your time.
For me it's not worth it unless I was running 14 minutes.
The downvotes are because you're acting condescending. What's it to you if people are running that much and *only* running 15:30? You jealous that others have the time to spend 8-10 hours on something they actually care about outside of work and family?
To answer your question about running that much for 15-15:30, hell ya I would. I'm in my late 30's and a couple minutes slower than that. Maybe I have no talent and just suck. Totally fair critique. But I'd absolutely bump up my mileage to that level if I could get there because I'd value that accomplishment and it'd be worth the time sacrifice to hit that mark. That's just me.
I ran way more than 80-90 for many years and got 15:33. The idea was not specifically to run 15:33 but to run as fast as possible. I'd have loved 14:33 or 13:33 but if the miles were the difference between 15:33 and something much slower I'd have done them. The thing about these kinds of questions is that they suggest people really don't like running itself all that much but do it as kind of a business exchange.
That's black and white thinking. Most people work full time and when they come home they have a family to tend to, friends to see and things to do - for example your partner might want to go out. Then there is also the injury risk when running 80+ miles per week of quality, week in, week out.
You can run 100 miles a week in less than two hours a day. If you work eight, commute two, run two, and sleep eight, you've got four hours on a weekday left to do those sorts of things and many more hours on the weekend. Most people watch TV or surf the net with some of that free time. If you want to run less than 80 that's fine. I wanted to do as much as I could to see how good I could get.
I did this. I was hoping that that sort of commitment would yield faster times. But that amount of mileage (including tempo runs, intervals, doing all the other things, etc.) was all my genetics and "talent" would allow.
There is no guarantee that doing x amount of mileage, or doing a certain amount of training will yield a certain time. Everyone is a unique individual and responds differently. And you do not know how you will respond to training until you do the training.
You can plan plans, but not results.
If I knew in advance that training 90 miles a week as I did would get me to 15:04, I would do it again because I enjoyed it and that I all I could do to try to be.
Sorry I am not impressed by someone running 14:10 on 25 miles a week. That is like being impressed by someone born with red hair or as a Kardashian. I am more impressed with where someone with that kind of talent can take it with hard work.
Didn't Chelimo run something like 14:09 in his first 5k with zero training? That is interesting but not impressive to me. What is impressive was that he worked hard over many years to get that time down to under 13 min and win three 5k global medals.
Nope. I've found my sweet spot at 20-25 miles per week - can put up some hot long sprint/middle distance times on my personal scale, and still run an ok 5k (probably 17:30ish). Still lots of energy to lift, only have to commit like 30-40 minutes 5 times a week to running, chilling all around.
That said, when I cared more about my distance times, if you told me I could run 80-90 miles per week and magically not get injured, I would certainly try it. I'm just not as drawn to that goal anymore, and I've learned my body's volume limits the hard way several times.
Exactly. Part of the problem with the OP's reasoning is that it assumes that the athlete in question knows in advance what the result of their investment of 80-90 mile weeks are going to be. Literally, like, nobody ever said to themselves "I'm going to run 80-90 mile weeks so that I can run 15-15:30 5K...and not a second faster!"
A better explanation is that some people want to find out how good they can be, so they train as hard as they can. Obviously, pretty much everybody hopes that the result is that they end up as Olympic champion and WR holder, but more realistically, they'll take what they can get. Not to get too corny, but for many (most?) runners, it's the act of going all-in and really seeing how far you can go that makes it worthwhile.
A moderately talented college runner can go sub 15 on less than 60 mpw. I ran 14:4x off 50-55mpw. I've seen some former teammates run 14:2x off 40-50mpw although they seemed more talented than most runners i know.
For the most part quality workouts are more important than just pounding out mileage for 5k training.
Depends whether you are male or female. If male, you should be able to run 15:30 off fewer miles, say 50, with proper training; that is, a couple of workouts and a longish run per week.
is this the generic 'you' being used here? because if so, the idea that *any* male runner should be able to run 15:30 on 50mpw is pretty ridiculous
I did run a bit faster than that on about 50 miles per week, but involved three hard sessions a week as well as a longer run.
I was more a (relatively) speedy runner with 1:57.5 800m and 4:21 mile.
Plenty of runners in hindsight run 80-90 and end up with 15:30. Not because they planned to! It's about seeing how good you can be at your best. That's 95% of the fun of running.
Imagine if a genie told you... " You are starting out. If you run 80-90mpw your whole career you will top out at 15:30" How many runners would try? Answer: likely none.
I've made enjoying the outdoors at least about 2 hours a day a life long priority. It's just nice being outside in nature, good for my mental and physical health, and a big part of how I see myself (and others see me). Since I've had dog(s), it's also a shared time outside with them. I feel sorry for dogs that get only a couple 10 minute walks a day. Running has been my main outdoor activity, but I also enjoy (or have enjoyed in the past) other activities like cross country skiing, orienteering, mountain biking, hiking/walking, climbing, dog sports/play, and photography, bird watching, etc. I do all those sports/activities with the reward being the activity itself and being outdoors. Of course, for someone that prioritizes outdoors fun, it makes sense to live in a place that is awesome outside, so I moved to Alaska more than two decades ago.
I've at times run over 100 miles per week with no intention of racing at all. I've also been in probable 15:30 5K shape as a masters athlete (10 years ago) while not even bothering to race on a certified course, judging by the (then recent) times of the guys I was beating in the low-cost local cross country/trail series (can't be bothered to pay ~$50 for a road race when I can do races for ~$3). I still haven't recalibrated my mind to accepting masters racing as meaningful to me, so I've stepped away from racing recent years as I've dropped from contention for overall wins. But I'm still cranking out the miles, about 65-70 mpw and increasing, a few weeks removed from taking two weeks off for a weird, non-running knee injury.
(side note: I hadn't weighed myself in years until a recent doctor's visit, so 175lbs at 5'10" was a bit of a shock. It occurred to me that maybe my relative sloth isn't due to age, and that I might actually still be competitive if I weren't 25-35lbs over race weight. I'm considering actually start to train instead of just running with no goals like usual.)
Plenty of runners in hindsight run 80-90 and end up with 15:30. Not because they planned to! It's about seeing how good you can be at your best. That's 95% of the fun of running.
Imagine if a genie told you... " You are starting out. If you run 80-90mpw your whole career you will top out at 15:30" How many runners would try? Answer: likely none.
Definitely not none. I'd have done the 80-90 and probably more on the reasoning that if I got 15:30 with 80-90 I should get below that with more miles. I never broke 6:00 for the mile as a high school runner. Managing five minute miles for three miles at the time was kind of a fantasy. I'd definitely have wanted more than 15:30 but at the start of my running days I'd have signed on in a flash.
A better question from that genie to me would be "If you top your miles at 80-90 a week and do no more I guarantee you'll run 15:30. Run more than 80-90 and you'll be slower. Or you can pass on this deal, run as much or as little as you want and see what happens." I'd have gone for door #2.