3:47, 14:12, 29:48 on 60 miles per week

Can we get a name?

and what does this mean, "1-2-3-4-3-2-1" at 5 min pace. I never understood that.

I would assume that "1-2-3-4-3-2-1 @ 5 min pace" refers to a fartlek with pickups of 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, etc. run at 5 min pace.

Look Bro:

I run the following off of 90-100 Miles a week:

800m: 1:52.09

1000m: 2:24.35

1500m: 3:45.09

Mile: 4:00.99

3000m: 8:16.25

5000m: 14:17.05

10,000m: 29:36.08

Okay, I'm happy that this discussion is moving beyond the drugs and the "this is bull****" posts (although they're amusing and you can keep them coming if you like). Guy, you mention that I need a bigger base. How much? Would you suggest the same kind and number of workouts? How would you progress the workouts through the phases? Would I change the intensity of my easy days and/or my hard days? Like I said in my original post, I've made changes over the years but have not made significant improvements. Part of the reason for this is lack of consistency because of injury and other reasons, but I don't want to reveal (yet) what I have changed now that I have finally achieved a level of consistency again. I think doing this might limit the conversation at this point. I'm interested in what everybody else thinks about this. If you were coaching an athlete who had run these times off of this mileage and these types of workouts where would you have him go from here?

FSU wrote:

Can we get a name?

and what does this mean, "1-2-3-4-3-2-1" at 5 min pace. I never understood that.

to FSU and "a little arithmetic"...

it is a fartlek workout. i didn't explain the workout b/c the original poster already did.

when i did this workout, i was coming off 6 months injury and needed Mvo2 work, as well as some speed. after about 6-8 weeks of base, i was running the 4 and 5 minute sections at 5 minute pace. i know because, like i said, it was on a XC course that was marked. it took me 2-3 workouts to build up to those marks (at first i was only running the 5 minute sections at approximately 5:10 pace). once i built up to it, i was able to run that workout each tuesday evening with a lot of success--i was able to repeat it for several weeks leading up to the race.

i took half recovery. so if i ran 1 minute strong, i would take 30 seconds recovery going into the 2 minute section, and so on. what i love about this workout is that on the way up, you get less recovery and it's difficult to complete. on the way back down, you get more recovery before your next interval, so it's more conducive to running at a faster pace. additionally, it simulates racing: go out quickly, cruise, and pick it up towards the finish. it takes 45 minutes to complete and with a 10 minute warm-up and 10 minute jog, it was a great workout for me to complete while working a full time job.

i am interpreting a lot of aggression towards me and this workout. personally, i don't care if you believe it or not, because i know what happened, and my results speak for themselves, and i worked hard to achieve my goals. i just thought i'd chime in and say, "i've done similar workouts based off low mileage and had good results as well." p.s. at that time, the longest run i was able to complete was 12 miles, and it hurt like crazy. running for an hour was a big stretch for me. by the time my race rolled around, i was back to normal training and could complete 15 mile runs without feeling too fatigued.

you 5k and 10k times were very poor relative to your 1500m time - which proves that you can run QUITE FAST on 60mpw but if you had gome up to 80-90 you would have got nearer your potential of 13.30 adn 28.00.

I'm not done trying to achieve my potential which is why I'm wondering what people's suggestions are.

A Question of Progression wrote:

Major changes from the fall were: dropped my mileage between 10 and 20 miles per week; dropped my workouts from 3 to 2; and ran my easy days at a slower pace. Prs before this year were 3:52 for 1500 and 14:31 for 5000.

Not sure if you tried this but maybe the important change you made was not the drop in mileage but the fact that you ran your easy days at a slower pace and cut off one workout. Maybe if you added a bunch of easy miles (I'm talking tripping-over-your-feet easy) you would see a big aerobic improvement and a consequent drop in your times.

I didn't run your level of PRs, but I did note in my own training that all the times when I was at my best in long distances were when I was doing some "junk miles".

In HS I ran in the mornings with my girlfriend one summer, really slow, and only about 4 days a week. The next XC season I went from a nobody to mixing it up with the top guys in the state. When the summer ended and I cut out the junk miles I went seriously backwards.

In college I did 2-a-days a few different seasons but the only season where I was running strong was the season where my morning runs (30 mins 3 times a week) were so slow it was a joke. This was during indoor. When indoor ended I thought I would speed up the morning runs...the result was outdoor was a huge suck-fest.

Try running pathetically slow morning runs 5 days a week. Like 9 minutes a mile for 45 minutes. See what happens...

Last time I checked, 60MPW = 96km per week = nearly 14km per day.

14km per day. Overdistance for most of the races he cares about.

100MPW is not for everyone.

14km per day, people!

Most of the posters here seem to have no clue whatsoever!

While A Qeestion of Progression's times are certainly very good, they are far from exceptional for someone with a good level of ability doing this sort of mileage. As for mentioning drugs...!!!

You guys don't seem able to comprehend what ability really is... Perhaps you haven't run long enough to meet someone with natural talent.

Well, here's one of my stories... It might enlighten you, but I rather doubt it. Undoubtedly some will call BS, yet I am sure others will have seen similar things.

Back in 1991, I was averaging 100M a week, and had just ran a 30:31 10K, when I moved to a new town. Carl Farmer was the star runner of the club I joined; he had been an English Junior International, but at 28, he was coming back from injury. Carl was a baker, and he would get up at 3:00AM everyday to start his shift. His weekly training schedule consisted of two sessions, Tuesday and Thursday evenings, where he would run about 8/9 miles. These usually included hill efforts. He would also play football (soccer) on Sundays. That was it!

I got to know Carl quite well (in fact I was at his wedding), and I was quite aware that this was truly the only training he did (though on a couple of occasions he did stop by at the gym after his sessions, and did some weights; in the winter months he'd also do quite a bit of plyos with the kids, still on tuesdays and thursdays).

In our first x-country race (remember, he was coming back from injury), I only just managed to beat him by some 10s or so. The rest of the season, I only saw the back of him (and from a distance!). Carl won the Gwent x-country league that year, and, off this very schedule ran around 8:50 for the steeple chase. He also got under 30mins for 10K, on the roads. All this off 20M a week tops.

Carl was simply the most gifted runner I'd ever met. He'd been training like that all his life, and I think, until we met, he was simply unaware some guys would even run as much as 100M weeks. I trained with him for 6 months, after which I hanged up my shoes in disgust and didn't run for another 5 years. I was accutely aware he had something that I hadn't, and what he achieved, he did not through drugs or hard work (though what little he ran, he did run extremely hard!), but through raw natural talent.

Incidentally, when I was at uni., I also saw a good friend of mine run a solo 3000m, on a cement track, in Nike Air Max (!) in 8:35, off 40M a week.

Dominique Siriex of France was also one of the very gifted guys I met who ran sub-8:45 for the steeple off 40M a week.

Would all these guys have benefited from higher mileage? I think they would have... But what they also had in common was that they got injured quite easily.

When you see guys like these, extraordinary runners, but who are running fairly ordinary times at a national level, with ordinary jobs, you begin to understand how Geb or Bekele can achieve what they do. Carl was just an ordinary bloke with a couple of kids and a tough job. For him, running was just a hobby like sunday-league footbal, which he'd been doing since he was a kid. As a runner, he won't go down in memory (other than mine!) as one of the greats, but he really illustrates what is humanly possible if you have that raw talent which quite a lot of posters here don't seem to believe in...

I enjoyed your post, NickJ.

I was no Olympian, obviously, with 3:57 1500m / 8:37 3000m / off less than 50MPW, but I'm convinced that 100MPW would have floored me, rather than make me much faster.

100MPW is wonderful for some runners. But having 100MPW as a target / quota for all runners who wish to maximize their potential is imho ridiculous.

Dudes...Ngeny! Look what he ran. Anyone care to comment on his training?

60 miles a week is plenty for some... not everyone needs to be running 100 mile weeks to run sub 15 in the 5k.

all my prs came off of less than 60 mpw in my twenties. I could not handle the high miles but got by.

800m: 1:50.7

1000m: 2:24

1500m: 3:42.7

3000m: 8:10

5000m: 14:17

10,000m: 29:39

I am sure there are many who have done much more with less.

banjo wrote:

60 miles a week is plenty for some... not everyone needs to be running 100 mile weeks to run sub 15 in the 5k.

i've run under 15:00 in the 5000m (once) and i've never run more than 85mpw. however, when i ran the 14:50and change, it was based off 65-75mpw (with one week at 30 due to sickness). but i had been doing 20x400m in 68-69 with 1 min recovery and 5xmile in 4:50-4:55. so it's not like i was taking it easy.

and yes, there are plenty of people out there with raw talent. Webb for one--dude is insanely fast. don't think he runs 100m weeks.

A Question of Progression wrote:

I'm not done trying to achieve my potential which is why I'm wondering what people's suggestions are.

good - keep working at it but IMHO the obvious answer is that you've got to run more miles.

What about a base phase did yall do more? Also how fast was your slowest mile pace on average? For example how fast was your easy/recover pace.

Its possible to run those times off that mileage.

Pb's

1:51

3:43

8:03

14:06

29:35 (road)

All off 50 miles a week, but its was all quality running with 3 hard sessions a week.

Chris Davies in the UK runs 13:30s off less than 40mpw. It makes me wonder how slow some people are and how overtrained they are that they gasp in amazement at a guy who has barely run quicker than the fastest women of all time.

Without more details it is difficult to say exactly what has happened, but it seems like you may have made the common endurance athletes mistake of not sticking to the basic principles of training.

There are basically 2 types of training - specific (which results in improved performance potential) and general (which allows you to do better specific training). Renato Canova talks about this somewhere else on this site.

The response to training is also specific, meaning that you 'get what you train'. Therefore, to improve performance you need to improve the quality of your specific training sessions (faster, longer, more dense). By increasing the volume of steady running you have simply increased the amount of general training you do which will likely have little effect on performance potential if there is no corresponding improvement in the specific training. (It is not clear how your sessions have changed over the years). A possibility is that the additional volume you are doing is simply making you more tired and not allowing recovery between the hard sessions. Therefore it could actually be making you slower if you are unable to train at the same intensities as previously.

An important thing to realise is that every athlete seems to have a genetically predetermined ceiling level of 'fitness', and that no amount of hard training will ever allow this level to be surpassed. However, it is still possible to improve performance once these levels have been achieved through high quality specific training which allows the athlete to be able to better utilise their fitness potential. You could demonstrate this by looking at 2 sets of athletes. If you took the 1500m field from a typical southern league meet and the finalists from the Olympic Games, then you would bet your house that the Olympic finalists would be way way fitter (i.e. higher VO2 max, LT, strength etc). However - within that group, typical fitness measures will tell you little about eventual finishing positions. Something else must be important in determining performance in groups of equal 'fitness'.

Some things that you might want to try:

- reduce your mileage to the levels at which you ran your best times. The additional work, despite what you may want to think, simply has not worked.

- Emphasise RECOVERY. Without recovery there is no adaptation, and if you are not getting any adaptation theres not much point training in the first place. The simplest way to achieve this is through the usual hard day / easy day method, but make sure the days you consider 'easy' really are (dont count a longish run as easy, even if the pace is very slow). Dont be afraid to take a few consecutive rest or easy days at the end of each weekly / fortnightly cycle.

- Dont think of general training as simply 'mileage'. Although this is important, various strength / speed activities can also be considered general and have a role to play.

- Be more specific in your training, you may not be able to get any fitter so dont waste time trying to. Better results will come from better specific training, so pick one event and really prepare for it properly.

Good luck