Why are some people here trying to justify running 60-80 mpw for a 1:30 half?

He man you walk 9 minute miles bro?

it's called a hobby for a reason....some more serious than others in the non-pro world of athletics.

I ran a 1:25:36 half running under 80 miles per month. The total MONTHLY miles I had leading up to that race were:

47.67, 39.60, 71.25, 70.98

It is still my half PR and I'm too old to ever run that fast again so it will remain my half PR.

Maybe they like to run, just as a wild guess.

I think there are levels to this. If you're a younger male, you can get reasonably good with bad genes if you're running 80-100mpw. But there's no issue with the people who run high mileage to hit what you don't consider elite times. Most people don't get paid from the sport, including a lot of people who should. Some people run because they, you know, actually like it. Maybe they're not focused on making huge time jumps. Maybe they're older. Maybe they spend a lot of time on the trails. I don't think 60-80mpw for a 1:30 half is that crazy depending on age & experience. But I would see if a 1:25 runner putting in 100mpw would be open to coaching if they're willing to commit like that to the sport. I think a lot of people move up in distance without ever training up their speed. That can make it hard to improve past the times being thrown out.

I say all of this & my main response is who really cares. Most of us aren't pro. If they're happy & you're happy, why spend any more time on it.

If someone were to run 80 MPW consistently but never did workouts and only did slow ass miles and didn't watch their diet, they wouldn't automatically be able to run sub 1:40.

These guys run over 9 minute miles for their training. They race 10k at almost the same pace that they do their 10 mile training runs.

People trying to BQ. I guess as long as they're enjoying it. But let's not fool anyone. It's not fast by any means.

The 60-80 mpw isn't the justification for running the 1:30 half. It's just that someone who likes to log 60-80 mpw is capable of running a 1:30 half. One isn't required for the other, or vice versa.

Heck no. Many people can run 10 miles per day while not being able to break 2 hours in a 1/2.

I just don't believe it. Is there anyone here (not your neighbour or someone you used to know) who has averaged 80mpw (130k!) for a year then run slower than 1:30 immediately after that?

mpw and race speed are correlated, strava did a massive study and confirmed that common sense. I'm sure there are a couple of 80mpw/1:30 guys but they will be MASSIVE OUTLIERS.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Measured-marathon-pace-versus-the-mean-training-distance-per-week-for-all-subjects_fig3_346908023

read arcoss for 130k/w and 270s/k (equivalent 1:30 but for a marathon (3:10, 4:30/k )) - there is nothing there, because no one in the study of a few hundred had such inefficient training.

that's not to say it's impossible - I'm sure these people exist with a big enough sample. but look at the 130k/w - 270s/k point compared to the regression line it would make you a massive outlier. and these are for relatively short training blocks - not someone who's gone and done that for a year.

Also for those interested - according to this the 'average' person running 80mpw is running around 3:40/k for a marathon of 2:35.

Muniz-Pumares, D., Hunter, B., Meyler, S., Maunder, E., & Smyth, B. (2024). The Training Intensity Distribution of Marathon Runners Across Performance Levels. Sports Medicine, OnlineFirst, 1-13.

that's the newer more comprehensive paper but it's pretty locked down, unless anyone here as access

Open image

that's the best chart but it's mean averages, and the relevant bucket is 180-210 mins so not that helpful. the scatter plot doesn't include right data

it's clear though, if you're a male running over 100km a week and you can't break 3 hours in a marathon you're a big outlier - and that's for 16 weeks.

You'd struggle to convince me you've run 130km a week for a year and can't break 3, let alone 90 mins for a half

Your premise is idiocy without qualifying it with regard to the age of the males. That is common sense; otherwise there would be no basis behind age grading.

But maybe you lack common sense?

the bottom right panel is for over 40s and it shows the same thing - massive outlier if you run 120km and can't run sub 3

if youre old enough to run 130km without getting injured you're old enough to run sub 3. distance you're able to run injury free is a big reason for the need for age grading

I'm starting to get sick of idiots on this forum calling me an stupid then saying dumb things - read the charts yourself with age adjustment and tell me what you see. utter moron

if youve been running for over 12 months and are running more than 30 miles per week but cant break 90mins for a half - you need to stop wasting your time and do another sport

Over 40??? Hello! There are guys over 60 that can run 130km a week! Those 60-something’s are 20 years older than that chart, and there is a huge disparity in performance between a 40 year old and a 60 year old!

Do you have any idea what the age grade of a 1:30 Half for a 65 yr old is versus for a 45 yr old?!?

No, I didn’t think so!

What a clown show. 🤡

You haven’t a clue what you think you are talking about.

So where is the chart for 60+ guys?? Or you think 60+ guys running 130km a week are big outliers?

Age grading is for injuries? What are you on about? Hello, dippity do!

I’m still waiting for you to tell us what age-graded performance is for a 65 yr-old running a 1:30 Half versus for a 45 yr-old. Maybe then you will begin to understand why simply saying a certain volume of training will equate to a certain time in performance. (But no, I doubt you will get it.)