Sorry, how are you all missing the point that with no GPS in the 70s they all just made up their distances? No they did not run 140 mile weeks, they had no idea how much they were running.
As annoyed track fan xDD commented, yes, mileage figures were often wrong in the 70's. I ran high mileage. There was a run I did twice (two laps around the Palos Verdes Peninsula in California) and I wrote down 46 miles in my log. Now with GPS, I know it is actually 41.6. Likewise, one of my five mile runs back in the 70's, I have since used GPS on and know now it is only 4.2.
This thread pretty much gives a cross section of long run opinions, a lot of embellishment, and some anomalies. But pretty much everyone here did the same.
As a rule, most competitive runners would considered 20-22 miles a long run, but not necessarily every week. In the same way 130mpw means "miles in a week" not "miles every week".
In college I ran 14-16 for long runs, at most. My Senior year of XC when I was regularly running 120-145 mpw, my longest runs topped out at 14-16 (twice), most of them being 12 miles. I was putting in 20 miles the day before races, 10+10.
As a pro, my long runs were generally 17-23. But really most of them were 19-23. I made a habit of doing progressive runs like Tina Turner -- starting off 'nice and easy' then finishing up 'nice and rough.' I felt like a force of nature.
My longest run was 30 miles. Two weeks before my first marathon. In retrospect it wasn't a good idea.
Ran 3 runs of 28.5 + 29.5 + 29.5 over two monster hills. I took Brad Hudson over the 29.5 "mega-magneto loop" twice, when he was in high school. But Brad wasn't your ordinary high school kid. He was ready for it.
I had a 25.5 miler during a 177 mile week. I went to watch the Maryland Marathon on a beautiful day. When I got back, I just felt like running, and kept going.
As annoyed track fan xDD commented, yes, mileage figures were often wrong in the 70's. I ran high mileage. There was a run I did twice (two laps around the Palos Verdes Peninsula in California) and I wrote down 46 miles in my log. Now with GPS, I know it is actually 41.6. Likewise, one of my five mile runs back in the 70's, I have since used GPS on and know now it is only 4.2.
Speak for yourself Greg. It wasn't rocket science to measure courses. We all had measured links that we spliced together. Pretty much all of my runs ended up being 0.5 miles long.
Sorry, how are you all missing the point that with no GPS in the 70s they all just made up their distances? No they did not run 140 mile weeks, they had no idea how much they were running.
Why would you even post such nonsense? You don't need a GPS to measure distance.
Well before the '70's, in the late '50s and early '60s, Lydiard's athletes were routinely running a weekend 22 mile "gut buster" in the Waiatarua ranges in Auckland. That was typically part of the 100 mpw conditioning phase.
Daws was an Olympian, so his training was tougher than most. No, the training of an Olympian is not typical.
Just about every single runner who was and is faster than him in the marathon doesn't go that far. It's not necessary or even optimal.
But he beat many runners who were faster than he was when he made the Olympic team and when he came fifth at Boston. Maybe for him those runs were necessary and optimal.
30-mile long training runs were not typical then and they are not typical now.
Dawes was good but he was not a pro runner. He worked a full time at a real job. He never broke 2:20 for the marathon or 31:00 for 10k.
His 30-mile training runs gave him strength and confidence to persevere and endure. Like when he outlasted many faster runners to make the Olympic team in 1968 on a warm dry and windy day at altitude in Alamosa, CO.
30-mile long training runs are not typical for ultramarathoners. They might go that far once in a while in training but are more likely to get their longest runs in with a 50k/50 mile race.
It seems like Japanese runners more commonly do training runs longer than a marathon up to 30-miles and over.
There were no pro runners then. It was an amateur sport. Daws won the national marathon championship equivalent and was top 5 at Boston twice, among other accolades. He would have had a contract if her performed similar feats today.
Daws was famous for making the 1968 Olympic team, but he was not competitive at an international level. He ran 2:20 during a time where the world record was 2:08 and finished in 22nd in Mexico City. He would be equivalent to about a 2:12 marathoner today.
Went to Lydiard camps and had good results. Went from a pity varsity letter in HS to a 15:30 5k, 32:30 10K and marathon of 2:32:30.
Lydiard schedules had us training by time not distance. So the 2 hour Sunday run went from 16 miles to 20+ miles over several years.
I also counted daily second runs of 2 - 6 miles in my weekly mileage. That's how I averaged 100mpw week after week except for the two weeks around the marathon.
It was addictive. Raced my training with 55 min rolling hill ten milers and 20 miles under 2 hours two weeks before a marathon.
Sorry, how are you all missing the point that with no GPS in the 70s they all just made up their distances? No they did not run 140 mile weeks, they had no idea how much they were running.
Serious runners would have been within 10% or so when estimating distance. By the way I run without gps now. You can say they weren't dead on but they weren't off enough to make significant impact on their training or estimation of fitness. Anyone who has been running for more than 15 years probably started before gps was widespread and they will tell you the same.