How long were you running 90? Obviously if you just jump up from 60 to 90 (a 50% increase!) you are going to feel like crap for awhile until your body adapts. Try slowly building up to 90 over a few months and then sustaining it for a few years, then get back to us!
P.S. I know you are probably either a troll or lying about your time, but if you can run 14:10 off only 60 mpw (year round not in just in your peak) the 5k is probably not the best event for you, try the 1500.
I love all the resume talk on here when the answer to the OP is simple:
there reason why you dont run any better is that you are overtraining and even if you werent you wouldnt run any faster at 90 miles.
It is common knowledge that the physiological gains at 75 MPW and the return on your work above tha tis minimal until you get up to 110-120 MPW. So you either run up to 75 MPW or go all the way to 110. Anything in the middle is a waste of energy.
(citation needed)
Why slog in 90 miles a week at a slow pace where your legs feel like lead? If he is nailing workouts in 60, then 90 has diminishing marginal returns.
Mitt Romney has a large dickus.
I also had a point of diminishing returns with higher mileage.
I could not sustain 70 mile weeks.
Moving from the 800 to 1500, I went from about 40 mpw to 50 mpw and had a huge improvement at 1500m.
Then I went to 60 mpw average for a couple of years and ran slower. Third year at it, I did finally PR again.
I couldn't do 70 mpw average all year.
Surprise! wrote:
So you train with Symmonds, Manzano, Wheating, Torrence, Solomon, Andrews, Jock, Primm, Robinson or Williams?
You are missing the obvious answer: He trains with Alan Webb!
yogger wrote:
No one cares because you're just a hobby jogger. Everyone on Let's Run goes sub 13:20 and runs at least 150 mpw and never has an injury or a bad race. So don't sweat it since even your better time sucks.
I know I can still run under 13:20.
We're talking 3k, right?
I think Frank Shorter once said something like that he didnt notice much difference when he moved from 60 to 100MPW but when he moved to 120MPW, the difference was huge. I may be a little off on the nos. but that's the general idea.
how old are you?
ccrunner609 wrote:
It is common knowledge that the physiological gains at 75 MPW and the return on your work above tha tis minimal until you get up to 110-120 MPW. So you either run up to 75 MPW or go all the way to 110. Anything in the middle is a waste of energy.
How could something like this possibly be true in a universal sense? There are way too many variables in training besides MPW to think that there is a dead zone between 75 and 110 MPW of no enhanced training benefit. Just ridiculous.
60mpw 5k time is 14:10
90mpw 5k time is 14:35
Less mileage is better. I also find if I'm more relaxed about my training I do better than if I focus too much on little details while getting paranoid over missing anything. Discuss.
___________________________________________________________________
Another typical Letsrun poster who puts 2 or 3 variables and expects an answer when 20 other variables need to be filled.
You probably, (no guarantee) need to increase mileage very slowly, and expect results more slowly as well. To increase 30 miles per week, it might take you four to six months to do so properly. Can you do it quicker? Yes, of course, but the slower you do it, the more beneficial. The aerobic system just doesn't snap into place, it needs to be worked with on a gentle, slow and consistent basis.
t94bell wrote:
To increase 30 miles per week, it might take you four to six months to do so properly. Can you do it quicker? Yes, of course, but the slower you do it, the more beneficial. The aerobic system just doesn't snap into place, it needs to be worked with on a gentle, slow and consistent basis.
Huh? You people just make shit up.
MPW is king wrote:
my performances at longer distances are terrible (14:50 5k, 25:30 8k).
...only on letsrun
Surprise! wrote:
t94bell wrote:To increase 30 miles per week, it might take you four to six months to do so properly. Can you do it quicker? Yes, of course, but the slower you do it, the more beneficial. The aerobic system just doesn't snap into place, it needs to be worked with on a gentle, slow and consistent basis.
Huh? You people just make shit up.
My favorite is how if someone does a lot of mileage and doesn't run very well, then changes their training to do less mileage and improves it's because of all the mileage. On the other hand, if they did a lot of intensity and didn't run very well, then started doing a lot of mileage and doing well it's just because of the mileage.
bump
No, you're right that they were good before and were just getting back in shape. But damn, that's a fast turnaround.Also, I'm pretty sure you missed someone on your list who ran 1:45 from the US (Jones).
Surprise! wrote:
MPW is king wrote:I train with people who, literally, can go from 1:55 to 1:45 in the 800m with two months of training, or from 15:30 to 13:50 in the same time frame. I see that as talent.
So you train with Symmonds, Manzano, Wheating, Torrence, Solomon, Andrews, Jock, Primm, Robinson or Williams?
Cuz they are they only 1:45 dudes in the US last year.
Or, do you train with non-US athletes?
I would guess that none of those guys are running 1:55 before they hit their yearly peak.
However, I'm not an elite runner anymore, so I guess you know better.
Haha! Nice taper effect. Keep doing those 60 mile weeks for another year and see what happens. Those 90 mile weeks prior had much more to do with it than you would like to believe.
This shows that you have a heavier physique and that you work like a dog. A naturally gifted talent would slow, and or, be injured as the mileage increases. What most never recognize is the effect of your natural weight. If you are small boned and genetically light, higher milage is big risk for injury and malaise. If you are a rugged build, then your best times will come only with massive work that wastes your natural weight and increases your strength to weigh ratio. VO2max is your O2 uptake divided by weight. If you are high weight, you will improve with high mileage. If you are low weight, you will likely tank until you have many, many years in the bank.
Hi I'm the OP back again. The stuff about benefitting because I ran high mileage and then switched to low mileage to peak is bullshit. I ran 60mpw 2years ago and was dom showin (14:10), went to 90mpw last year and stunk(14:37), and finally return to 60mpw after consistent struggles at 90 and was dom showin again.(14:14 so far and hoping for sub 14 in a few weeks). The posts that are correct (few out of many) are the ones who say I was overtraining at 90mpw as the milegage was slow and useless; having dead legs. And the person who said crushing workouts at 60mpw is absolutely correct as I focus my efforts on my 3 workout days a week and recover the other days. If I am fresh for workouts and ready to crank like I crank the chronic (which admittedly does not help my times) that is a lot more beneficial that slogging through workouts on dead legs.
Somecoach has got it spot on.