Success on 140 mpw?

Listen dude.. why are you comparing yourself to Bill Rogers, Amby Burfoot, and Lagat? YOU ARE NOT LIKE THEM.

You're a 16+ 5k guy, you would be fighting for a varsity spot on my old HS XC team. You are getting virtually NO bang for your buck doing all this mileage. Something just isnt working right.

My advice would be to work on your weakness, not double down on your strength.

I've done the whole thing you are talking about - 140+ mpw at 7:30 pace.

Run a tempo run twice a week. TRUST ME.

I would do two tempos runs a week at 5:05 to 5:20 pace and dominated the road scene while I was training this way. I didn't do any traditional speed work, just tempo runs.

Ever single other run was extremely slow. I did do one 20 miler pretty quick though and averaged 5:39 pace.

However the difference was that I had 8 years behind me where I averaged 90 to 100 miles per week.

The results I got off this type of schedule were great. I had amazing strength. I could hold 5:00-5:05 pace for a long time.

The main issue I see with you is your age. I was 26 when I started training this way and had competed in college running 100 miles a week. I had a decade of training behind me.

I would recommend averaging 100 miles a week for 1 year then evaluate things.

140 miles a week is not a joke. It's hard both mentally and physically.

You say training hard isn't fun, but your logging 140 miles a week. Run 140 miles a week consistently for a couple months and your opinion on this type of training will change.

My longest stretch was something like 25 weeks where I averaged 130 miles a week.

Your age is showing in a lot of your posts and I'm not criticizing you but you are rattling off theory after theory about marathons, mileage and guys who were running 40 years ago.

Do yourself a favor and run 100 miles a week with QUALITY tempos and see how things work out after one year.

The old school guys he admires did different things. Guys like Shorter and Rodgers didn't get to the 20 a day level until they were out of college. But there were guys like Ed Walkwitz and a crew at Fullerton, Dave White, Doug Schmenk and Mark Covert who were in that range and beyond while still in college. I believe Tom Fleming was doing that much while in college too.I was running that much by the time I was 20. Recently we saw Cam Levins make huge improvements as a college runner doing that sort of mileage. Really, not a lot of people run 140 mile weeks so there's not a ton of models to follow.

But I think you're sort of missing the OP's point. He's found something he likes doing and wants to see what happens if he pursues it. I remember that when I started training that way I got the same sort of advice from people as you're giving here. It certainly is the more common approach. But I knew that I stunk as a runner and thought that if I just did what everyone else did I wouldn't really improve much relative to everyone else. I decided that I needed something different and doing 120-150 a week seemed like an appealing way to do something different.

NotAustin18 wrote: Also I think its worth noting how much less depth the US has in the marathon.

Yes, we lack depth in the marathon. But that doesn't mean you should try to perfectly mimic outdated training styles. We know a lot more than we knew back in the 70s. The kind of training that you're interested in is not practiced the best runners and coaches in the world. There's a huge increase in aerobic benefit by running high volumes at faster speeds. I suggest you read some of JK's postings, as he's a big proponent of the high-mileage 70s, but he (1) understands how a lot of these guys actually trained (which is not all LSD), and he (2) has further refined the recipe through the addition of some modern knowledge about training that wasn't around in the 70s.

Also, your Kenyan comparison is odd, as Kenyans run considerably lower mileage than the US road racers of the 70s and 80s, and they run their daily runs much, much faster.

Look man, I've been where you are now. I know how alluring the big miles are, trust me. I too read all the old high mileage logs and literature and worshipped Cam Levins. Last Summer I spent 12 weeks at 110-130 MPW with the same menatality you had, 7:30 pace, no workouts just grinding day in and day out. I felt great about 8 weeks in and then the wheels just fell off. I wasn't the same for months after and have developed coordination issues in one leg. My friend who spent 2 1/2 months at 130 MPW got an injury that required surgery and 6 months of no running. He may never be the same again. I know that you are young and reckless and think the worse thing that will happen is burnout but there can be long term consequences. And honestly the biggest risk you are taking is killing your love of running. Say you spend the next year or two completly injury free with only moderate burnout. You will not be very successful in racing and I have seen dozens of great runners with attitudes like yours give up running after a year or two of no success and super high mileage that YOU ARE NOT PREPARED FOR. So you can run a few weeks at 140 MPW. That says nothing about your long term ability to absorb the training. I did 3 weeks at 160 mpw and it was far easier than 2 months at 120. Look and Ian Edwards running log on R2W. He did the same training you are talking about and look where he is now-- runing 2-3 times a week with permanant running problems. If you don't care at all about maximizing your potential than go ahead, but if you care even a little about being a good runner and successful racer then don't do this. Try 100 MPW for 4 months and see how you feel. You are completly dissolving the benefits you could reap at each mileage increase by just jumping to 140.

Bottom line is just realize this: If being tough and training hard made great runners than there would be 10 times the number of great runners out there. Some of the toughest, hardest training runners I have met have been the least successful. You can tell yourself that the fast guys are all talent and that if they ran 140 MPW they would be better, and that the 140 mpw burnouts are better than they would be if they trained more moderatly but it's not true.

I'll leave you with this. Sometimes training like a tough bstard means knowing when to resist the urge to train like a madman.

Mixing high and moderate mileage is the PROVEN way to increase long term development for less experienced runners. Consistent high mileage can wait until the peak years are approaching. Say, starting at the age of 25.

I'd also observe that the OP is glorifying tough runners while saying he just doesn't enjoy running fast. If you're tough, you'll do what makes you faster, even if the training isn't all your favorite thing.

Wait, what is the story about Ian Edwards now? Really hurt? The OP sort of reminded me of his posts.

It's easy to be extreme, it's hard to be excellent.

Right now you are just doing "extreme" weekly mileage. Read blazinbison's post and few others. You can improve with doing what you are doing.

Also see if you can find the Squires book on amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Speed-With-Endurance-Bill-Squires/dp/0977250504

I would not go to high, 52 healthy weeks at 130 mph is a lot better then 10 weeks at 150 and then getting hurt. If you do good solid training other is not anyone who can tell you where you are going to end up. There are a lot of people who have made huge leaps, so do not worry about where your at. I see no reason why with a good quilty training base you could not run well under 2:20:-)

Ian Edwards and I are facebook friends. We chat on there a good bit. He's a cool dude. He's run 2535 8k and 402 1500m. He says the high mileage improved him at pretty much every distance. He doesn't run a ton now more so because he's lazy and goofing off because its summer. But he's trying to be more consistent. He threw down a 110 mile week last week so he's getting better.

And @reed, my log is on running2win.com. Just create an account on the site, sign up is super short and easy. Then I'm one of the guys on the leader board so it won't be hard to find me.

To the other people, its interesting to see the overwhelming negative reactions to the high mileage approach. I at least want to see how the high mileage works this summer then decide after my 2 week break where I want to go from there. I may just go back to 90 mile weeks, but I want to see. If I have a huge breakthrough I'll probably stick with the high mileage, if not I'll probably go back to the 90 mile weeks(I'll call my HS coaches during my 2 week break and ask for their opinion and tell them what race times I ran and such).

Also, part of why I don't want to wait until I'm like 25 to start doing high mileage is because I know its going to be hard to train seriously for much after 10 years. In 10 years I'll probably be married and have kids. Trying to run 20 miles a day and having a job puts a lot of stress on one's personal life. At that point in my life, I plan to only be running once a day in the mornings 6 times a week. Bill Rodgers and Frank Shorter both got divorced because of the strain running put on their separate marriages. So, considering that I only want to train seriously for up to 10 years I figured going for the high mileage now may be good. If I hit my goals earlier than 10 years, I may stop training competitively sooner.

Someone asked why I compare myself to Amby, Frank, and Bill. I don't compare myself to them. I'm a big fan of them and they're role models to me that I look up to. I'm obviously not the same runner or in the same league. I have no talent, I got made fun of and insulted for being the slow fat kid in PE when I was in middle school because I actually ran hard in PE everyday but was slow and fat so naturally I got made fun of. I started running because all the constant ridicule by my classmates and the jocks hurt my self esteem and I wanted to show them up, which I admit is an immature thing to do, but an expected reaction from a 14 year old at the time. Nearly 10,000 miles later, I'm the 2nd best in a town of 51,000 people at any distance 5k on up. So, I feel pretty accomplished about that, but I really want to hit the sub 230 marathon and the sub 16 5k. Those are some big goals for me.

If I went back to the moderate mileage it would look like this for base: 4 times a week 10/5 double, 2 times a week 15 mile long run, once a week 5 miles easy or rest day. Then for speed phase it'd be: 10/5 double Monday/Wednesday/Thursday, short speed(4k total volume) at 800-1500m pace Tuesday, long speed (10-12k total volume) or tempo on Fridays, and long run Sunday and easy 5 on Saturday. How would that look if the high mileage doesn't give the initial gains I'm hoping for this summer?

NotAustin18 wrote:

In 10 years I'll probably be married and have kids.

You do realize these are not requirements in life?

In 10 years you will be 28, right? That is still young.

Might as well enroll at Oregon. The courses there are so easy that you won't be expending any energy on them, and you will get a bachelor's of a sort. I mean, it is a clown college, but may fool a potential emplyoer that you have a real college degree.

By the way, your times are slow, but you could do ultras or trail runs. Hell, you're as fast as Matt Carpenter, and he made a whole career out of obscure trail runs. Your times will come down a lot if you can hammer out some sections on some of those 20 milers.

Doom Doctor wrote:

Might as well enroll at Oregon. The courses there are so easy that you won't be expending any energy on them, and you will get a bachelor's of a sort. I mean, it is a clown college, but may fool a potential emplyoer that you have a real college degree.

By the way, your times are slow, but you could do ultras or trail runs. Hell, you're as fast as Matt Carpenter, and he made a whole career out of obscure trail runs. Your times will come down a lot if you can hammer out some sections on some of those 20 milers.

I don't want to go to college because I don't want to get in debt. Our high school has a program where they pay for our first year at community college, so I'm taking advantage of that. But after that, I probably will not do any more college because I do not want to be in debt. My parents have a lot of debt and I personally would be very miserable in their situation. My general plan after my first year at the community college, is live with my parents for a few years and get a job. Save up money and go buy a house somewhere for under 100k. Then I would have no house payments or debts, and in that situation with a salary of only 25-30k a year I'd be living just as comfortably if not more so than I am now living with my parents. My dad makes 55-60k a year and mom doesn't work, but due to all their debts they don't have a lot of money to do stuff.

Also, saying my times are slow is kind of rude. I mean they're not blazing fast or anything. But I like to think a 526 pace for 3.1 miles is pretty good for a regular untalented kid. And yeah, I may start pushing the long runs as I get in good enough shape to do so, because at the moment I can't do that since 20 miles still seems kind of long to me at the moment.

NotAustin18 wrote:

If I continue to run 140 mpw consistently for several years, how much faster could I expect to get? How likely is this to work well for me? (I've never been injured, I have good bio-mechanics and probably good genetics to avoid injury) If injury isn't an issue, what could I expect? Does anyone have experience with this?

NotAustin18 You have great resolve and a love of running that should see you through. I would not be so obsessed with a number (140). If you drop to 100 or less fine just continue to build through consistency.

How much faster you will get depends upon your mindset and what type of competitor you are. Your conditioning should be improving just keep some balance, rest and recovery.

Throw the somewhat reckless abandon that you have toward day to day running into your racing and something special could happen.

"You can't burn out if you never catch fire" tee hee hee.

Not rude, but harsh. Accurate, for the most part. I wouldn't call you slow, but your times are not "pretty good" for a "regular untalented" kid. Almost every runner in the country I would call "regular" or "untalented" and yet there are still plenty of sub-15 or sub-30 runners out there.

@Hodgie-san, thanks. I like the number of 20 miles a day, at face value its simple and seems like it would be effective. As far as racing goes, I usually negative split and do tons of surges. In cross country I had one race where I did 10 surges. I had one race where I was nearly last of 56 runners 800m into it and finished 4th. Another race I went through the mile in 537 and finished with a 1658 5k time. So I guess I do race with some reckless abandon, at least in the second half of the race, early on I just make sure to be careful and not make a mistake.

@EDspin, my town doesn't have much of a running community, so at least where I live I feel like I'm alright. And I'd argue that plenty of those sub 15 and sub 30 guys are at least somewhat talented. I have friends who never run, do xc for a year and run in the low 17s. Then first year out I ran in the high 21s all season until I lowered it 20:26 the last meet my freshmen year. So, I'd say that someone who can get down to sub 15 or sub 30 is a lot closer to or better than the low 17s talent than my high 21s lack-of talent.

Doom Doctor wrote:

Hell, you're as fast as Matt Carpenter, and he made a whole career out of obscure trail runs. Your times will come down a lot if you can hammer out some sections on some of those 20 milers.

Ugh....You do realize Matt Carpenter ran sub 2:20 for the marathon and sub 49 for 10 miles?

TLW wrote:

Doom Doctor wrote:

Hell, you're as fast as Matt Carpenter, and he made a whole career out of obscure trail runs. Your times will come down a lot if you can hammer out some sections on some of those 20 milers.

Ugh....You do realize Matt Carpenter ran sub 2:20 for the marathon and sub 49 for 10 miles?

I don't think that Carpenter broke 5mm until he was in his mid 20s.