7:59, 13:48, 28:39, 2:16 on 50-60 mpw

There is a young chap in the UK, who last year had pbs of:

800m: 1.49

1500m: 3.39

Mile: 3.56

He also went to the world XC 4km and the world student XC 10km. He never tained more than 50 miles a week, mostly less, as he was in the process of getting a first class degree from Cambridge. This year, he is doing a bit more, but not more than 55-60mpw. Hopefully he will avoid injury and continue to improve. He is not a long distance runner, but he is a pretty good middle distance runner. With that pace, he will certainly run under 8 min for 3km and 14 min for 5km without big mileage. Just find what suits your own body

I did just the sort of training as outlined in the first post for years, in fact since I live in Putney I even did it in the same place. Then I started aiming for the marathon and raised my mileage to around 80-90. As a result all my times have improved, for example my 5k time has since gone from just inside 15 to just outside 14.

Mr Holt is clearly the winner in the game of life. He didn't train as much as I do, he ran quicker and if he was in Wimbledon by six while working in the city then he clearly didn't work as hard as I do either. However, I bet he could have run quicker with more training.

No - with that pace he has the potential to run sub-8 and sub-14 (and probably sub-13:30). It is unlikely, however, that he will fulfill his potential at those distances without increasing his mileage.

Averages do not tell the story?

So if someone alternates 140 with 10mpw he is still a high-mileage runner?

A lot of his "down" weeks were caused of back problems but not matter why thats what he did before performing a 2:09PB.

150+50=200,100+100=200 so what

Modern day UK wrote:

With that pace, he will certainly run under 8 min for 3km and 14 min for 5km without big mileage.

Sadly, a 14:00 5k is nothing at the world level. I hope that this young man runs much faster than that.

that's amazin...too people that close.

marathon within 3 seconds@!@!!!!

Rob Swift wrote:

Averages do not tell the story?

So if someone alternates 140 with 10mpw he is still a high-mileage runner?

YES. It's the 140 mile week that is responsible for the fitness, not the 10 mile week.

[A lot of his "down" weeks were caused of back problems but not matter why thats what he did before performing a 2:09PB.

150+50=200,100+100=200 so what

Those 70 mile weeks were later remedied by the 130 mile weeks. It's doubtful Meyer would have the same results without the fix. In fact, it's doubtful he'd have even tried Boston if his back and training didn't change.

Meyer's road to Boston

100

99

115

131

74 (3 days off)

68 (2 days off) 22:45 5 mile

140

101 47:50 10 mile

124 29:00 10k

92

94 58:26 20k AR, 44:55 15k

97 49:10 10 mile

81 2:10:59 marathon PR

30

78

72

116

104 28:23 10k PR

108 29:56 10k

78

80 28:58 10k

80 21:46 4.7 mile

109 19:26 4 mile

100

122

102

108 8:33 2 mile, 23:11 5 mile

103 7:54 3000

79 28:12 10k PR

97 13:35 5000 PR

102 4:02.6 mile

79 43:07 15k AR

74 28:52 10k "The traveling and the trade show made training hard. Feel ready to start pushing toward Boston"!

72 1:31:05 30k, travel to Japan, sick with cold

88 travel back from Japan

132

131

135

110 46:13 10 mile AR

113 27:53 track PR

107

72 2:09:00 PR

That sure as heck looks like marathon training to me.

Why does everybody get so caught up on miles how many just count the time on feet say a 2hr run instead of a certain amount of miles. would running 12 hrs a week give the same improvement of 100 miles a week.

The interesting difference between Bob and Dave was that Dave ran more mileage than Bob, yet ran slower times!

Bob always did a 5 mile lunchtime run with a group of athletes in Regent's Park (Central London). Bob never ran twice a day, except for the 6 weeks prior to Harlow (1975).

Dave would then do the same training that Bob did in the evenings...but Bob would still beat Dave in most races.

In 1972, however, Dave (and not Bob), managed to get a spot on the British 10.000 team for the Olympics (Munich). The story about this was strange, because Dave had actually been seeded for the "B" race 10.000 (slower) in which he would have had no chance of qualifying for the Olympics. Dave "forced" his way to the start line for the 'A' race and duly won his spot on the team by finishing 3rd Briton in the race. I think Bob dropped out in that one, to encourage his brother.

As a former member of Hercules Wimbledon (1974-1987), I can assure you that I observed Bob and other top class athletes at close quarters, and can assure you that there was no extra mileage from those guys.

Another interesting character in Hercules Wimbledon was (and is...) Mike Fuller, a tall, skinny runner, whose training was amazingly simple during his best years. 5 miles twice a day - once at lunch and once in the evening. Mike worked at the Royal College of Music (secretary) and would do the same loop in Hyde Park for years......and then in the evening, he would do a 5 mile run on Wimbledon Common from Lauriston. On Sundays it would be a 10 mile run from Lauriston with the lads.

On this schedule of "two fives a day, and ten on Sundays" Mike ran the following times - 3000 - 8:13, 5000 - 14:17, 10.000 - 29:22, 20 miles - 1:44 (Finchley).

Mike in his best years used to do one session a week on the playing fields at Putney Vale. There used to also be a "grass track" (200 metres) which he used on those playing fields.

It's amazing how many guys I knew who used to run minimal miles and race like the wind.

Another example - Mike Barratt - all his career he only averaged half an hour a day from Lauriston at lunch time, but it would be 30 minutes of tempo....and on that schedule of 35 miles a week, he was one of the best runners in Surrey and the South of England on the country and the roads.....that's right folks...he reached National level on only 30 minutes a day average...you read it right.

John Sheridan (London Irish) was another pretty low mileage runner. During his best years he would run 4 miles to and from work (painting and decorating). He ran about 14:20 for 5000 and 29 minutes for 10.000 on that and also ran a good marathon (2:17) with a slightly longer "build up."

I have a lot more examples....

Mistake - in the previous post - Dave (and not Bob) is the one who ran 5 miles at lunch time. Bob never ran twice a day (except once in his life before the Harlow Marathon).

an 8:03 is more similar to a 14:02. a 13:50 is converted to a 7:56

Great thread Ghost. I wonder if these lower mileage UK guys from the 60/70's made up for the lack of miles with harder lifestyles? I mean, a lot of people back then worked on their feet and had more demanding jobs then the average person these days. Also, people tended to walk everywhere back then. Now people drive to the local corner shop... Just a thought?

I'm not sure who brought it up but perhaps he would have run faster with more miles. Perhaps he would have got injured and broke down, who knows. Only these guys truley know if they could have trained harder. I suppose it boils down to what you are trying to acomplish. Should we throw caution to the wind, bust our balls, risk injury or burnout and see just how far we can really get? Or train average and run pretty good but never truely know what would happen if perhaps we had done a little bit more or done it a little bit harder... I know which I'm going to do.

"Posting fast times is not all about talent."

This, in the original post, leads me to believe that it is all about talent. I can and do Bob Holt's workout and more, yet I can't run times anywhere near his. As in most sports, talent is the biggest factor in being successful

With all the people on this board that risk it all, train like demons, and suffer through pain of being a dedicated runner, you'd think that you sonsabitches would have the US dominating the running world. It seems that everyone at Letsrun runs 100+ mpw, in flats, at altitute, pumped full of endurox, with 3 midgets on thier back, but for some reason most of you guys are still mediocre. How do you gurus explain this? Let me guess, not enough talent from God, right?Worry about your own running, do what you want, and enjoy.

wannabekila wrote:

BUT, why aim for mediocrity? Why not risk it all, train like a demon, suffer the tiredness and the denials for the small chance of being really really good? Isn't this the approach of the East Africans after all? As a nation the US (or GB) need groups of 30 willing 20yr old athletes who will train their socks off and go through the meat grinder. The result will be a small number of very high achievers (... and injuries/burnout for the rest).

Anybody can be mediocre. I dont know the ins and outs of Bob Holts training/lifestyle/commitments so its unfair to comment on him specifically BUT as a general comment anyone who has a 28'50 talent off 60mpw and doesnt try to step it up is not trying to reach their potential.

"Let me guess, not enough talent from God, right?

Exactly. Well, not enough from my parents I guess. I could have sixteen coaches, every device, apparatus and computer available to me, have nothing to do during the day except my training, and still never run faster than a 15 5k? If not for lack of talent, then what?

High mileage is as overrated as cookiedough ice cream.

Bob Holt never owned a car, and was not allowed to drive because he was epileptic. His routine was as follows. He would walk to Clapham Junction Station to go to work in Central London from his home. Then each evening he would 10-15 minutes from Wimbledon Station up to Lauriston. Repeat the walk in reverse (to Wimbledon Station) after the training session. So minimum he walked about 30-45 minutes a day, on top of his training (average 60 miles a week). Bob would eat an English lunch every day at the works office canteen. He was not a vegetarian and ate all kinds of foods.

Bob used to weigh about 60 kilos, and I have been recently informed that he weighs about 90 kilos, and does no more exercise at all.....but he is around 60-65 now.....

I used to bump into Bernie Ford sometimes on the train to Central London. Bernie had a weird training system. He would run about 6 miles to Tolworth station in the morning to catch his train to Central London. And then he would run 6-7 miles in Central London at lunch time with a group comprised of joggers to elite, in Green Park/Hyde Park loop. On this regimen Bernie was one of the best runners in Britain in the mid/late 70's running 13:22, 27:43 and a 2:10 marathon (Fukuoka). Yes - Bernie ran those times on 70-80 miles a week maximum......Bernie never trained in the evening. Everything was the run to the station and then the lunchtime run. Evenings were devoted to family.

Another guy with a similar system of training to Bernie was Grenville Tuck, when he used to work at the Sweat Shop. He, and Graham, would do a morning and lunchtime workout on similar lines to Bernie Ford.

I remember seeing Bernie tuck into a pudding and loads of food at Crystal Palace after a race there, once. He had a highly efficient metabolic system. Bernie was very myopic and often complained about his vision. This was in the days before laser surgery.

Really, Ghost, what is your point?

Are you out to sell a low-miles plan for Runner's World? Are you working undercover for John Bingham and Jeff Galloway?

Your examples prove nothing. You cannot "redo" those athletes' seasons with higher mileage.

All you have to go on is their actual training and performance off of what talent they have.

Those are some great times, but they have been surpassed again and again and again.

And do you know what the very best in the world seem to share in common in training?

The development of an extensive base of AEROBIC ENDURANCE running (re: HIGH MILEAGE).

John Kellogg said it best, to paraphrase: "If you are a long distance runner, it is best to train LIKE A LONG DISTANCE RUNNER."

Haile Gebrselassie ran every day to school from the age of 7-8 until 16-17 10 kilometers to school and 10 kilometers back. That is 20K per day times 5 school days per week times 30+ school weeks per year times 10 years= 18,600 MILES (NOT including all the running around he did on his farm and the 3 hour treks for water each day).

His times? 1:46, 3:31.76, 3:52.39, 4:52.86, 7:25.09, 8:01.08, 12:39.26, 26:22.75, 41:38, 59:40, 2:06:35.

If you can find another person with that range and longevity, I would be astonished.

Daniel Komen ran 12.5 miles per day as a young boy in Kenya. His times?

3:29.46, 3:46.38, 7:20.67, 7:58.61, 12:39.74.

Again, some of those times above have been taken cracks at by the greatest (El Guerrouj, Bekele) and not even come close.

There are dozens more for you. For every example you can find of some super-talent who succeeded on "30 miles per week," I ask, how many of those talents have carved for themselves the type of legacy that some of the Gold Medalists and WR Holders have?

Not many, I think.

HRE wrote:

I think we've gotten to the state where people have gotten into an all or nothing frame of mind regarding their training. A recurring theme of many posters here is that if they can't find a supported setup where that can train 100 or more miles a week, they might as well get a job, pack in the running, and become fitness runners/recreational racers at the most. The idea of combining a job with a moderate, yet serious approach to running seems like it's disappearing.

I actually do remember Bob Holt. Certainly he was not the greatest runner of his time, but he was well-regarded and quite successful. Perhaps if he'd "really trained" he'd have gone even faster, but that isn't exactly the point. He did very well on a program that anyone could manage. Any ideas what he's up to now?

Many posters talk a good game about an all or nothing approach, but I would be very surprised if the majority of people who quote their weekly mileage as being over 100 miles per week actually do that much. More likely, they either want to do that much, or want others to think they do that much.