How many LRCers actually run 100+ mpw?

Why do you call yourself stem cells? Have you had injections?

Look at the strava group for an idea

https://www.strava.com/clubs/letsrunDOTcom

last week 29 persons broke 100mpw or 160km/week. The group has 1029 members, so roughly 3% did it.

I ran 1:10:xx halfmarathon with an average of about ~75km/week 50mpw for a period of 4 months

It's individual how much you can take with regards to time management/social/injuries etc.

I run about 60-75 mpw, limited by time more than endurance and injury.

I came up with a thought experiment on mileage during last night's run and would like to hear how other LetsRunners feel.

Assume you have a zero-sum schedule where the only way to do alternate exercises (abs/stretching/agilities/strides) is to take time away from a run (workout or just mileage). You could run for all 60 minutes of a day, or run 45 and do core work for the other 15. Any ratio is valid, but you will always face a choice of either/or.

Where is the balancing point for you? If I gave up 30 minutes per day to do core work that would be ~4 miles/day or nearly 1,400 miles per year (conservative estimate). Obviously I wouldn't do it every day, over a period of 5 years that is an incredible amount of volume.

Three days a week would be only 600 annual miles. At this point I think there is a solid benefit from improved form, looking less anemic and having fun doing stuff besides running.

How do you find your balancing point? 50 mpw may be "wimpy" by letsrun standards but coupled with 20 hours per week of cross training could make you a world class short course triathlete.

Mental math is wrong in my post above.

4 miles per day, 7 days per week over 46 weeks is 1,288 miles.

4 miles, 3 days per week over 46 weeks is 552 miles.

Why 46 weeks? Take ~two weeks off per season (Fall XC, Winter/Spring Track, Summer Base).

Gbohannon wrote:

COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:

If you are out on the roads just to burn calories I can understand if you do 100+ weeks. Not even one of my many top kenyan elite runners reach that level. And they train fulltime! Crazy.

What events are these "top Kenyan elite" runners focusing on? Surely not the HM or marathon distance. Also - do you actually coach any top level athletes? Any sub 14 guys? Any sub 2:10 guys? This is not meant to be inflammatory in any way. I am genuinely curious.

I have during 2 years time coached 3 guys sub 2.10 at the marathon, 2.07.38 best time.

At the half I have coached one guy to 1.01.40 (at high altitude and 8 sec from the standing altitude "world record" ), one guy to 1.02.08 in Great North Run (won by Mo Farah in 1.00.00) and one guy 1.03.14 in his debute. A lady to 1.07.43 in Rome half.

At 5000m I have coached 5 guys sub 14, the best 13.33.

COACH J.S

I have lived this thought exercise - in my case as a result of being the father of 3 daughters 9 and under and training for marathons. I went 100% mileage with my 12 or so hours a week, until specific aches and pains materialized and advanced beyond mere niggles, at which time I subtracted the minimum amount of time necessary to address the specific problem from my 12 hours, and spent the remainder on mileage.

To be fair, I honestly am too lazy to do most of the "other stuff" so I think my allocation has more to do with that, and the fact that I was marathon training, than mere time constraints.

Still, assuming we are not feeling any injuries coming on, I think that most of us would tend to get more out of another 4 miles of running than we would 30 minutes in the weight room (but maybe that is just the bias of the old-school dinosaur in me).

It is articles like this that gives "normal" runners a wrong picture how it really is in the true world. Pounding out 35 km 7 days a week in the morning and get something good out of that sounds not to be true. Even if you were an Ultra runner! This journalist "scoop" is very same as when Ron Clarke`s training was to be written . It happen to be some runners running 200s and 400s intervals together with Clarke that day during the interview and the journalist took that as a proof that Ron ran 200s and 400s intervals often. The truth was that he seldom did them and mostly ran fast distance on his daily training runs.

COACH J.S

I have run only one marathon in my life in which I did not have a big positive split and have to take walking breaks in the last 10k. It was the marathon after a cycle where I averaged 105 for 16 weeks and peaked at 120. Time on your feet makes a huge difference for that race.

For shorter distances, I've found that I can do just fine off of 75-85.

I've had a lot of 100 mpw stretches, including when I was a track runner, but I've never come close to averaging that high over a year. I've never even broken 4000 for a year, though I probably will this year.

While you and I disagree more often than we agree, I am with you on the idea that quality is generally more important than quantity. I do, however, think that you take it a lot farther than I ever would. I would say that the more miles that you can run without sacrificing your ability to do your workouts at the proper pace and without materially increasing the risk of imminent injury, the better you will perform over time.Don't get me wrong, the first question that I would ask someone would be "How much do you want to run to get ready for your next race?" and not "What is the greatest number of miles that you think you can manage?" But if someone were to ask me how to maximize their potential, I would first tell them to get to some baseline mileage, then maximize the effect of that mileage with smart, consistent workouts, then to build that mileage amount up higher over time to be as high as possible without hurting their workouts or themselves.Finding that balance is the key, and it can be hard, and I would agree that it is better to err on the side of 5-10 miles too few than 5-10 miles too many.

COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:

It is articles like this that gives "normal" runners a wrong picture how it really is in the true world. Pounding out 35 km 7 days a week in the morning and get something good out of that sounds not to be true. Even if you were an Ultra runner! This journalist "scoop" is very same as when Ron Clarke`s training was to be written . It happen to be some runners running 200s and 400s intervals together with Clarke that day during the interview and the journalist took that as a proof that Ron ran 200s and 400s intervals often. The truth was that he seldom did them and mostly ran fast distance on his daily training runs.

COACH J.S

Stem cells wrote:

Gbohannon wrote:

Hey, at least you can still put in 30! Better than nothing. Did you experience success in the 100 mpw range? What distances were you racing?

My focus was the marathon. I was making progress at 100mpw which makes bumping to 125 seem dumb in hind sight. I guess I got impatient and wanted to progress faster.

Ended up with PF, metatarsal stress fractures, and I guess what you would call burn out. I lost all desire or motivation to run, would experience pain in all of my lower body during really any type of running, weight loss, lack of appetite, etc.

That took about a year to get to where running was even tolerable. Now I can barely run a mile at my previous marathon PR pace. Even 7:30s fee challenging.

Same story here. Basically, I think one needs to hold at 100 mpw for quite awhile, take some down weeks, and let the body adapt. I got impatient and tried to push up toward 120, and that was it. Never got past a partially torn PF.

I would say swimming would be a great way to add additional fitness or take one day off and do pool running.

Those of you that have done high mileage- what was your easy run pace? How long did it normally take you to shake the cobwebs off each run?

I am training for a marathon right now. Training in past year was 60-75mi/week with a 16 mile long run and two workouts per week. Bumped that up to 90/week with one larger volume workout a week and further long run.

The first 10-20 minutes of my runs always seem to be drag slow, legs taking a while to get warmed up. Normal? Or should I look into it as a sign to back off a little bit?

These are my mileage totals from 18 weeks out from my fastest marathon, until 4 weeks out (when the taper started to take effect) - average was just over 75. A little modified from what Daniels lays out in his Training Plan A based on life getting in the way. While I got up to 90+ twice, including 1 100 mile week, I consistently varied my mileage up and down, with the down weeks being the more intense weeks, and the up weeks being less intense (again, based on Daniels' design). I do all of my training plans this way, with a constant, inverse fluctuation of mileage and intensity.

68.25

68.5

60.5

76.5

78

66

91.5

82.25

70.25

80.25

80.5

64

100

70.5

I don't even drive 100 mpw these days

Hello "Smoove"! :) Yes...we mostly disagree. And even this time about "more and higher mileage over time to be as high as possible without hurting their workouts or themselves". The problem with that way is that you don`t know in beforehand where the limit is. When you step over the edge it`s too late to step back because you are overtrained or injured and suffer. If you are real unlucky it will be a long time to come back.Some will never come back.I don`t ask runners how many miles they want to run to get ready for next race. I tell them just what they have to do to improve and run that race faster then ever.COACH J.S

Believe me, we know already. You are a wizard. We get it. 6 days of running, 1 day off. 20 x 400m at vo2max pace with jogging recovery until 120bpm. 800m intervals at threshold pace with recovery until 120bpm. Low mileage. Magical summer. Army of elite Kenyans. All PRs, all immediate. You can be found on FB.

COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:

I tell them just what they have to do to improve and run that race faster then ever.

At the BAA 5K in Boston I saw in the results a 40-year-old run 14:52. You think that's legit? I've raced at the master levels for a couple year now and train at times with a couple master guys who can run mid-15 for 5k.

I never heard of this guy.

BIB NAME AGE M/F CITY ST CTRY CTZ DM

119 Parks, Jeremy 40 M Westminster CO USA

Official Finish Overall Gender Division

14:52 22 / 8923 22 / 3766 1 / 468

That is blazing for 40, but I am not going to publicly cast doubt on someone I have never met.

I would say that if you consider that the guy lives at altitude and came down for a fast 5k, and got into a good field, it is a lot less hard to reconcile. I did a quick search on Athlinks and he has some other good times which, while not on par at all with that sub 15:00 on the roads, were pretty good, especially given that he ran them at altitude. They include a 7k (who creates a 7k race?) at 5:08 pace, a 32:59 at the BolderBoulder 10k and another at-altitude 10k in 32:08.

So while it makes my 15:22 on the track in my early 40s look bad, it doesn't make me incredulous, and I certainly wouldn't publicly identify him and question his integrity based on a sub 15:00. Not trying to be a jerk in saying that, I just think we should all be careful about impugning a guy's character, even unintentionally.

ClonedDuck wrote:

Those of you that have done high mileage- what was your easy run pace? How long did it normally take you to shake the cobwebs off each run?

I am training for a marathon right now. Training in past year was 60-75mi/week with a 16 mile long run and two workouts per week. Bumped that up to 90/week with one larger volume workout a week and further long run.

The first 10-20 minutes of my runs always seem to be drag slow, legs taking a while to get warmed up. Normal? Or should I look into it as a sign to back off a little bit?

I've had trouble starting runs beginning in my late thirties. I'll let the high school kids get a head start the first mile or more then try to catch back up to them by the end.

If you aren't about near jumpy to get into your workouts, you might have increased mileage too fast. It also might be some other fitness problem.

You should check for solutions in this order: hydration, stretching, sleeping, mileage, diet.

I think the authorities allow about a 1:06 time conversion from the Bolder Boulder 10k to a sea level equivalent, both because of the altitude and the difficulty of the course. But, I have seen plenty of semi-elite to elite runners drop there times on the track at sea level by two min+ from the Bolder Boulder.