3:47, 14:12, 29:48 on 60 miles per week

"I got to know Carl quite well (in fact I was at his wedding)"

Not well enough though to remember that his name was really Palmer!

I remember running against him as a junior when he was at Highgate. He then joined Swansea when he moved to Wales and I think was a member of their 12 stage winning team in 94. He was a sub 30 10k runner which is amazing really off that level of training - I've heard the details of his training from another source. As you say I don't think some people on here reailse just how talented some guys are - they also tend to be the ones who are very fragile unfortunately.

MORON wrote:

Yea he deffently had to be. haha, what a Dope Smoker..he was on the same drugs that Dickhead Eddy hellenbuck was on. telling me he run's 29:48 for 10k and 14:12 for 5k off 60 miles a week, all i can say is BULLSHIT*****

I am always amazed at the hostility (relatively) low mileage stories elicit from this board.

In the mid '80s I was able to watch Sydney Maree and Marcus O'Sullivan train side by side for a number of years. SM did 120-130 mpw, MO'S 60-70. Both competed at the highest levels internationally for many years. Some might argue SM was a better runner because his PRs were slightly faster, but on the championship level (WC, EC,OG), they were probably on par.

The man coaching them - Tom Donnelly - never suggested that one should increase or the other decrease his load. It was obvious that they were BOTH consistent 3:35 runners using training methodolgies that worked in their own case.

What Tom sought to do was tweak these methodologies and improve them. But never consolidate them into one canon of training, as many here claim there is.

Hmm....seems like all these low-mileage guys had really good natural speed 50-52 sec for 400m.

And the guys who do not believe their success are runners with modest speed like 55-58, and for them high-mileage is the only key to success because they need to compensate the lack of speed with endurance to stay relaxed at race-pace.

I ran very similar times off very similar training. The next year I figured if I could up the volume and intensity I would improve. I tried weeks of 75-80 and just felt so creaky and always tight. I ran 14:10 early at Penn relays and never ran any faster that year, I didn't improve uping my milage. I found over the years that 60 mpw and 2 work outs pw was my threshold where I ran all my PR's.

I think if you find that treshold and can keep that level for a long period of time, you can be training at your optimum efficiency and you will improve over the years. Long term consistency and is the key. If you plan on uping yopur training your recovery is equally as important. Sleep, diet, massages etc.

Of course it was Palmer; I was just thinking of another guy I knew... silly mistake.

The rest is absolutely accurate though... I lost track of what Carl was doing training wise after '92 (when he left Preseli Harriers). For all I know he might have upped his training regime.

But I remember him finishing top 20 at the Margate international back in '91, and 1st Welsh, off the little training I have described. He did make a brief come back in 2000 also, and the last I heard of him, he was coaching some tri guys in Haverfordwest...

a little arithmetic wrote:

my only point was that this does not add up. no need to take offense at issues of the workout. just take offense at me saying you're really bad at math. which you are.

i reiterate: 30 min at 5min pace = 6 miles

14.5 min recovery jogging (30min/2 minus the last 30 seconds after the last repeat) would be about 2 miles

total = 8 miles. much more than 10k. you were not going 5 minute pace.

ok, a little clarification then. the actual running part--30 min at about 5 min pace which you pointed out is 6 miles--that's the 10k that i was discussing.

Simple: because you have a genetic gift that enables you to run faster than others, even with relatively little training.I know I'll probably be flamed for this little aside, but...Some elites like to take a seemingly populist view that they are not particularly talented, and that all it takes is hard work to run as fast as they do. For the vast majority of them, that's just pure BS. Sure, there's the occasional individual who steadily progresses from mediocre to good to great, but the vast majority of elites would be pretty damn fast on an aveage high schoolers' training. When you think about it, it's almost insulting, as if they're saying that the 2:45 crowd could run sub-2:20 if only they worked at it.

A Question of Progression wrote:

I also wonder why you think this schedule was so successful despite the relatively low mileage that was involved.

I really enjoyed your post Piran. Thanks for taking the time to think about my situation in a serious way. I have been thinking alot about the specificity of my training and how to maximize it without decreasing my fitness. I will reveal a bit more on what I've been doing since the fall of last year. My mileage has been between 95 and 105 miles per week since September (with 2-3 workouts per week)and I've definitely seen big leaps in my strength endurance sessions (e.g. I ran a 30min 10k in training at the end of a 100 mile week) but I haven't seen big jumps in my most specific sessions and, like you said, I correspondingly haven't experienced big jumps in my race performances. I've now lowered my volume to 85-90 miles/week as a start and lowered the intensity of my non-specific sessions to add some jump to my legs. I've thought about lowering my mileage to 60 again to really freshen up but since I'm aiming for my highest peak in August I'm concerned about loosing too much of the base that I've built over the past 8 months.

My suggestion would be to keep that 95-105 for a while and doing one maybe two workouts(enough to not compromise your speed). when u begin to start racing your more important races bring the mileage down to what u feel is really comfortable (60 mpw i guess).

It also depends on what event you want to reach your highest potential. If your going for the 1500m, dont up the mileage too much, but actually up the intesity (pace) of your regular days.

If your going for the highest potential in the 5k and 10k, its obvious to up the mileage.

I've gotten to 14:17 on 50 miles a week, so I'd say 14:12 on 60 a week is legit. I focus on 1k and 400m repeats, so the intensity is pretty high. From my reading, I'm a little bit concerned about reaching a peak without sufficient basework, as it is hard to improve having nearly peaked in workouts.

Exactly my thoughts. I'm thinking that the schedule I ran these times off of was a peaking schedule in itself. I didn't taper much for races as you can see from the minimal mileage difference between training weeks and racing weeks. I was already fresh from day to day. The question is, if this schedule worked well for me during a period of racing, what training should proceed a 12-16 week schedule like this in order to bring me to another level. Since I haven't yet dropped my mileage down to this level yet I still have to wait and see. But like I said in my last post, I'm concerned about how to maintain the endurance/strength endurance that I've built to this point. This is the first year I've really laid a significant base like this so it's all new to me.

Shorter Bus wrote:

I know I'll probably be flamed for this little aside, but...Some elites like to take a seemingly populist view that they are not particularly talented, and that all it takes is hard work to run as fast as they do. For the vast majority of them, that's just pure BS. Sure, there's the occasional individual who steadily progresses from mediocre to good to great, but the vast majority of elites would be pretty damn fast on an aveage high schoolers' training. When you think about it, it's almost insulting, as if they're saying that the 2:45 crowd could run sub-2:20 if only they worked at it.

On the flip side of this would be the non-elites who seem to attribute thier lack of success to thier poor genetics. I've been around a fairly wide range of runners and almost without fail, the level they compete at is closely related to the mental toughness and drive they exhibit. Obviously, genetic makeup is an important factor in running ability, but it by no means pre-determines what you will be as a runner. Alot of the less than stellar runners on here like to think that because they put in thier 100 mpw that they are somehow doing the same training that the elites of the country are doing. The number may be the same, but the intensity and consistency of the training are in two different worlds.

There is a direct genetic component to how much intensity and work one can do in a week beyond volume; these people aren't necessarily lazy. I've been doing 100mpw consistently, and if I could do any more workouts during the week or run them any faster I would. Unfortunately I just don't recover fast enough to do workouts any more then every 2-3 days. I've certainly tried to do more and work harder, and the result has been either over-training or anemia.

I've seen some elite schedules were they do what I would call a workout just about every other run (and on 2-a-days, that's every day). It takes something special to be able to do that.

There is a High School Sophomore in our league that ran 15:14 for 5k cross country off of very low (probably mid 30's) mileage. His coach is traditionally a higher mileage grind it out hard on most days of the week type of guy. However, the coach recognized early on that the athlete had the ability to train himself right into the ground (we are talking about the athlete's first ever season of cross country).

If a 15 year old can run 15:14 over hill and dale for 5k in his first season of cross country. I have no trouble beliving that a 20 year old can run the times posted off of 60 mpw.

For me, 60 mpw with 2 workouts was probably pretty good. I looked back at my logs from my buildup for my one marathon and found that I ran almost the same equivilant times early in my build up (when I was around 60 per week with no structured workouts) as I did when I bumped up to 70-80 with 2-3 hard workouts later in the buildup.

To answer the original question. I think that the poster could benefit from a gradual build up to higher (read higher by 10-15 miles per week) miles during a base period, then moving back into a schedule like the one that led to his PR's.

If he is looking to improve at the longer distances, he might want to substitute tempo runs or cruise intervals for one of those fartlek workouts.

Please stop overrating mileage..I believe this guy. I went 15:29, a new track PR for me, off 40-45 miles a week and only 5-6 days a week of running the last month or so...I was dealing with sickness and adjusting to my job so the mileage and workouts will be increasing now, but still, its legit..

I wouldnt worry too much about losing the fitness you have developed in your base phase as long as you are careful not to overdo things later in the year.

It takes far less work to maintain any given level of fitness than it does to gain it in the first place, so during the copmpetition phase I would emphasise really good quality specific sessions and concentrate on recovering really well between them. Several other posters on here seem to have discovered this for themselves when they say that they run better off just two workouts a week with the rest being made up of relatively easy running. The reason they do worse off more frequent sessions is simply that these specific workouts are very stressful and recovery is prolonged.

You are correct to schedule more volume (mileage) during the base phase, as the emphasis here needs to be on volume rather than intensity. However, this is also the time to do more supplementary type work, for example weights, jumping exercises, hill sprints, drills. The exact details will depend on your event, but it is a big mistake to just emphasise low intensity mileage and then expect to run good sessions at race pace later in the year. When you get to the pre-comp phase you are trying to coordinate all of the fitness capacities you developed earlier in the year - not start developing some from scratch. This means that there may actually be a wider range of activities in this part of the year than closer to competition.

As to the length of this phase - the bigger the base then the higher the level of specific training that can be performed and the longer high levels of performance can be maintained. However, as more mature athletes typically have longer training histories than younger athletes, they can probably shorten this phase as they are altready at ceiling levels of fitness.

I ran faster in the 10k and right around the same personal best for the shorter stuff off of 65 a week. I did a bit more tempo work than you did. Stuff around 5:00 - 4:50 pace runs for 5 miles and some surge finish runs. Those would have helped you more in the 10k and 5k.

Did you race the 5k/10k all out? If you did than it shows your 10k, thus threshold/tempo pace were a bit sub par.

do you guys think the upper body strength work he is doing could be having some of the good affect on his performances?

MORON wrote:

Yea he deffently had to be. haha, what a Dope Smoker..he was on the same drugs that Dickhead Eddy hellenbuck was on. telling me he run's 29:48 for 10k and 14:12 for 5k off 60 miles a week, all i can say is BULLSHIT*****

Clearly, you lack any understanding of running.