I ran 40 miles a week and ran the half in 1:14:0X. Not fast enough. But I maximized the time I had and did the best I could with the little time that I had. You just have to know what you are doing. Training baby training and training smart.
I ran 40 miles a week and ran the half in 1:14:0X. Not fast enough. But I maximized the time I had and did the best I could with the little time that I had. You just have to know what you are doing. Training baby training and training smart.
Idontevenknow wrote:
4350mpw wrote:My PR for a half-marath is 1:33:05. I haven't raced a 5K in 14 months but I'm guessing I could maybe run under 21 minutes.
21 minutes is almost your half pace. I think you need to re-evaluate your training.
Well maybe I'm in for a fast 5K next year! Last time I raced a 5K was April 2012. But my half-marath PR at that time was 1:37 and I ran 21 min and change.
All my halfs this year have been faster than that time (except one hilly course).
Cavorty wrote:
I was never superfast, with a 15:22 pr, and I probably only run about 40 miles a week, but I ran 17:33 at 53, and 17:53 last year in 80f+ temps. at 55. I'm now 56, but I would be disappointed if I can't get under 18:00 again this year.
Dayum. That's impressive. And 15:22 is superfast to me (if not Gebremeskal).
pdpdp wrote:
I'm new to triathlons (2nd full season) and it's incredible what cycling has done for my legs and my runing. It just made every aspect, all the muscles on my legs, stronger. I think that serious runners should consider, if they have the TIME (CYCLING TAKES TONS OF TIME) to supplement with REAL cycling, not 'spinning' but real rides where you are accumulating some good elevation or maintaining a difficult speed for yourself.
I actually got a little slower when I switched to triathlon from full time running for a few years. My legs did feel strong and I felt strong as ever, but my times were actually slower. I got a little more muscular doing triathlon, and was probably 7-8 lbs heavier than I was a s afull time runner.
Serious bro wrote:
Which pro triathlete runs sub-30 in a tri? I don't know any. Maybe there's one in a year if at all. Some elite road races are won in 29:xx, and you say there's a bunch of triathletes running sub-30 on the road? Not possible.
Browlee's 10k split in winning the Olympic triathlon last year was 29:07.
Unlike a lot of triathlon courses the Olympic course was accurately measured.
might as well jump wrote:
I'm not trolling. I want this to be a serious discussion.
I think it's so funny seeing people here complain about how they're running 90 miles per week and still not able to break 18 minutes in the 5k.
I ran 100 miles per week and couldnt break 14 minutes.
Comparing pro tri guys with avg Joe? If you did apples to apples comparison pro against pro 27 min ten k vs 30 is lightsyears away. So by your logic all tri guys run 30 min tenk. When the average is much less flattering.
Serious discussion, eh? I'm late to the party here and I've only skimmed most responses so maybe you or someone has covered this. But in the 46 years I've been in the sport I have known a fairly small number of runners who regularly run as much as 90 miles a week and of that group, the only ones I know of who aren't well under 18:00 for 5km are well on the high side of 50 years old. Who exactly are you talking about?
If you really aren't trolling and want a serious discussion maybe you should stop creating straw men and use some actual examples. There may be someone here and there who runs 90 a week or more and can't get under 18:00; there are loads and loads of people running these days so the Law of Averages has probably created an outlier or two, so you may be describing an actual person, but certainly you aren't describing a common phenomenon.
No matter, your point, that there are people who can run 30:00 or better without running a lot isn't new nor does it disprove the value of running a lot of miles. And these folks are/were purely runners, not triathletes. Frank Sando was fifth in the Helsinki 10,000 on cinders with one shoe missing in 29:51. He maxed out at 45 miles a week. Zatopek won that race and was doing 2-3 times the volume Sando was.
I'm not even close to the best Masters in my area (I'm 48), and I can run an 18 min 5k on 30 mpw, and I was no rstar in HS, never ran college, and just started running again 1.5 years ago. Best guys my age are running low 16's.
I'm trying to get to a stable, consistent 50 mpw, and I figure I should be in the 17's no problem. I can't imagine anyone with any running ability at all who wouldn't be under 18 mins running more than 60 mpw....
I don't think that there's anything typical about a 100 mpw 18:20 guy. Other than that I sort of agree.
knox harrington wrote:
might as well jump wrote:I'm not trolling. I want this to be a serious discussion.Then why did you build your argument on a foundation of imaginary BS?
LR, is an entire community built on a foundation of imaginary BS.
I usually run 100 mpw (up to 112) for much of the year, am 44, and when in shape run low 16 (in shape to go under last fall), and I have very limited talent based on the definition not of how fast you run without training or when young (5:32 mile in 7th or 8th grade) but of how much you respond to training stimuli. At 60 mpw, I was running slower workouts and not breaking 35 for 10k in my late 30s. The fact is that this is a lower mileage argument and we know that many of the best runners at 5000m and especially below run 50s and 60s, that many of the better collegians run 70s and 80s, and so it is clearly possible to be successful on lower mileage. But the question is how (without the peds that many elite triathletes are using and without the elite running background that alastair had) to maximize running performance. And the answer is clearly not to cross-train large amounts, because none of the best runners do that and very few people pr on that kind of training if they have tried maximizing intensity/quantity in pure running training. Why do want bragging rights in the category of doing well on limited mileage?