Guy in club disobeyed coaches orders and went from 60mpw -> 100mpw. Just two months later and he’s smashing all of us.

I think Shorter is right. 140 mpw is the mark that the mileage starts to become an issue. A few have done it but most of them are running at paces such that they aren't on their feet all day long.

1. This is a meaningless statement. You are saying he is going hard but not going hard. OK. Sounds like a tempo.

2. You club coach "orders" you about how much to run on non-workout days.

3/10

This will not age well.

Let us know in a month how hes doing.

Probably because an average runner's pace is more like 8:00-10:00 than whatever you were running, and they would need to train 13-17 hours a week (without falling apart) to get to 100mpw. Even 60mpw takes 8-10 hours/wk.

Most aren't naturally fast enough for even 50mpw to be reasonable. If you can reasonably consider running 60-100mpw let alone do it, you do have speed and talent, whether you want to admit it or not.

But that's speed endurance isn't it? Yor top end speed is your maximum velocity. Two different things.

I set all of my PRs my junior year of college running 80-85 miles per week. I increased to 90 the next year and ran a little worse in cross country, and a bit worse on the track. I went from breaking 3:50/8:00/14:00 to just over those times. I got even slower and I continued to increase my mileage after graduating. I ran my worst times at 120+ miles per week. Even after dropping the mileage, I’ve never gotten close to any of my previous times. Proceed with caution. Listen to your body. Too much is too much.

I doubt that I ever ran slower than eight minute pace in training. So fifteen miles would have taken a couple hours at most. And I was usually going faster than eights so a bit under two hours a day mostly. Spending two hours training for a sport you're really serious about seems a very reasonable amount of time.

I certainly did not have speed as most would define it. I once managed 59.8 for a 440 when I was in college. I imagine if I'd worked on the 440 I'd have gone a bit faster. It also seems fashionable now to decide that someone who is able to run a lot of miles consistently is able to do that because they have talent most others don't. Because none of us even know what a talent for running is so it's not worth getting into. But if there is such a talent why did so many people have it forty plus years ago and why do so few people today seem to have it.

If you can run sixty miles a week you can run sixty two, let's say, with no problem. Once you're comfortable at sixty two, which would basically be almost immediately, you can manage sixty four. Keep doing that for long enough and you'll eventually get to a hundred or even beyond. I expect some people won;t be able to manage that but a lot more could do so if they spent enough time working on it.

It took me about three years to get from sixty to one hundred a week and there were times along the way when it was hard to do and when I thought I just couldn't do anymore than I was doing. But I always managed to get past that point. Does that mean I had talent? I really don't know but as a reference point, Dick Quax went to a talk Lydiard gave when he, Quax, was starting out and ran a hundred miles in the following week. Yes, it's hard to do but not nearly as hard as so many of today's runners think it is. I really would love to know how many of the people who post here about how certain it is that you'll get injured if you try running something like a hundred miles a week consistently have actually tried it.

I don't think it's harder going from 60 gradually up to 100 because you get used to it and adapt. Otherwise, you're training too hard, which can happen at any level.

You don’t give up, do you? You claim to be slow, but I’m not interested in your 100m or 200m PRs. My point is that a guy with 60 speed is not going to be capable of 4:20/14:30, no matter how many miles he runs.

There was a thread about 800m being a sprint, but yeah, 200m is the limit for sprinting.

No, you're backtracking. I corrected you. Own it and quit whinin.

I've run with some pretty serious clubs and never had a coach give 'orders.' What club was this?

I’m not replying to anyone in particular… the thing is, it is up to each of us to find our own limits. Is it true that some people will never be capable of running 100 mpw, at least for sustained periods of time? Of course it is. However, is it also true that far more people are capable of running much more than they ever thought possible with just some smart training and a period of time in which to grow into it? Yes. Very much so.

Now, it may be ill advised to go straight from 60 to 100, even as some will be able to pull it off and see huge improvements as a result. But the person running 60 can surely move to 70 (or even 80) as a stepping stone, maybe stay there for six months to a year. Adapt. Then try to move up again. There is nothing “magical” about the 100 mile week, other than it just sounds good.

I would recommend to anyone trying to get their volume up to just start with a double of a 30-min run and an hour run, seven days per week (maybe six if you feel you need the day off). Just start running 90 minutes in two runs each and every day. Over the course of time, the paces will naturally get faster and the miles per week will certainly increase substantially. This is a good place to start for someone who is content at 60mpw, but really wants to see what they are capable of.

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. If you knew running history, you would know there's been several greats who could just barely crack 60. Lindrun could run only 56 but ran a 4 flat mile indoors. David Bedford couldn't crack 60 but still ran 13:20 something.

4:20 and 14:30 are not especially fast. A 4:20 mile is only 65 seconds per quarter. That's nothing for an aerobic monster, even one with slow sprint speed.

A couple more examples. Shorter never came close to a 4 minute mile. I don't even think he broke 4:10 but he ran 13:23 for 5k. Brent Vaughn at CU could barely run a 56 400, but he ran 13:15 out kicking Lagat! And Vaughn's PR at 1500 was only 3:45 from that same year!

Strength>speed my son.

Good post and I agree. However, I’m pretty sure Shorter ran closer to a 4:01 mile. Don’t quote me on that, but I think it was around there. You might be thinking of Bill Rodgers, who, if he broke 4:10 ever, it was just barely.

0/10 after two months the cumulative fatigue from the jump in mileage will have crushed him