"If you run more you will get faster, at a recreational level"
That is just not true for most recreational runners. They will see a big initial improvement and then very little when they go to 40 and 50 and 60. Meanwhile the risk of injury increases as well as tiredness and fatigue. Mileage gives rapidly diminishing returns for those who are not talented (95% of runners).
"If you run more you will get faster, at a recreational level"
That is just not true for most recreational runners. They will see a big initial improvement and then very little when they go to 40 and 50 and 60. Meanwhile the risk of injury increases as well as tiredness and fatigue. Mileage gives rapidly diminishing returns for those who are not talented (95% of runners).
I kind of agree with this...although I'd say for most runners it's probably more like there are the best improvements going from 40 to 60-65mpw.....but then after 70-80mpw the diminishing returns really start to set in....(they are still returns though!). Why else would pros run well over 90-00mpw then?
Most people with a full-time job and family probably aren't going to really have a lot of time to get enough sleep and run more than 70-80mpw anyway. The injury risk is also quite high.
Of course mileage isn't everything though. The quality and sequence of speed workouts and threshold sessions are also critical in determining half and marathon times (as well as obvious genetics and talent level).
Sure I ran a 1:13 half off of like 35mpw in high school. I'm for sure "talented" compared to the average American runner. But I wasn't like Galen Rupp level talent. It took me countless 100mile training weeks and nearly a decade longer of dedicated training just to lower that half marathon time down to 1:04.
There are marginal gains and marginal returns as well as increasing risks (for injury or over-training etc). There are huge lifestyle stressors (from diet and sleep) and mental components (work/family stress/attitude/perception of fatigue) that go into your ultimate progression and PRs in running.
It's not like these things exist in a vacuum and the mpw number is the only thing that matters...
I have been averaging right at 90km/week, with a long run and a VO2 max workout almost every week for 7 months. I have an upcoming 1/2 marathon next month, and if I have a very good day I expect to run between 1:33 and 1:35. Oh yeah, I'm 75 years old. I am unsurprised that some posters are calling you stupid for the narrow-minded dogmatic view you have expressed.
LOL! LOL!
If you run a legit 1:33 Half grandpa, then you will be an International Class runner, to go along with your 35-yr-old trophy wife.🙄
I haven't run a 1/2 marathon in about 10 years, but I have made the age group podium in multiple national XC championships, and made the age group world top 10 lists at 3k, 5k and 10k several times, so I guess you could call me an international class runner, whatever that means to you.
I ran a 1:25:36 half running under 80 miles per month. The total MONTHLY miles I had leading up to that race were:
47.67, 39.60, 71.25, 70.98
It is still my half PR and I'm too old to ever run that fast again so it will remain my half PR.
I was similar. I was right around 80 monthly miles and ran in the 1:27-1:28 range consistantly. I didn't care enough about running to spend more time doing it. I may have been able to run faster with more miles but it wasn't worth the time.
An amateur / recreational adult runner averaging a sustained 80 mpw is already such a massive outlier that the entire premise here is kind of moot — that probably represents a couple hundred people in the US, all of whom are active on this message board.
What does that even mean? There are thousands of amateurs running 80MPW. My neighbor had never heard of this site a year or two ago when I mentioned it to him akd he has been a runner for probably 25 years.
What does that even mean? There are thousands of amateurs running 80MPW. My neighbor had never heard of this site a year or two ago when I mentioned it to him akd he has been a runner for probably 25 years.
My original comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but you’re vastly overestimating the number of amateurs running 80MPW.
For reference, ~2000 miles run in a year (i.e., 40 mpw) is in the top 0.2% of strava users globally. It's really hard to casually run 80mpw — an amateur / recreational runner averaging 11-12 miles a day is an extreme outlier basically by definition. If you think your neighbor that casually goes running a couple times a week is putting in even half that, I’ve got a bridge in San Francisco to sell you.
This absolutely cannot be true. 80 MPW is likely in the top 0.1% (1/1000) in terms of training volume for half-marathon participants. There is no way you know “many” people running this much just to slog a 1:40+. I am not even that good (I ran 3:21:57 in my marathon debut and was damn proud of it!) but still managed 1:10/2:25 for the HM/marathon distances when I started getting into the mileage range you are talking about for extended periods of time. Someone hitting 80 miles for a week one time randomly does not equal 80 MPW.
Just letsrun being letsrun. 1:40 isn't a slog to "normal" people - that's people doing 30-40 miles a week, while working normal jobs, and going balls out in the race.
"not even that good" leads to a debut 3:21 'thon and eventually a 2:25?
Why do so many people here have so much trouble admitting they're genetically gifted and are actually talented?
There are people in my run club that would kill to break 22/45/1:40/3:30....and these are people with professional jobs, train with discipline, correct gear, 80/20 training (slow EZ runs and appropriate workout paces), and do 45-60 mpw. They also follow the sport and its current studs.
this thread irritates me because people are acting like running is more complicated or talent-based than it actually is. it's a simple sport - if you run more you will get faster, at a recreational level.
the typical 3-hour runner averages roughly 75-80k per week in the 16 weeks before a marathon. that that is a fact. look at the chart above based on thousands of data points.
there is a bit of a plateau around 3 hours, but there is also the fact if you are running a lot more than that, you are a lot more likely to be going faster than 3 hours, that is also a fact.
you can call me an idiot, a clown, thick-headed all you want, but running is a simple sport and if people ran more, they'd run faster.
this is from the paper i mentioned earlier, and it has as good data as there has ever existed for marathon runners.
4.1 Training volume as a hallmark of marathon running The analysis of training characteristics in this large sample of marathon runners revealed differences in the training characteristics between runners with different finishing times.
A key finding was that the best runners within the dataset, those with marathon times of 120-150 min, accumulated a training volume of ~107 km·week-1, which was ~60% higher than the training volume of runners within the next performance group (marathon times of 150-180 min), and over three-fold higher than those with slow marathon times (e.g., marathon time of >270 min; Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3).
Furthermore, there were strong, negative relationships between marathon finishing time and markers of training volume, such as total training distance, training time, or active days (Figure 5). The regression analyses demonstrated that markers of training volume, including total running distance, number of active days, or distance covered in long runs were typical features of runners with fast marathon times.
The finding that marathon performance in a large heterogenous group of runners is strongly associated with a high training volume is consistent with previous literature from elite marathon runners. For example, up to 59% of world class long distance running performance can be predicted by total volume of training [30], and very high training volumes of 160-220 km·week-1 have been reported in elite marathon runners [18].
The current study suggests that training volume is also a key determinant of marathon performance in recreational runners. Combined with previous studies, these data suggest that high training volume is a hallmark of successful marathon performance.
I do Irish Dancing as well...running is definitely simpler and less complicated.
That sport is wild--so much technique and things outside of your control determine success, even moreso than running.
you're not running 130km a week and b) you are a massive outlier by definition. you're literally one of the best 75 year olds in the world ever. the world record appears to be 1:29.
i have repeatedly said it's not impossible there are people out there.
you're 75 and running 90km a week. good for you. you are a massive outlier.
International Class runners are at the talent level of the Emma Coburn’s, Grant Fisher’s, and Galen Rupp’s of the world, whether or not they are taking drugs to assist there performance. In order to lay down an International Class or even National Class (think Natosha Rogers level) Half-Marathon performance, the training involved is more than just some simple volume metric.
“International Class” are runners who represent their Countries in international events. These include masters runners at all age groups. Of course they include granddads in age groups up to the 70s. Some of these runners may achieve their performances from mainly volume.
My neighbor isn't casually doing it. He and his group live to run. They spend 2 hours every day doing it. They travel the country to race. They have gone overseas to do marathons.
You need to run more to get faster. If these people never run the mileage they'll never be good.
Regardless, I do agree with this sentiment in many ways. I wish that more people were pushed into running the correct distance for how much they train. Most marathon runners are doing 25-45 mile weeks, go run a 5k, who cares about the weird societal circlejerk know as the marathon.
International Class runners are at the talent level of the Emma Coburn’s, Grant Fisher’s, and Galen Rupp’s of the world, whether or not they are taking drugs to assist there performance. In order to lay down an International Class or even National Class (think Natosha Rogers level) Half-Marathon performance, the training involved is more than just some simple volume metric.
“International Class” are runners who represent their Countries in international events.
Way to let the forum know you haven’t a clue how Age Grading works.
that's the best chart but it's mean averages, and the relevant bucket is 180-210 mins so not that helpful. the scatter plot doesn't include right data
it's clear though, if you're a male running over 100km a week and you can't break 3 hours in a marathon you're a big outlier - and that's for 16 weeks.
You'd struggle to convince me you've run 130km a week for a year and can't break 3, let alone 90 mins for a half
I ran a bit over 3:00 despite 80 mpw. I ran 1:15 in the half. I just run worse as the distance goes up, and kept up my ~10k training except with more mileage so I faded a ton. I don't have a desire to try to run a marathon again.
If you can, and you're willing, you should be trying to run more mileage - regardless of the time you're trying to achieve.
It's very simple, to get better at running, you need to do more of it. It doesn't matter if you run 90 mins or 60 mins for the half, running more is one of the best ways to improve.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
