140 mile weeks with only 10 mile runs?

HRE

Thanks for the clarification. Either way, it didn't seem to take you that long to get there. Two years really not all that long when you consider that you more than doubled your mileage.

Crushman - I like your advice of increasing and hovering for a while. I've never put in quite the mileage you have, but I do know you better hang for a while at a certain volume first.

It's easiest to remember the marathons and some cross country times from college.

My first marathon was in May, 1972 and was 4:34:30. After that summer of 50-70 mile weeks I went to 3:29:42 and got to 3:24 something in Feb. of 1973.

The 80 mile weeks got me to 3:05 by the end of 1973. Then I got to 2:50 by February of 1975, then to 2:41 the following December.

I worked my six mile time down to 32:29 on a cross country course by the end of college but never broke 17:00 in an actual track three mile nor 34:00 in a track six and got a 15:34 five thousand on the track at a meet in Finland in 1975. I never liked track races and was usually pretty cooked for them in college from a lot of interval work during track season.

Once I graduated I really just focused on marathons but do recall a 33 something 10km in a road race in 1975. I also did 1:30 for 25 km and 1:48 for 30km in those years.

From 1975 to '77 I had no PRs and at the start of 1978 decided that my motive for running as much as I did was to see how fast I could get if I did and that it seemed like I had.

I though about quitting but still enjoyed the sport and was placing pretty well when I raced. I decided I'd just run as much as I enjoyed which ended up being one run a day and about 75-90 mpw. That brought one last round of PRs, a 15:33 five km, road not track, a four mile in 19:53, 32:20 for ten km and a 2:35 marathon done purely on a whim with no taper, the Diet or anything special at all.

Then it was pretty much downhill.

I also thought that I'd maxed out at about 120-130. My highest was 155 and I was often around 140-145 because I thought it made sure I was getting in enough miles. I sort of wish I'd done a 200 once just so I could say I did.

The distance runner that needs 100miles training, doubles, track workouts tyo improve from 5:00 to 4:00 mile willn´t be an olympic in distance event from 100m to the marathon. He willn´t a sub 4:00, or national record. May be he will be the best runner of his block. That´s the reality, what you propose as a possibility it´s fantasy, not serious and willn´t happen. It´s poved. No way.From now on you can speculate to what it pleases you and write many articles or books about the benefit of a kind of 5:00 to 4:40 run to train 100miles and train like a champion.

HRE wrote:

What's foolish about trying to run a tile that would get you into the Olympic Trials marathon, or even just to see how fast you can get from doing all you can to get as fast as you can? If you don't want to personally that's your business but you have no right to dismiss others who want to get as good as they can as "foolish."

And how can someone tell without training like an elite runner whether or not they'll end up as one?

No need run high volume mileage to improve from 5:00 mile to 4:40.

Thousand of runners did that with let´s say 50mile a week and some speed. it´s dammed poor thing to advise someone to train as a high volume top runner to improve from 5:00 to 4:40. The average runner with no potential to be top class runner that does 100miles a week is waist his time and energy and after all he does wrong training because its not that efficient training to get his target.

I consider the best

He is free to do so. It´s his own option. If he loves that high mileage training, training like champion, he loves it, no complain. But here the question is about if it´s necessary such hard training, and if it´s the best train from the methodology side. It doesn't.

You want to try ? You insist? Do it. But it´s not the rational train for a 5:00 to 4:40

May be that the rujnner just loves to run many miles, train like a champion, doing doubles, long runs and so. He wake up early in the morning, may be he is a student, may be he works full-time and he makes some sacrifice to train so much. That volume train quantity it is not realistic with the goal that is go from 5.00 to 4:40. That kind of training over that runner is imperfect training because it´s excessive for his target.

However, i don´t exclude that the same runner that improves from 5:00 to 4:40 in the future he can be a 4:30, 4:20 4:10, or a 4:00. He can be a sub 4:00 in the future. But that is there when it´s the right time for that runner and the coach they may start to think about the possibility and the NEED of high mileage and hard training and not when he is a 5:00 or 4:40.

When i say 4:40 i might say 2:00 in 800m or 15:00 in 5000m or 32:00 in 10k. This are ordinary performances. To get that kind performances the runner just needs moderate training. Otherwise if they improve to that kind of performances because they put over him 100miles, doubles, hard training workouts, long runs he will never reach the top.

On this board i often read about some folks that do long runs, 100miles and they advise to do like they did, they advise doubles and they say that´s what they did themselves. Further up i read they did 1h15m 10mile run or 1h40min in HM that kind of performances. What´s that to do to 100miles, long runs to run 1h40min HM. it´s a joke, it´s funny, but it´s not good training.

In replying to nobody in particular, this isn't rocket surgery. Just run two hours every day in two runs, with one two hour run on Sunday. Do the doubles in any combination you want. Personally I'd go 45/75, but it might be nice to mix it up. Start out slowly. Let your body adapt. Do not run for miles but for time. Do some progression running when feeling up to it, and back way off when feeling sluggish, stale, tried, etc. Always LISTEN to your body. The miles will come as your average pace gets faster over the years, way faster. This is how Mark Nenow essentially did it.

That's all running is... stress and adaptation. Don't forget about the adaptation, rest, diet part as total allostatic stress load matters. This is all too often overlooked.

I improved my marathon by almost two hours. I know another guy who went from 4:20 something to 2:36 doing 140-150 miles a week. That may not impress you but if you're running marathons in moer than four hours times in the mid twos seem almost super human and the effort was not a joke.

What is a joke is getting onto message boards and demeaning the accomplishments and efforts of others while never offering any better ideas or experiences of your own.

As an aside, I remember reading that 6'4" and 2:10+ marathoner Elly Rono used to run 10 miles twice per day, and a long one on Sunday, much of it hard so that it came out to like 140 miles+. Worked for him. As I recall, his 5k and 10k bests were solid, but not super impressive.

HRE wrote:

What is a joke is getting onto message boards and demeaning the accomplishments and efforts of others while never offering any better ideas or experiences of your own.

well put.

Friend of long slow distance:

You are a moron. Your logic is hideous and would be embarrassing coming out of the mouth of an 8 year old. You keep blathering in your broken English as if you can be right through sheer volume of words.

IF someone lacks talent, they will not run a 4:00 mile or a 2:20 marathon no matter how many miles they run or years they dedicate to the task. But if they want to run 4:20 or 2:30, they'd damn sure better train seriously. A person, like HRE, who runs 32 minutes for 10k after years of training is NOT going to run better by doing 40-50 miles a week for all those years, even if that's all it would take for Alan Webb to run 4 minutes faster.

I sailed through college while barely studying, but still made good grades. Does that mean that everyone should study exactly like me, and just give up if they don't make the same grades? In conclusion, you're a f$ing idiot.

Friend of LSD, you are an insufferable assh0le. Otherwise, awesome thread. I've gotten myself to sub-15:30, sub-32, and 2:30:34 for the marathon on 80mpw in singles. I am going to take the next step to 13 runs a week using this thread for guidance. Not necessarily 10 miles per run, though. Thanks for all of the stories and feedback, especially HRE. Cheers.

Much appreciated guys. You're welcome.

I am as impressed with your 2:36 performance with the same interest as your early 4:20. But don´t be upset. In 5 decades I´ve seen and knew so many outstand performances and after some years they are broke that i´m as impressed with your 4:20 as i´m with 2:03 marathon. It´s not a question of impression it´s a question of the right training to able certain performance.

But there is another reason why i´m not impressed. Because i coached 2 soccer football/players that with no special training relate to the marathon, once they decide to run the marathon and one did 2:22 and the other did 2:18.

The question is not about performance impressed but the training that able certain performance.

Why do you think i don´t respect you effort to improve ? I do. But if you ask me what i think myself, i think that to train so much to run 2:36 it´s someone with an obsessive and quite alienated temper that isn´t able understand one average performance in the universal context.

One thing is the required training for the mile improve from 5:00 to 4:40 and fother thing is or the marathon training need. You mix both things, but you can´t, the marathon training needs more volume mileage than the mile.

But what you did as training it´s a your individual option, but i don´t think it´s a good training advise for someone that is a 4:40 mile runner or a 2:36 marathon either.

I also i coach non-professional average runners. Some of them did the kind of improve you did right before they start training with me. But they did with no more more than 60-80miles average in about 12 weeks and it´s all. Besides in my analysis and if i consider their life routine and their need of recover to not overtraining if they would try to run so many miles as you did they wouldn't done what they did and they would be smashed by that tuff training even if it´s SLD all the time and all the way long. The fact is that some of this board do advise 100miles, doubles, long runs, hard workouts to young boys, to older runners, to everyone in the attempt to improve from 5:00 to 4:40 mile.

About your comment that i never advise training or offer better trainig ideas,

First of all this is not a forum of training advise. i come here to discuss training not to advise training. Besides my training advise is individual. I build individualized schedules, i don´t think that to post my training for an anonymous guy by the internet got to be a good thing.

To post direct training advise or post my own training as advice on the board as you do or some others they do i don´t tyhink it´s a good thing. For the same reason i don´t post advise based in my own training or my self training experience as you do, i don´t need or feel obeyed to post my performances.

If you can read between the lines of my posts you will see that goes the best training advice of that all. the advice is: don´t train as HRE or Wetcoast they advice. It´s one good training start.

To the guy that said that 2:20 marathon is best than 4:40mile. He is right 2:20 marathon is best than 4:40mile. The reason i wrote 2:20 marathon as an average performance it´s because i know several runner that never did 4:40mile but they did 2:20 in the marathon.

Anyhow i go to say something about me for the critics that take all the time to ask what i did as a runner.

First of all i don´t need to be a good runner to be a good coach or coaches like Li, Renato Canova or Dr. Kostre wouldn´t be good coaches and they are.

My marathon Pb is 2:29 in the marathon but i did 2:32 with 45 years old. My best performances were in short distances. I did 3:39.8 in 1500m in the 70s, may be some of you weren´t born or were you were just kids.

I get my best performances without be a professional runner but work 9hours a day at that time.

I may resume the training i did at that time.

I did 60-80-miles week volume done in singles, one hard track workout on every week and one outdoor fartlek workout also every week and no long runs.

That's great, but maybe you could've run 2:15 had you run more. That is, at least partly, the point of the responses you are getting. How good could you have been? If it isn't important to you, that's fine. I don't mean to speak on behalf of HRE, but I will anyway. I think his point would be that he walked away giving it everything he had.

3:39 for 1500 and you were only six minutes faster at the marathon than I was with my 4:48 best mile? You should have run more.

So, Friend of LSD, if I'm reading this correctly, you are basically here trying to rationalize your lack of effort with superior results (obviously due to God-given talent) while tearing down those who outworked you only to achieve average results. Classy.

You didn't get your best results without being a professional runner. You got excellent results in the 1500m at a reasonable workload with above average natural talent, and average results in the marathon in spite of your natural talent due to poorly organized training.

HRE's training tells me something important, regardless of the fact that it is specific to him. It tells me that if I wish to find my limits, I don't need to be an Olympic caliber athlete, I don't need to have 'potential'--I just have to desire to do the work, and then get it done. You, Friend, offer nothing whatsoever of similar value.

HRE wrote:

3:39 for 1500 and you were only six minutes faster at the marathon than I was with my 4:48 best mile? You should have run more.

Right, in should have done one faster marathon, with 80-100miles eventually. But i did the marathon in the 80s for the fun of it, no serious intention, no specific training, and at the period i did the marathon i was slower than your 4:48, i did a few mile road runs and i wasn´t able to run faster than 5:12 that what i did on a mile road run at that period.

I appreciate your tricky comment done by you the guy that says we can´t relate performances. Poor memory...

However what i did it´s done by thousand of other runners. I did what i did, no complain.

i wish you merry christmas and an happy new year. Bye.

HRE wrote:

3:39 for 1500 and you were only six minutes faster at the marathon than I was with my 4:48 best mile? You should have run more.

Right, in should have done one faster marathon, with 80-100miles eventually. But i did the marathon in the 80s for the fun of it, no serious intention, no specific training, and at the period i did the marathon i was slower than your 4:48, i did a few mile road runs and i wasn´t able to run faster than 5:12 that what i did on a mile road run at that period.

I appreciate your tricky comment done by you the guy that says we can´t relate performances. Poor memory...

However what i did it´s done by thousand of other runners. I did what i did, no complain.

i wish you merry christmas and an happy new year. Bye.

common wrote:

You, Friend, offer nothing whatsoever of similar value.

i wish you merry christmas and an happy new year. Bye.

Merry christmas and an happy new year.