armchair coach wrote:
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.
Merry christmas and an happy new year.
I ran my first 2:15 at age 32 but I think I had been in that shape years before at about age 24 prior to a sabbatical from running because I debuted a 2:17 marathon that year. My closing miles were pretty ridiculous that day - suggesting I had more in me had I had a knew exactly what I was doing.
So to answer your question: 4-5 years was all it took for me to enter the track&field news lists on that mileage.
My 10k was pretty weak: Close to 31 minutes when I began that mileage. I ran nearly under 30:00 a year later and then I took it to the marathon. Looking back, I should've explored my speed at mid-distances longer before moving up.
I'm pretty sure I had 2:12 potential in there on a perfect day. I ended up running 4:13 mile at age 34, probably because I had gotten so strong that even applying even a few 400's 200's and 100's was all it took. I couldn't run 4:25 in college before all that mileage. Seemed like any speed I applied to training, I could hold that pace for far longer periods of time on high mileage. I've never explored scientifically why that is.
What do you mean with speed? Just some strides now and then, series of 200s, mile repeats?
Thank you.