7:59, 13:48, 28:39, 2:16 on 50-60 mpw

the way i look at it is like this. take someone like ritz. at the shorter distances, such as 5k and maybe even 10k, ritz could run 70 miles per week and probably manage to run 13:25 and 27:40's. however, when he bumps it up to 100 or more he gets down to 13:15 and 27:30's. so, essentially, i think with the talented runners, keeping things like weight equal at each mileage total, they will run very close to their top times off lower mileage.

The real Just the facts ma'am wrote:

Racer1 wrote:

His infraction meets the above definition. Remember the phrase, "Think before you speak (or write)?"

I'll toss that out now as a piece of advice for you in the future. It helps in avoiding to make yourself look asinine.

You're wrong. The fake Just the facts ma'am did not represent it as his own work.

Take your own advice.

are you retarded?

I was referring to racer1 not to "the real just the facts ma'am"

Mileage will improve any runner until that runner reaches the point where their mileage becomes counter productive and it can become counterproductive for a variety of reasons. you may begin to break down. You may be overly tired almost all the time and that tiredness will slow you as you race. You may need to run so slowly to cover your volume that your quality deteriorates. You may simply start to dislike running because it's taking up too much time.

So the trick is always to run as much as you can before you reach one of those stages.

While I've always been a big mileage guy, I've enjoyed this thread because it shows that there are anamolies, guys who can run very well on less than you'd think. And while I think running in the US would be much better if we had the armies of people doing 100-150 that we had in the 70s and 80s, I also think that if we had loads and loads of guys come out of college and do 50-70 per week, we'd find a few of these anamolies and get some of the sorts of performances turned in by guys like Smet or Simmons, etc.