131 a long time ago.
For a marathon, if your body can handle it, yes, but as part of a cycle, with this being the peak. For me this was a summer base build to prep for XC in the fall.
131 a long time ago.
For a marathon, if your body can handle it, yes, but as part of a cycle, with this being the peak. For me this was a summer base build to prep for XC in the fall.
My highest total was 88, a nice round number ...
110.
Hoping to get there more regularly. Love mileage!
132
15 23 15 25 15 24 15
November, 1975
334 miles in 8 days when I was 45 yrs. old. I was running across the state of Iowa.
I met a couple fellows after a 10k race in San Fernando in March 1976. This was a few months after my highest mileage week, but prior to my fastest marathons. One of them said the other had run 12 miles the day before the Mission Bay Marathon, where I think he ran 2:19, which was his lowest mileage for 2 years. I was very impressed and asked how much they usually ran in a week? He said they did all their runs together and were averaging 170-180 miles a week, most all of it at a 5:35 pace and no speed work at all.
They left and I commented to another fellow how impressive that was. He said he was running 500 miles that week. My eyes bugged out and I asked if he did that every week. He said no, just that week as he was on vacation. From memory, he was running 7 or 8 times a day, usually 8 to 10 miles at a time, and he was only running, eating and sleeping, nothing else. He soon after ran 2:19 at Boston.
70......I'm not a high mileage guy...
108, I'm way too calculated to blow out a week at like 150. Why would you?
Some would say...if you have to ask?
90 during the summer of 1990.
210
And I've never felt so miserable in my life
and correct me if I'm wrong but Malmo ran 8:26 for the 3000mSC, 1:01 Half marathon and a 2:12 Marathon.
So why did you do it?
8:21.
Honestly, because anyone that used to be someone ran mileage....as well as by the time I got back into running after years away, I was older, and not being able physically to run workouts fast enough to enhance my training at that time, my answer was to run more, see what this body could handle and if it would/could make a difference. I kept telling myself "could all of those guys been wrong?"
So a couple years removed from my grand experiment I love mileage and I've pr'd in almost every distance from 3k up, looking to bring my 26.2 pr down a bit here shortly.
As a footnote I might add to those skeptics, with the mileage it has enable me to run faster, now most recently with some good guidance I've lowered my overall mileage a bit and can run "faster" workouts to add to my arsenal. I can't tell you how excited I was to finally start running sub 5's in workouts again or to run a 5k in sub 5 pace this past year, and in short Malmo, I did it because it was fun, I love to run and I love to get better.
Sorry so long winded.
mdw wrote:
Honestly, because anyone that used to be someone ran mileage....as well as by the time I got back into running after years away, I was older, and not being able physically to run workouts fast enough to enhance my training at that time, my answer was to run more, see what this body could handle and if it would/could make a difference. I kept telling myself "could all of those guys been wrong?"
So a couple years removed from my grand experiment I love mileage and I've pr'd in almost every distance from 3k up, looking to bring my 26.2 pr down a bit here shortly.
As a footnote I might add to those skeptics, with the mileage it has enable me to run faster, now most recently with some good guidance I've lowered my overall mileage a bit and can run "faster" workouts to add to my arsenal. I can't tell you how excited I was to finally start running sub 5's in workouts again or to run a 5k in sub 5 pace this past year, and in short Malmo, I did it because it was fun, I love to run and I love to get better.
Sorry so long winded.
So the 210 helped you, even though it felt miserable at the time?
What is the most mileage you run now?
mdw wrote:
Honestly, because anyone that used to be someone ran mileage....as well as by the time I got back into running after years away, I was older, and not being able physically to run workouts fast enough to enhance my training at that time, my answer was to run more, see what this body could handle and if it would/could make a difference. I kept telling myself "could all of those guys been wrong?"
So a couple years removed from my grand experiment I love mileage and I've pr'd in almost every distance from 3k up, looking to bring my 26.2 pr down a bit here shortly.
As a footnote I might add to those skeptics, with the mileage it has enable me to run faster, now most recently with some good guidance I've lowered my overall mileage a bit and can run "faster" workouts to add to my arsenal. I can't tell you how excited I was to finally start running sub 5's in workouts again or to run a 5k in sub 5 pace this past year, and in short Malmo, I did it because it was fun, I love to run and I love to get better.
Sorry so long winded.
"0.O" said: "210 And I've never felt so miserable in my life"
"mdw" said: and in short Malmo, I did it because it was fun, I love to run and I love to get better."
Are you "o.O" or "mdw"? or both? I was asking mdw why he ran 210 miles in a week if he was never so misreable in his life doing it? That's crazy.
Now if you are not "o.O" and are just weighing in that's fine. But you do see the confusion?
189 - I commuted to work on foot that week - 29 miles round trip. When it got to Sunday, I was trying to eat so much that my stomach rebelled (also, I had been switched to a graveyard shift) and I called my wife to pick me up from work - so only did half the commute that day. In the past when I've done big miles, my body usually comes around after a week or so and speeds up. Then a week later, I get injured from running big miles fast.
OC 100k RD- why did the race get cancelled for 2011? Will it be back in 2012?
I've never run 210 miles in a week, see previous post. I thought Malmo asked me why did I do it? Looks like couple of you are confused. Carry on then.
mdw wrote:
I've never run 210 miles in a week, see previous post. I thought Malmo asked me why did I do it? Looks like couple of you are confused. Carry on then.
He specifically replied to the post by o.0 asking him why he did it and you responded to him, even though he was asking someone else. Do you know it shows which post you were replying to in someone's post?
malmo wrote:
runski wrote:Apparently you didnt' read a third link, just above, from a review by Michael Gleeson published in the Journal of Applied Physiology. This isn't Runner's World. (and I included the same link the on my 2nd response just to make sure that you had perchance looked it)
http://jap.physiology.org/content/103/2/693.fullWith all due respect I'll take the information from Gleeson's review, with dozens of scientific papers supporting it, over your anecdotal evidence. Hope that this is clear.
Yes, I did read that. Gleason's abstract cites conflicting studies, regardless of there relevance to this thread, just as a good scientist should.
For example, it has been reported that the regular performance of ~2 h of moderate exercise per day is associated with a 29% reduction in risk of picking up upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) compared with a sedentary lifestyle (25).
In contrast, it has been reported that there is a 100–500% increase in risk of picking up an infection in the weeks following a competitive ultra-endurance running event (30, 35, 36). However, a recent study (7) failed to confirm these findings in a large cohort of marathon runners: no relation was found between training volume during 6 mo before a marathon race and the postrace incidence of self-reported URTI episodes, and there was no difference in infection incidence in the 3 wk after the race compared with before
point taken, but that was about the only somewhat inconclusive report that he cited. There is often conflicting or inconclusive evidence in science (think about climate change. He went on to say that the study (7) subjects doubled infection rates the following week. Gleeson also did conclude that finding a direct link between exercise and illness has not been conclusive (hard to train a bunch of athletes and spray them with cold/flu virus). But the evidence on the mechanisms involved (increased cortisol etc, decreased T-cells and other immune cells, etc) does lead to the conclusion that the fighters in the body's immune function process do get knocked back some.
Finally, though, and once again. Not saying that the mileage/volume is bad. It's a matter of managing the issues. Refuel and rehydrate quickly, get rest, wash your hands, avoid sick people. Common sense.