does more than 150, 200mpw hurt or help?

I respect you if you could do that.

It killed Ron Hill's career as a world class marathon runner. His fixation with training everyday (even when sick) and his belief that the cure for a poor race was to increase his mileage (despite the evidence to the contrary) led to a downward spiral in performance. His training diary (and results) clearly shows signs of overtraining, somehow Ron was unable to see this! Salazar & Bedford also had similar experiences.

It's fairly well analysed in Noakes' book.

I think done intelligently and safely it would be excellent for your running.

It didn't hurt that Tanzanian fellow in '89 who won New York in 2:07 and change and who's CR was never beaten (The new CR is on a slightly changed course).

Alan

Maybe it didn't help him either; he might have done just as well off less mileage.

My personal feeling is that whether or not more and more mileage is beneficial, there gets to be a point when you have to ask yourself, why?, and do I really want to spend that much of my life in pursuit of a somewhat meaningless goal. If you answer yes, I guess you might as well go for it.

Meaningless? One could argue that running for anything other than health benefits is meaningless.

I mean "meaningless" in the sense of "non-utilitarian". I think every dedicated runner finds some personal gratification in running. However, when I have been training at maximum levels, it sometimes makes me question why I'm willing to put such an effort into becoming a better runner, when in all probability the only payoff is going to be slightly less mediocre results than before. For me, these feelings usually start creeping in around 80-90 mpw.

Oh yeah, and there is another purpose to running other than health reasons--it's a form of transportation. Granted, it's rarely used as such, but I've found it easier to justify since I've started including running as part of my commute to and from work.

I don't know, but hopefully I will find out soon as I am attempting to build to at most 150m/week over the summer. I did build up to 130m/week and though I was strong, I didn't immediately race well, felt burnt out, took a couple weeks easy/off and then went on a torrid PR streak of races from 5 miles-13.1 miles; and I'm talking @3 minutes over a half-marathon. So, for the immediacy, you will feel crappy, but it will pay off greatly in the long run. Patience.

here's where I draw the line between traing and obsession.

If 140 mpw results in a 2:12 marathon or better you're training, slower than this you're probably obsessive.

My expeience has been that those who are truly talented and perhaps gifted can race about a

4:00 minute mile

sub 9:00 " two mile in high school

14:00 " 5000m

29:00 " 10000m

2:20:00 " marathon

on only 50 to 60 miles per week. When thier milage increased their times went down even more. No amount of hard work can over come the combination of real talent and hard work.

oldcoach wrote:

here's where I draw the line between traing and obsession.

If 140 mpw results in a 2:12 marathon or better you're training, slower than this you're probably obsessive.

No amount of hard work can over come the combination of real talent and hard work.

oldcoach,

this is crap... running or athletics for that matter- is one of the few sports where pure HARD WORK can overcome lack of talent.

Have you ever read a copy of the self made olympian? If not I suggest you do. Then maybe I will give you a chance to re-think your statement.

Are you telling us that if we have the ability to work hard, but lack in talent, we should just face the real world right now and give up our Olmpic dreams?

This must be one of the most ignorant things I've read in a long time.

I may be obssessive, but I CERTAINLY don't think that 140 miles per week is a waste of your time if you're not a 2:12 marathoner. I don't think it's a waste of your time if you're a 3:12 marathon---this is the kind of training that must be accomplished in order to fully realize one's potential. For someone to discourage another from working harder is not something we need more of.

No joke-- Ron Hill was a poster boy for OCD, a serious head case whose relentless training ruined his career. Supposedly, he was a streaker and would do things like hobble a couple of miles on crutches just to keep the streak alive. Later when he had the cartilage removed from his knee, he attributed that to strain incurred while repaving his driveway!

Old coach, what is talent? Tell me, you can't define it simply the ability to run fast off of little training is very poor definition in my eyes, if some guy runs 29:00 mins off of 60 a week, but always get injured are they more talented than the guy who runs 140 stays healthy and runs 28:20, who only ran 29:30 off of 60?

As for being obsessive if you can't run 2:12 off of 140? I couldn't disagree more. People can do as they please, and if that means trying to maximize what they're given then fine, they don't you belittling them.

I don't think he's belittling them at all. He's just alluding to the idea of diminishing returns. Let's say you are a 36:00 10k runner after several years at 70 mpw. Maybe if you build up to 100 mpw, you get down to 34:30. If you keep building up...well, someone of this ability level is likely to encounter an injury before they get to 150 mpw. If they could average 150 mpw, it's still not necessarily the case that all that mileage would do them any good...for instance, if they ran 300 mpw, they would probably find their times slowing down. Somewhere, everyone reaches a level where additional training is counterproductive.

Nobody is saying you shouldn't try to achieve all you can with what ability you have. But more mileage isn't always the pathway to faster times. Everybody reaches a limit imposed by their physiology. Also, I strongly disagree with the guy who suggests mere hard work can make an average athlete an Olympian. I mean, find me one example in reverse--ie an Olympic team member who ran 19 for 5k in HS or something, but kept chipping away a few seconds here and there until they got down to 13 min. Every Olympic athlete shows signs of their talent very soon after they begin training.

To Runna,

Actually I read "the Self made Olympian" by 1968 Olympic marathoner Ron Daws about 25 years ago. The book was not so much about training hard but training smart, folowing a basic Lydiard pattern of a builp-up to a peak period or event. The book was about maximizing your individual potential whatever that may be. Despite the book's title it doesn't suggest that if we work hard we can all race at the Olympics.

You wrote "...running...is one of the few sports where pure HARD WORK can overcome lack of talent." Should I therefore conclude that the reason Ron Daws didn't win an Olympic medal was because he didn't train hard enough?

You aren't the first person to confuse hard work with results. If all it took was hard work then if I hit enough golf-balls I could play like Tiger Woods or spent enough time in the batting-cage I'd hit like Mark Mcguire.

Mackenzie,

You asked me "...what is talent?"

When you see it or here it in any field you'll know it. It's what separates good from average and great from tme mearly good. Watching a guy run 10,000m at 71 seconds a lap is impressive. Watching a world class 10,000 where the runners are lapping in 64 to 65 seconds makes my jaw drop and mind spin as it's almost other-worldly.

On another level if a untrained kid can run two miles in ten minutes in gym class and another has a 24" vertical jump. I know which one I'm going to steer in the direction of the cross-country team and which one toward the basket ball caoch.

I certainly wasn't trying to belittle anyone with my comments and you're right when you say "pepole can do as they please." If someone wants to run 140 miles a week and they enjoy it more power to then. I'm just pointing out that there is more to racing fast than training harder than the next guy.

Diminishing returns are better than no returns.

Alan

oldcoach,

You wrote, "You aren't the first person to confuse hard work with results. If all it took was hard work then if I hit enough golf-balls I could play like Tiger Woods or spent enough time in the batting-cage I'd hit like Mark Mcguire."

Golf and baseball are completely different animals, because they require a high level of skill. I think the returns of hard work in running greatly exceed those in higher skill sports.

The racing stride of a modern day champion is something that just can't be trained either. Watch Geb and other top guys run. It is a skill. You can see the guys that have everything but the running skill. Kennedy and Bakken run pretty fast but they look like they have glue on their shoes compared to the guys in front. Don't underestimate the necessity of having world class technique as opposed to just a world class engine.