Does everyone run about their times on this board??

The title is supposed to read, "Does everyone lie about their times on this board??" Sorry everyone.

There's a dude called Statman that keeps a list of PRS. People may disagree, but I think the list is legit. If people are found to be lying about something as sacred as PRs, then they lose all credibility.

However, when people are talking times and such in normal discussion, I think there might be a little "positive outlooking" going on from time to time.

Hey, my 5K best is 18:14 from 1988 and I'm stickin' to it....I mean, why lie about 18:14? Now, if you ask what I can do 5K in NOW, maybe I'd lie...lol.

I ducked under 9 minutes a mile a few times this winter. No lie. Don't think I've been under 8 min for a mile in over 5 years. No lie. You could look it up in my log books except for last year's which burned up in my car fire. No lie. I'm a 'used to' runner...I used to be fast. No lie.

Thanx guys, I'm glad I wasnt the only one who thought there was some tinkering with their PR's. Anyone else got any thoughts??

Why do so many these days think one must run more than 50-60 miles a week to run a 15:15 5K or even a 2:35 marathon? You don't.

last year i ran 30:25 10k off 45 miles a week. and although i did die in that 10k (my first 5k in the race was sub 15), it can be done.

umm, i can run a 2:35 800 =(

Somerunner,

How many yrs have you been running?? I just dont see ppl being able to run that fast when not doing alot of miles. If this was true, then somerunner, theoretically could slowly increase his mileage and could probably run knock off at least a minute which would put him under 14 minutes. This would've beat the beloved Mr. Webb a few weeks back and I just dont see many ppl doing this. Granted, Webb wasnt going all out and could've ran faster, but still, it seems too far fetched.

High mileage has the rare distinction of being overrated and underrated at the same time. I'll explain... You can run very fast at say 50 miles a week if you run quality miles, and in the short term you'll problaby run faster than if you ran 100 miles a week. So in that sense, why do high mileage?

The answer is of course that down the road (3 months, 6 months, a year, 2 years?) high mileage will help you run faster, but its no EPO. You're probably not gonna go from a 15:15 guy to a 14:15 guy just by upping your mileage from say 50 to 95.

Training methods in general are all overrated. One should worry more about shaving seconds off their time by racing their ass off then about how much mileage to run, what % of their VO2 max should they run it at, and when to taper.

Finally, a knowledeable observer may ask, "A_Goofy_Runner I see your point, but where did you come up with such a theory?" And to that I reply, I made it all up based on what I have witnessed in my short and mediocre (at best) career. It might be true it might not, but it sounds good.

I ran 17:05 5K off of less than 30 miles a week (most weeks about 20). Not that I think that's great or anything, but it just proves that you can get to a certain point with low miles. As a side note, I could not get any faster than this time no matter how hard I ran those miles, so I re-tooled my training plan and am now running 50 a week. I know that's still peanuts compared to what most of you say you run, but with my work, school, and family commitments, that's all I'm willing to do right now. I'm curious to see how this works out. If I can see some gains by the end of June, I'll increase the work load even more over the summer.

A 17:05 5K is def feasible off of only 20 miles per week and you will probably continue to improve w/ upping your mileage to 50 miles a week.

ME- The number of people that can run the times you have trouble believing (3:50-15:15) might blow your mind from the sound of your message. Another thing to keep in mind is that a large chunk of that number probably frequent this sight. . .and yes there is no question people can run 15:15 for 5k on 50 mpw.

JEH wrote:

There's a dude called Statman that keeps a list of PRS. People may disagree, but I think the list is legit. If people are found to be lying about something as sacred as PRs, then they lose all credibility.

Well, there was this whole "magpie" incident, remember? It took several years to pin down a guy who was basically a 12-minute 3K guy pretending to be a sub-8 minute 3K-er. Even then most people defended him for a long time, and seems like a lot of people who knew him personally thought he was telling the truth.

So yeah, I disagree, I think there are a lot more "exaggerations" on Statman's list than we know about. I wouldn't be surprised if 20-30% of times listed there were grossly exaggerated. But it's internet, for godssake! What do you expect? It's like chatting online with a bombshell 20-year old blonde, chances are it's actually a 45-year old bald dude.

over 65 wrote:

Why do so many these days think one must run more than 50-60 miles a week to run a 15:15 5K or even a 2:35 marathon? You don't.

This got me to thinking... I ran very low mileage in college, so I went back to my log and crunched some numbers. In 1991, averaged 39 miles per week from mid January through early May. I ran a 31:06 10000 on 5/03/91 and a 31:54 in humid weather on 5/22/91. I also ran a 15:24 in April of that year... That was done after the previous fall of 1990 averaging 47 miles per week. That resulted in a 24:51 8K XC race on 11/10/90.

I do think, however, that I would have run faster if I had run more mileage...

Now you are getting the picture. If you had not gotten injured you probably would have run faster with more mileage. The amount of talent the runner invoved has comes into play here along with the mileage run in training.

Look at it this way... The Statman's list is like putting down the basics on your resume (where you went to school, worked, etc). Irrefutable, easily referenced facts. The times thrown out on threads are like how one talks about what all they've accomplished (putting best foot forward) in interviews.

I seem to remember Magpie as getting duly ripped on a fair amount for his lying and I have not seen the Magpie name about 5-10 times since (while I saw it multiple times every week before the bust).

Before he was found out, people listened to what he had to say... afterwards, not really. I don't think it was because he was found to be not so fast, I think it was because he was found to be a fraud. So, I disagree with, especially when it comes to people who have kept their handles. Lastly, if 20-30% are grossly exaggerated, does that mean that the list is mostly lies?

ME:

I ran 15:03 off of 35 miles per week ave. You seem to think that everyone must have a hard time running 15:15 because you cannot and so 100 miles a week is the only way to do it. I knew guys who put in 100 mile weeks and could not break 16:00. On the other hand, some people would think that 15:15 is a jog and could do it on 10 miles a week. So, you need to stop putting a time in your head and realize that what is hard for some is easy for others. It might not be fair that this is the case, but life is not fair so get used to it.

Hard work is only half of the equation, the other half is called talent. Without some talent, it won't matter what you do out there.