3:47, 14:12, 29:48 on 60 miles per week

I bet you were on drugs when you were on this training regimen.

Yea he deffently had to be. haha, what a Dope Smoker..he was on the same drugs that Dickhead Eddy hellenbuck was on. telling me he run's 29:48 for 10k and 14:12 for 5k off 60 miles a week, all i can say is BULLSHIT*****

go to run-insight.com and post this asking for Tinman's advice, he gave a good schedule to someone of very close ability timewise within the past month (probably within the last 2-3 weeks I'd say)

if nothing else go back to what gave you success, get some momentum , and then adjust accordingly as your fitness allows. I'd say you are in the top 2-3 percent of fastest posters here so you have to know a thing or two about how to get yourself faster. It appears that your answer is what you marvel at in my opinion.

You forgot to include the prior weeks:

-5 met Barry Bonds at Giants game

-4 introduced to Victor Conte

-3 will try anything once

-2 regular user

-1 psychotic roid raging

0 cycle off

1 proceeded as described...

Man, 14:55 is believable, but 29:48 is out of that league and then to have 3:47 speed on top is good, but on 60 mpw seems BS.

Something before your description had to happen like getting used to high 80s and 90s for a long time, then dropping down for the weeks you described. If its the truth, then im jealous and you've got talent so get off this board and go run 90 MPW!!

So week one you ran 19 miles.

What happened before that?

Week -5 100 miles

Week -4 100 miles

Week -3 100 miles

Week -2 100 miles

Week -1 100 miles

Week 0 100 miles

Week 1 19 miles

Week 2 45 miles...

Not that I believe any of it anyway. You know what's funny? A girl I know had low iron and was terrible. She went from her distance regimine to a sprinter's low miles/high quality type of training and took iron supplements and now competes on the national collegiate level.

I think this guys point is that a runner can be more successful off of less training if they cannot handle a high amount of volume. Moreover, I think he probalbly wants to point out that everyone on letsrun thinks you need to run a ton of miles to have success. I think all the people who have called BS are only supporting that point.

I definitely have ideas on how to make myself faster and since I've been consistantly healthy for awhile now I've applied these ideas, but I posted this schedule for three reasons: 1. to share what I still see as a period of training that exceeded my expectations for the benefit of those who might find such a schedule appealing/interesting 2. to see what others might think about what were the successful elements of this schedule and 3. to see what others might have to say about how to progress this schedule. I may have some talent and I see myself as a student of the sport, but I'm sure that there are others at letrun who have less talent but more knowledge as well as those who have more talent and more knowledge (not to mention the amazing coaches that post here now and then).

Hah. Jkl and I made the same joke. Mine was funnier though.

MORON wrote:

all i can say is BULLSHIT*****

Actually, it sounds fully believable to me.

I have to admit, I had somewhat similar experiences. I ran 3:42 when I was 21 off 40 miles a week, with two pretty low-key workouts. Got injured shortly after trying to ramp up the mileage.

In the years that followed, I tried a few different approaches. I put in 2-3 year stints with a couple of well-known coaches who have produced successful international athletes. I trained much, much harder than I had as a 20-year-old. But I never really ran any faster -- ended up with pr's of 3:42 and 13:50s.

Looking back, I'm not really sure what I would do differently. Had I stuck with my low-mileage, easy-workout approach, I think I could have gotten a bit faster -- maybe hit 3:40 or so. But I don't think I could have run 3:35 without training harder.

Same with 5k -- the light training let me run about 14 flat, and I'm sure I could have gotten a little faster. But again, I don't think I could have run 13:25 without big-league training.

So, because I wanted to run 3:35 and 13:25, I did the big-league training. In the end, I never got much faster than I would have been on little-league training -- but at least I gave it my shot.

Different people respond to training very differently -- in a sense, it's a part of "talent". My talent was such that I could get in pretty good shape in a shockingly short amount of time. That always made me think that great things were in store, but my talent didn't seem to include continuing to improve at higher levels of training. Maybe you're the same. (That may sound depressing, but at least you can stop beating yourself up about what you did wrong!)

Thanks for the serious response. I'm making dinner right now so I'll respond a bit later. Cheers.

yea and i can run a marathon in 2:04:55 off jerking my pud and running 10 miles a week right? what BULLSHIT******

MORON wrote:

yea and i can run a marathon in 2:04:55 off jerking my pud and running 10 miles a week right? what BULLSHIT******

I don't know what's so hard to believe about this. His times are good, but not even Elite U.S. times, let alone elite world times and 60's mpw is fine for a lot of people.

How many miles does webb run a week? It's like 600, right?

i don't know people think these times are so unbelievable for this workload. i know a handful of runners (alums included) who have run similar times on similar loads. different things work for different people. appreciate this guy giving out his "formula" for success and maybe you can take something away from it.

man, i had similar success with training like that last year.

only difference: tuesdays i ran 1-2-3-4-5-5-4-3-2-1 at 5 min pace or faster (with half recovery) and a 30 or 40 min tempo run (at 5:20-40 pace) on thursdays. i had a lot of success with it. one of my favorite workouts. i tell you, that 4-5-5-4 section is tough mentally. it takes a lot out of you. if you work it right though, that workout can be done for 10 kilometers. i did it on a 10k XC course and just jogged the recovery easy, and finished within a few feet of the finish line. i was training for a 6 mile road race at the time, and had great success--tying my 5 mile season best of 26:22 for the 5 mile split. at the time, this was the longest race i had ever run.

if you did 1-2-3-4-5-5-4-3-2-1 at 5min pace or better that's 30 min at 5min pace = 6 miles, so you only jogged 320 meters in 14.5 minutes of recovery time. that's 72:30 per mile on the recoveries. i think you were going quite a bit slower than 5min pace

I know its not quite the same, but I ran 14:30 and 30:00 (both on the track) off of 50-55 mpw for 5 weeks (coming off an injury which kept me out for about 6-7 weeks) with just 1 or 2 decent workouts a week.

I'm thinking this drug-talk is a little unneeded -- it's definitely possible.

I ran low 14s and low 29s off of mileage in the 60s with a peak of 75, two workouts/week.

Yeah definitely possible I ran 14:12 and 3:48 off of 45-50 miles a week.