What's the Big Deal About Higher Mileage? It's Not That Hard.

I'm impressed. Keep it up, it seems as if you are running for the enjoyment of the sport and still turning in very good times.

The big deal is simply that people don't want to believe they can or have to work that much to post fast times.

Getting up and running that many times per week is a commitment, maybe not "that hard" if you're committed to getting better, but a commitment nonetheless and to runners who have been in the 60-80 range for years that is something that is hard to comprehend.

First of all, I said earlier that you seemed "too blithe." My apologies. Maybe you're just uncorrupted, and that's cool.

There are many ways to skin a cat. As you look through the Meyer thread, you'll find that the common denominator is hard work. And if 120 mpw isn't that hard for you, then you're definitely on to something--especially since most elite distance runners would agree that developing your aerobic base is the most vital component of a training plan. Besides, I've always said that Americans spend too much time thinking about training and not enough time actually training. You seem to have definitely avoided that pitfall.

There's lots of valuable information on Letsrun. There's far more garbage, as Malmo says, but I guess it's like searching for pearls--you may have to open a lot of oysters before you find a good one.

Best of luck to you. Post some results when you get them.

Ghost of Ashenfelter,

That's understandable, I guess, especially if you're used to talking with people who take running too seriously (that might not be the right word). Also I'm not really sure what you mean by uncorrupted but thanks anyway.

Yeah, I've never really thought about how to run, I just started with what my dad told me and it just kind of works (after I went through the 2 miles as fast as I could every day phase when I started, which took a toll after a while, but then it was obvious that it wasn't working. Gotta start somewhere though, it was a good way to learn.)

I guess when I said "not that hard" I meant, relative to a job or something that might be really hard and not as enjoyable as running. Plus with a really hard job, you have to work hard all day, 40 or 45 hours a week to make decent money, but with running I only have to run like 14 or 15 hours a week to make decent progress.

So compared to that I think running's not that hard.

If you had a real easy desk job or something it would probably seem hard, though. I guess it depends what you're used to.

About the website, now that I'm spending more time on here and looking around, there is a lot of interesting stuff, but it is eating up a lot of time... not running time, but homework time! I am in school after all... I might have to stop before this becomes a habit!

Malmo,good link. I liked the part on the third or fourth page where it compared what you did with what Greg Meyers did (I've never heard of him - he was fast! And of course so were you.)

It was kind of encouraging to see I'm running sort of similar to what you guys were doing, except you guys did more intervals than I do, and obviously you ran faster.

All You Real Runners wrote:

Ghost of Ashenfelter,

That's understandable, I guess, especially if you're used to talking with people who take running too seriously (that might not be the right word).

I think that's the right word. I'll never forget inadvertently sitting at a table next to half a dozen of my universities finest running club members. Talk of whether todays tempo should be at 6:25 or 6:30 pace, and one bragging about how their interval pace had dropped from 6:05 pace to 5:50 pace over the course of a year. The one line that really go me was "I run over 30 miles a week, that's a marathon-every single week". Or arguing over whether next weeks repetitions should be 300s or 400s, and the phsiological reasons why. I could hardly finish my lunch, I was laughing so hard.

A relaxed approach is best towards many things, but running in particular.

"That's like 120 minutes tops...not 120-130 MILES A WEEK. Unless you're running these minutes at WR pace for all of your miles.

Come on, buddy."

haven't even bothered to read the rest of this post but to the guy that wrote this???

Are you a f***ing sap?

120 mins a day, about 17 miles, equals 119 miles a week, and he probably will go quicker than the 7 min miling i've worke with in the evening!!!

So to re-cap, 120 miles probably. Other guy= sap!

what are some of your times i know you said you ran an 8k in low 25s i think in the thread already but what about some other times? im just curious b/c you are encouraging me to run more =)

Please define "serious competitive athletes", "rank amateurs", and "angry punks"

malmo wrote:

All You Real Runners wrote:

malmo, thank you for the well-wishes.

If what you said is the case, could you recommend a good forum to talk with "serious competitive athletes"? .

This is the only place for serious competitive athletes. Most top competitive athletes either lurk here or post anonymously. The point I'm making is that 95% of those who post here are rank amateurs and angry punks. One thing you can count on, most good threads get vandalized by them. If you stick around, eventually you'll soon be able to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

If it's half marathon approaches you're looking for to compare to your own, here's a recent thread to get you in the right direction. The punks were way too intimidated to try to vandalize this one.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2675546&page=0

I'm with you man. Kenyan kids in grammer school run 20K/day without thinking about it. Here, its a big whoop. Your spirit reminds me of Pre or Gerry Lindgren. Ignore the "experts" and keep going, you'll be great but it will take time.

don't let the bastards get you down.

seriously, stay the way you are. if you learn too much from "real" runners you'll start eating salads, bitching about shoes, you'll thik you're injured all the time and you'll count every .1 mi you run.

you can learn from a guy like malmo, however.

Malmo's a beast. No way could I sustain that kind of mileage, hard efforts, and races, all at the same time, without getting injured. 80-90 miles per week, maybe, but 115? Takes a durable athlete.

asdfj;lk,

I've run three other races besides that 5-mile one since I finished work in August. They were two 10 km, both on road courses, and one 12km race that was on road, dirt trails and a bit on soccer fields. They went 32:49 and 33:18 for the two 10 km races, and the 12 km one was 38:57. I think the 12 km and the 5 mile races were my best ones, about equal for how good I felt about them. The two 10 km ones I thought I was going to go a little faster, but they also had more hills than the other two, so it might have just been that. Also I did the 10 km ones in the three weeks right after I finished work for the summer, so I was probably still pretty tired from working and running at the same time most of the summer.

Thanks to all the people that contributed.

There is some interesting stuff on this website, but most of the time it's a bit too complicated, I don't really think it's necessary to get that complicated about running. Well, it might be to get really good, I don't know yet, but I don't really want to get into all the science about it, I like it for other reasons.

I like the Bob Hodge site, it seems more straight-forward, plus there are interesting stories on there. Thanks again malmo for the link to that.

115? Malmo did as much as 175+, with most of if at close to or under 6 minute pace. With track and hill workouts too.

I looked up "rank" in the dictionary: "adj. giving off a foul odor; fertile, productive, fruitful, growing vigorously".That would seem to cover a lot of bases.- one of the rankest

AK-50 wrote:

Please define "serious competitive athletes", "rank amateurs", and "angry punks"

I think we need some proof of these times.. race results?

32:49 10 k

33:18 10 k

38:57 12 k

I sincerely believe you run the mileage because I follow exactly what you do, except

I run 80 miles a week and my PRs are way faster than yours:

30:24

14:10

24:20

Patientrunner wrote:

32:49 10 k

33:18 10 k

38:57 12 k

I sincerely believe you run the mileage because I follow exactly what you do, except

I run 80 miles a week and my PRs are way faster than yours:

30:24

14:10

24:20

Sounds like you're more of an exception to the rule Patientrunner since there are A LOT of guys doin 80 miles a week and not a lot runnin those times...plus it sounds like this guys has a lot of room for improvement just by becoming a more experienced racer..

Patientrunner wrote:

32:49 10 k

33:18 10 k

38:57 12 k

I sincerely believe you run the mileage because I follow exactly what you do, except

I run 80 miles a week and my PRs are way faster than yours:

30:24

14:10

24:20

You might want to up the mileage- you're 5k is way better than your 8k or 10k.

All You Real Runners,

If you've been able to build up your mileage to 120 per week in just three years, that is very impressive. Keep at it if you can, just watch out for signs of over-training, that kind of mileage could lead to very good results.

I'm not sure if you've mentioned it (I haven't read the entire thread), but what are you running for your long runs. What's the longest you've run?

I ask only because it seems that you'd have a great build for ultra-running (sustained high mileage at a slower pace without your body breaking down). I'm not really sure if you're even interested in racing 7 or even 24 hours straight, but it seems like you may excel at it.