150+MPW

bump because this mileage sounds like a blast.

That's alot man. 150 WPM is an expert typist. You should work in a secretarial pool if you can type 150 WPM.

2 to 4 months straight in the 150-175 ranges is a bit too much. You'll need to come back down when your body tells you too. Also making plans to do that ahead of time may cause you to ignore your body because you're being obsessed with the miles. I've gotten up in that range before a couple of times but never close to 2-4 months. Exactly what do you think you're going to accomplish by doing this?

I got into the 150s occasionally. Mostly when I was hitting big miles I was in the 120-140 range. I can't recall seeing that I was getting much more at 140-150 than I'd gotten at 120-130 though it's always hard to be sure, e.g if you do a ten week stretch where eight of the weeks are 135 or below and there are a couple at 150 in the mix how do those two bigger weeks affect the results?

What I came to believe was that I probably could have ramped up the mileage indefinitely but in order to get beyond 150 I would have to run very slowly, slower than I'd have thought beneficial in those years. But there were people who ran as much as you're thinking of and did well, Tom Fleming and Dave Bedford come to mind and there's a guy who posts here very occasionally who was once mentioned in Runner's World as doing 150-`175 in the 7:30-9:00 range and he was better than I was.

The best argument I can see for doing what you're pondering is that you'll only know if it works for you if you do it. And because there aren't all that many people who have run that much around you're going to have a hard time getting testimonials either way.

Rodgers, Shorter and I believe Jack Bachelor got up there as did the redoubtable Ron Hill, for what it's worth.

HRE at what weekly mileage did you yourself note that you had to start slowing down to achieve your weekly target?

OP, see the Derek Clayton/Ron Clarke thread. 150 was the old school norm. I think Mark Nenow hit that type of mileage pretty consistently too. Worked for him. I would think 150 would have be the top of the range for most though. The reward/risk ratio probably tails off considerably beyond that.

ran up to that range for several weeks 160s x 2week but I found my best mileage was about 120. My college teammates (6, maybe 7) ran big miles and a few were very high mileage guys running @ 150-60 for several months at a time. We had one guy who averaged ~150 mpw for at least a full year/ran 200+ for 8 continuous weeks. This was early 70s and all those guys ran marathons in addition to normal menu of track distance events.

I think one reason they 'survived' and thrived on the mileage was several fold - they were driven, it was a time when mileage was being experimented with, it seemed to produce PRs for those who did it and they had 'high mileage body types" i.e., shorter (5'3" to 5'8") and distance runners weights. I was /am a bigger guy and 'felt' that inhibited my doing and benefiting from ongoing higher mileage.

I don't know for sure but I would bet each of those guys would run less miles overall, if you were to ask them today. Part of the learning curve ...

My impression now is that results follow the law of diminshing returns, the value of which that is not the same for everyone rather an individual thing, that one cannot 'discover' or recognize or experience by bumping into it. (via your own running and what I think is the same thing Malmo is saying by 'listening to your body'). I would say at this point that would be the primary guide.

A Pied wrote:

Rodgers, Shorter and I believe Jack Bachelor got up there as did the redoubtable Ron Hill, for what it's worth.

HRE at what weekly mileage did you yourself note that you had to start slowing down to achieve your weekly target?

Why do you think that you need to slow down? By default aerobic training is low-impact and you should be able to run faster at higher mileages because you aerobic fitness level is higher. I've run in the 150-180 range a few times and 5:40 pace was quite comfortable. The problem is a fueling issue. You become a running/eating/sleeping machine at those levels.

If you're doing 180mpw at 6:45 pace as opposed to 5:45 pace, that 3 hours per week more! I think that 17 hours a week of running is quite a bit better than 20.

I just read an interview with Hill who says he topped out at 156 and found it wasn't doing anything for him so he didn't stay that high. I had a similar experience on a much lesser scale.

I always followed the school year and used summer as the time to run big miles. That meant different things at different stages of my life ranging from 50-60 when I was fairly young to 120-150 in my prime. I never worried much about pace when I did it. The weather was generally hot and it was very hilly where I lived. But I had time, especially when I was teaching and didn't work in the summer, and the days were longer. I usually didn't like running in the dark.

Come fall, with a return to school, less time, cooler weather and more races, I usually lowered the miles, say to 100-115 and generally more on the lower end. The combination of fewer miles and cooler weather always brought the pace down. As the months went on I'd get stronger and more adapted to that particular pace. I'd have a mini build-up around Christmas, New Year and early January when I'd get to 120 or so at times, but this time I'd usually be running at the faster pace from the fall. When the next summer came I usually was able to maintain that pace for the bigger miles in hotter weather. Come the following autumn I'd repeat the pattern and drop the miles and quicken the pace.

This all came naturally. There was no conscious attempt at lowering the pace each fall or at maintaining that faster pace into the next summer. It just happened. The effort was pretty much staedy for years and years. This worked pretty well from 1971 to 1975. 1976 was my biggest year mileage wise. I had more weeks over 140 than ever, got to and over 150 for the first time ever, but didn't seem to have the natural speed up come the fall. In 1977 I didn't push the miles as high but added regular runs of 25-30 miles. Same thing, no real bounce into the fall and no new PR in either 1976 or 1977.

It's hard to be precise about something like this that happened over thirty years ago but what I concluded from all of this was that going over 140 consistently and later doing really long runs frequently must have pushed me past the point where I was recovering enough to get the maximum training effect. One thing that doing the 150 weeks does do is make the 130 weeks seem relatively easy though.

You never know what your mileage maximum is until you've exceeded it and I think I did that. If I could go back in time and advise myself I'd tell myself to stop at 135-140. But I only know to say that because I didn't.

HRE, what kind of paces did you run over the years on your runs? You say it got faster every year, but, at your best (and in the years prior to your best), where was the pace on your daily runs?

I can't name very many people who had much luck or success above 150 miles per week.

Move to 140-150 miles and keep it there.

You ran 5:40 pace average throughout each run? You are fit.

At my best, once I got loose and going and wasn't running over a lot of hills I was generally around 6:00 pace. I sort of thought that if I was going to hold that pace or a shade better for a marathon then doing 10-15 miles at that pace each day wesn't too tall an order. But that would be after I'd spent 2-3 miles working into things. And there were a lot of days when I crawled because I just felt awful. Usually the faster runs were the easiest.

And that would have been during the parts of the year when I was closer to 100-115 mpw than when I was in the 120-150 range. I'd guess I was probably 30-60 seconds per mile slower then but never really paid attention. As I said, I ran over a lot of hills and it was usually hot.

I say go for it. I am an unconflicted believer in high mileage, and, the more of it, the better. Personally, though, I got sick or hurt running more than a few weeks straight above 150. You, yourself, might be able to handle it, though. My recommendation is to go for it, but to evaluate your success on the basis of how many miles you're able to get in while doing some 150 +s over a 6 month or even a year basis, versus what you've done in the past not pushing above 150. I mean, if you run a month of 155s and then crash and miss a couple weeks and have to slowly rebuild, you'll be behind what you would have been if you'd done 120s consistently. My best running never came after a really high week or even really high month. It was after really good years. If you can get 7000 miles in in a year, with some quality thrown in, you're among the hardest training people in history. That's less than 140/wk, though. You do that mileage, and you'll be one of the best in the country.

I'm just curious, how do you fit this much mileage in and maintain a daily life?

My only life priorities are a girlfriend and a part-time 30 hour/wk job and struggle to find the time still to squeeze 80mpw in. Do you have a girlfriend? Job? Friends? Social life?

Not at all meant to be rude or a troll post, I'm just wondering how you could balance it all from a time perspective.

That largely depends on how you define 'daily life'. I wasn't married (although I was, for most of that period, in some sort of relationship or another,) worked, but didn't have a 'career' and did not have children. Most of my miles in those days were between 7 and 8 minutes/mile so the actual running cost me less than 3 hours/day. When you don't have children and work only 40 hours per week 3 hours per day is no big deal. Now, of course, my 'daily life' includes a career with a capital C, two children, a wife with a career even more demanding than mine etc. Finding one hour per day to run usually means getting one hour less of sleep. So, my 'daily life' before could have accommodated even more running, my 'daily life' now allows me to run 50 miles/week - if I'm lucky.

Anyway, it all depends.

Running high mileage will only take 2 to 3 hours a day. If you can't manage that for your passion I don't know what to tell you.

Sorry, I realize I didn't answer your question - at least explicitly.

I don't mean to be rude or troll, either, but how understanding is your girlfriend? If you work 30 hrs/wk and sleep 70/wk you still have 68 hours/wk free. Say you spend 40 of that with your gf (assuming that none of the 70 is with her...). That still leaves 28 hours/week of time to devote to training. Unless you train really really slowly you should have no trouble getting above 120/wk, if you want to.

In those days, I'd run early, before my gf woke up, then hang with her a bit before work. I'd run before dinner, then, the rest of the 4-5 hours before bed were devoted to her, or to whatever else. I'd stretch while talking with her, or do push-ups while watching TV with her. I'd only go out with friends once, at most, twice per week. The bottom line is that one makes time for those things which are most important.

Thanks.

I'm discovering that, at 55, my training pace has slowed markedly, complicated by surgery and some family issues which drastically cut into the time I formerly had to train.

A few other members of my club admitted that they, too, slowed noticeably in their mid-50's.