The Chris Solinsky-to-me and you conversion

Thats based off of Solinsky's training being the optimal program for everyone. It isn't. Sure it works for him but everyone is different and you are naive to think that there are set numbers of miles per week that every person of a given fitness should be running.

I'm not convinced that 100% of Solinsky's mileage is sub-5:45. I don't know much about Chris' training, but just because he CAN run 5:45 at an easy effort does not necessarily mean he does. I've read that a lot of elite Africans do some of their recovery runs at 8-9 min pace even though they can run "easy" at <6min pace.

Certainly an 18-min or 16-min 5k guys should not be running as much as Solinsky but I'm not sure they should be running as much less as you suggest.

I'm a mid-15 5k guy and my typical "easy" pace is 6:50-7 like you, and I think I benefit from training above 80 mpw, though I agree that it would be silly for me to run 120 like the great white hope. Maybe I'm just naive.

I think another thing to consider is what you do for the time that you aren't running. Someone whose full-time job is running like Solinsky can probably do more just by taking better care of himself. He can sleep 10 hrs a night, eat 6 mini-meals a day, get plenty of time for proper stretching and other conditioning, etc. I've got to work 50 hours a week not running, and I am not willing to spend that much time on running-related stuff. If Solinsky can recover better than me (because when he is not running he is essentially just recovering, whereas when I am not running I'm probably at work), he could probably handle higher-volume and/or higher-intensity training.

As a generaliztion your thinking is fine .... but .... it's OK for those 16/17/18 min 5k runners to run more than what you've proposed. I wouldn't make a straight fractional multiplier on this. Otherwise the slower the runner is you'd be suggesting that they run fewer and fewer miles. Obviously those who are running fewer miles are the ones who need to train more.

just base in on time spent running that way you take into account the pace someone runs.

the effect of 45 minutes easy on chris is probably very similar to the effect of 45 minutes easy on me.

I'm a 19:00 guy running less than 30mpw for the year. I need to pick it up.

Why would you use time to decide how much to train when the race is a set distance? If Chris Solinsky trains 600 minutes per week to run a 13 minute race, shouldn't you train 784 minutes to run your 17 minute one? Or do you get to run less than 5 kilometers if you're slower? Since I can only run 21-22 miles in 2hr4min, can that be called a "marathon" for me?

Now if you and CS were both training for the hour run or something, your idea would be a little more sound.

Sorry, directed to the OP, not the person I replied to.

No, you're most likely going to overtrain if you're relative (adjusted for you being slower) running intensity is the same as CS's, and you run for a longer time.

You're always more likely to overtrain if you train more. But doing less based on being slower sounds like a good recipe for staying slow. I know quite a few people who would have never been anything other than the 16, 17 or 18 min runners listed in the OP's example if they'd followed this misguided idea. If Chris Solinsky needs 120 miles a week to cover 5k or 10k as fast as he possibly can, maybe I need 120 miles a week to cover 5k or 10k as fast as I can. It'll take me longer, but I don't get to cut the race a lap short because I'm slow.

I'm sorry but this is the stupiest thing I have ever read.

"In short:

18:00 5K runners should probably not run more than 65 mpw

17:00 5K runners should probably not run more than 75 mpw

16:00 5K runners should probably not run more than 80 mpw"

What is this? ^^ What are you basing this off of? How many studies have you done?

There are about a million elements you haven't factored in in your little experiment. If you didn't run in the mid 8:40's in high school, and don't have a similar body makeup as Solinsky, this basically invalidates everything you said. I hope to god you aren't a real coach. Even an asst. coach

What you propose is similar to Lydiard. His famed "100 mile weeks" just happened to work out to about 10-12 hours of running for his best athletes.

To the person who derided running by time you do realize that it is a widely accepted way to train right?