13:30 off 120-130. conistency is key
13:30 off 120-130. conistency is key
Angela Bizzarri was a 3x NCAA champion on 50 miles/week. Brian Sell wasn't very successful until he started running well over 100 miles/week. Granted that's only two examples, but the point is there are successful runners on very high and very low mileage. There isn't one answer when it comes to mileage totals. There are many other factors to consider when developing a training program besides mileage alone.
It's all subjective. wrote:
I ran for a top 8 team this past year at cross nationals. I am by no means a scholar on the subjective but there are a few things no one has mentioned that I find suprising. There is no "Magic Number" you have to run to be overtly successful, however there are minimums, and the following will explain this statement. Aerobically it has been found that you are not further developing past a particular point until after you have run over 60:00 minutes. This is when you start tapping into and burning glycogen storages, and while I am not going to go into the whole scientific background, we all know this is when the body starts to increase aerobically.
That being said 60:00 minutes for the typical Division 1 college program is around 9 miles, even if you are basing it off of Badger Miles, you are still running roughly 9 miles. For good Division 1 cross programs 60:00 is typically a minimum EZ-D (Easy Distance) run on a recovery day. Taking out of the equation recovery days a teams workout sessions, tempo's, and light speed the average guy is still with warm-up and cool down on the "not recovery days" going to run around 9-10 miles if not more. When you use common sense based on the 60:00 physical aspect of the "run" you are going to find your "typical D1 guy" running a minimum of around 68 miles when you factor in a weekend long run.
Like I said I am by no means an expert but there is a certain amount of time you need to spend on your feet in order to see improvement and results. I was a 24 low 8k guy and I averaged around 80 miles a week during cross with a couple high weeks of 90-95. During track I was the same but with different sessions. My average EZ-D run was 70-75 minutes with an 100 minute long run. Our coach counted everything in our mileage totals. Many of the foreigners didn't count warm-ups or cool downs as anything and therefore had traditionally lower mileage when you looked at it on paper (though not neccesarily the case in reality). We had a few 13:40-50's 5k guys running no more than 85 and 14:30-40 guys running 100. I was in the 14:20's and didn't increase the mileage because I did what my body could handle before injury would occur.
I could write on forever regarding the subject as it's always been of interest to me how much other teams run but I really just feel that the minimum 60:00 time on your feet is a beginning staple in "base-phase" improvement. The rest is all relative to hope much you can run to improve without getting injured. After all, as runners we know that staying healthy is the name of the game when trying to make it to the Big Show. I hope this was somewhat helpful to you and offered you a different perspective. But hey buddy, put a little trust in your coach. You chose to go there and if it is a succesful D1 program like you said, he probably for the most part knows his stuff. If you don't trust in what he is telling you to do you are never going to be succesful and see improvement at all. Best of luck!
Just a tip -- if you write a post this long it's likely that most people will just skip right over it. If you want your voice heard be concise.
If you have nerve problems in your leg, you have serious issues. Maybe you coach cares about your health. Start a dialogue with him and find out where he is coming from...
I did read the whole post. I often stop reading long posts if they're not interesting but enjoy something more detailed if it does interest me.
i would love it if rojo posted something about what theyre doing at cornell
I ran with one of their guys over the summer and he was bumping up into the 90's from being super low-mileage in high school.
Brian Sell ran 28:45ish for the 10k in college off of 90 miles a week.
did you guys realize that Chris Derrick just posted?
Portland is the highest mileage program period. They start at 100 miles a week and progress up to 130 by your senior year. I ran in the program under Rob. For some people it works very well(Kinsella, Kilburg, Moore, and more recently Dunbar. A lot of kids burn out though. If you want high mileage go to portland and you can log all the miles you want in forest park or leif erikson.
poster wrote:
Portland is the highest mileage program period. They start at 100 miles a week and progress up to 130 by your senior year. I ran in the program under Rob. For some people it works very well(Kinsella, Kilburg, Moore, and more recently Dunbar. A lot of kids burn out though. If you want high mileage go to portland and you can log all the miles you want in forest park or leif erikson.
Portland was the school that first sprang to mind. Speaking of burnout, how is David Kinsella doing? I haven't seen his name much lately, so I'm hoping he's concentrating on academics/life now, and not a victim of Portland Pilot burnout.
I ran sub 14 and I never did more than 75 in one week. Work on running your mileage faster. Don't waste your time with junk. Quality over quantity dude.
Dude.. you are so retarded. First off.. if you have nerve damage.. maybe thats a sign you should probably not be running 120 a week. Second off. The times you guys are running arent fast at all, sorry. That 402 15 is like a 419 mile and your little 927 conversion... thats not very fast either. Neither are your teammates who are actually healthy. 846 for a 3k is so slow for college dude. So is a 406 1500. There are handfuls of HS kids running those times off 30-40 miles a week. Id say if you are running 120 miles a week and you arent running under 8:10 for 3k and under 3:45 for 1500 you should probably drop your mileage to 70-80. You would most likely not have nerve damage and you would be running alot faster than sub-elite HS times. Youd be surprised off how much faster you could run if you dropped your mileage. I guarantee you that you would PR by more than 15 seconds in 3k and 7 seconds in the 1500 like what you were talking about in your story.
ian edwards wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:What sort of progress have you made and what sort of times are you running?
This might look bad. But I messed up my sciatic nerve so my leg loses coordination in a race over 1.5 miles.
But I pr'd by 7 seconds in the mile. 4:28 1600 last year, to 4:02 1500 this year. Pr'd by 10 seconds in the 3200 DURING a 5k race that my leg lost coordination after 6 laps. I dnf'd that race. Also pr'd in the 800. Oh and I ran 8:45 for 3000 when my leg messed up with 2 laps to go as well. That converts to 9:27, so I pr'd in the 3200 by 20 seconds.
A better example would be my teammate that went from 9:00 3000 last year to 8:46. And another teammate of mine that went from from a 4:36 mile to a 4:06 1500.
Not everyone on our team runs as much as we do. Our coach has it individualized. I know for a fact if I didnt have sciatic problems I could break 15 for 5k right now.
Dude you need to listen to your coach. He has a set program for a reason. If the program he is running is putting his team in the top 20 in the nation then you should probably follow it. The coach is there for a reason. Besides, your freshman year is all about getting used to the program. That's why you redshirt. You aren't going to see phenomenal results in your redshirt season.
No answer wrote:
Angela Bizzarri was a 3x NCAA champion on 50 miles/week. Brian Sell wasn't very successful until he started running well over 100 miles/week. Granted that's only two examples, but the point is there are successful runners on very high and very low mileage. There isn't one answer when it comes to mileage totals. There are many other factors to consider when developing a training program besides mileage alone.
Yeah...Brian Sell is a marathon runner. Not a college track/ cross country runner.
A Skeptic wrote:
I think badger miles are a load of sh*t. Most runners overestimate how much they run if anything. For instance, I remember Sydney Maree saying that he used to run a 45 minute ten miler every morning. My teammates in college (one that has been mentioned in this thread and was damn good at the time, but which will remain unnamed because of what I am about to say) did their own version of badger miles - basically, run for time and then divide by 5.5, 5 if you were feeling really chipper.
Plenty of people do less than 100 miles per week and are total studs. If all of those college kids are running all of those miles, and mileage is what makes you good, then some of them ought to be running quite a bit better.
And don't worry about me resting easy, I tried everything, including long stretches over 100/week and couldn't get any lower than 14 high in the 5k on the road. You either have it or you don't, and no amount of mileage will change that.
If you really "don't have it" then STFU and stop trying to talk about programs you have NO IDEA about. and what your teammates did is RETARDED and completly defeats the purpose of 'badger miles'. More or less, badger miles to normal miles are like using 2.54cm instead of an inch. they both measure the same thing, just with different units you tard. You are such a whiney little b!tch.
EVERYTHING IS REALTIVE!! INCLUDING TIME, MILES, AND TALENT.
D1 what wrote:
Well traditionally: Stanford, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Iona keep their mileage around 65 - 70, so you are in good company. unless you think it hasn't worked for those guys.
Colorado at 65-70mpw? Yea, maybe a week before a championship race. CU regularly logs between 100-110mpw during their peak mileage phase.
BoulderBoy wrote:
Colorado at 65-70mpw? Yea, maybe a week before a championship race. CU regularly logs between 100-110mpw during their peak mileage phase.
Ya, I know a girl who runs for that who puts in more mileage than that.
I also seem to recall a point in Running With the Buffaloes where Wetmore is baffled that one of this runners got injured on "only" 70 mpw because that's such low mileage...
Timmy likes tots wrote:
A Skeptic wrote:I think badger miles are a load of sh*t. Most runners overestimate how much they run if anything. For instance, I remember Sydney Maree saying that he used to run a 45 minute ten miler every morning. My teammates in college (one that has been mentioned in this thread and was damn good at the time, but which will remain unnamed because of what I am about to say) did their own version of badger miles - basically, run for time and then divide by 5.5, 5 if you were feeling really chipper.
Plenty of people do less than 100 miles per week and are total studs. If all of those college kids are running all of those miles, and mileage is what makes you good, then some of them ought to be running quite a bit better.
And don't worry about me resting easy, I tried everything, including long stretches over 100/week and couldn't get any lower than 14 high in the 5k on the road. You either have it or you don't, and no amount of mileage will change that.
If you really "don't have it" then STFU and stop trying to talk about programs you have NO IDEA about. and what your teammates did is RETARDED and completly defeats the purpose of 'badger miles'. More or less, badger miles to normal miles are like using 2.54cm instead of an inch. they both measure the same thing, just with different units you tard. You are such a whiney little b!tch.
EVERYTHING IS REALTIVE!! INCLUDING TIME, MILES, AND TALENT.
So . . . you think that most people who tell you "I run x miles per week" really are counting, what, 2 kilometers, as a "mile?" When most people say a mile, they mean a mile. If anything, they run less than they say they do - the classic ten miler that is only 9.5.
Oh yes, my point is also that not every successful runner does 100+ miles per week. It is ridiculous how every time someone brings up an example of someone who doesn't do mega miles, the mileage hounds always respond with, "Oh, it must be Badger miles, so when he says 75 he must mean 110," or "He probably does ten miles every morning but doesn't count it as mileage"
It's like you people have some sort of religious devotion to mega miles. Is it really that inconceivable that, considering Chris Chataway, a student with a smoking habit, could run 13:51 off of 25 a week, back in the 50s on a dirt track, that someone could run, say, 13 flat off twice that today?
A Skeptic wrote:
So . . . you think that most people who tell you "I run x miles per week" really are counting, what, 2 kilometers, as a "mile?" When most people say a mile, they mean a mile. If anything, they run less than they say they do - the classic ten miler that is only 9.5.
Oh yes, my point is also that not every successful runner does 100+ miles per week. It is ridiculous how every time someone brings up an example of someone who doesn't do mega miles, the mileage hounds always respond with, "Oh, it must be Badger miles, so when he says 75 he must mean 110," or "He probably does ten miles every morning but doesn't count it as mileage"
It's like you people have some sort of religious devotion to mega miles. Is it really that inconceivable that, considering Chris Chataway, a student with a smoking habit, could run 13:51 off of 25 a week, back in the 50s on a dirt track, that someone could run, say, 13 flat off twice that today?
This post is so sad it doesnt even merit a response
thank you for making me realize who "those dumbasses on letsrun" are(aka college flake outs and coulda-shoulda-wouldas) and why I shouldnt waste my time on here