highest mileage d1 teams

Maximus wrote:

What I do find interesting is that you responded to a thread that in your own words, you said was so sad it doesn't even merit a response.

+1

You are such a freaking simpleton. Think for a second before you start criticizing people. And maybe think about Science. All you do is sit here and say, OH people "different" not everything works for everyone the same way. Its TOTAL BS. that is straight loser talk right there. I am sick of this total liberalize BS, YES everyone is SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. BUT we all come from the same genius and are godd*mn homo sapiens. We survived on the plains of freaking African because we can run fo rlong ass periods of time NOT because oh 70 miles a week is all we can do. here is what i think, put a tampon in and run those 100mpws. jesus, I am sick of all this, of everyone isnt the same garbage. WE ALL ARE THE SAME. it is science. this is politically correct hooha. damn liberals cant just call someone a failure, or say someone is not working hard enough. if you arent running 100mpws you are NOT working hard enough, I dont care if you are Kenese Bekele you arent running enough miles if you dont hit consistent 100mpws in your base phase.

sorry to rain on your parade wrote:

I completely disagree. There probably is not a single runner that competes SUCCESSFULLY at the D1 level, FOR DISTANCE, that doesnt hit 100 mpw. Talent only goes so far. The reason your Solinsky's and McDougals and Chelanga's are so dominatant is because they run more than everyone else. Honestly, thats the trick. Its a funny little secret that people dont pay attention to. When someone is real good, they just assume tons of talent. honestly I wasn't that good, then I ran a lot and all of a sudden according to other runners I had "natural talent". Its a bunch of BS. Trust me on this. 100mpw is a staple of successful distance running accross the world. You find me a Kenyan that doesnt do that and we can talk. Because you wont.

Andy Bayer is at his highest mileage ever, right around 80-85 mpw.

BLAME IT ON THE LIBERALS@@)$_(*#!__!($$

That is all I got from that post...

I blame it on those that hate science, and promote entitlement. and I probs went to far blaming liberals, what I really meant was blame the liberal mentality or "no one is every truly at fault, but instead we all share the blame". You just gotta hit those 100 mpws bottom line. hit, hit em long, hit hard, then post on here.

AND as for Andy Bayer, he is not above hitting 100 mpws. Once he starts he'll probs go from college national class, to world class. I.E. Chris Solinsky. Why do you think Ritz and all these guys started dipping under 13 minutes. B/C they started burning 100mpw. Ritz started doing marathons. it is so simple it pains me that every time you say run 100 mpw, someone is like but so-and-so doesnt. WELL GUESS WHAT, so-and-so is not hitting their full potential. so-and-so can't compete with the worlds best. Last time I check Andy bayer has about 45 seconds to drop off that 5K before he is worth citing.

sorry to rain on your parade wrote:

I completely disagree. There probably is not a single runner that competes SUCCESSFULLY at the D1 level, FOR DISTANCE, that doesnt hit 100 mpw. Talent only goes so far. The reason your Solinsky's and McDougals and Chelanga's are so dominatant is because they run more than everyone else. Honestly, thats the trick. Its a funny little secret that people dont pay attention to. When someone is real good, they just assume tons of talent. honestly I wasn't that good, then I ran a lot and all of a sudden according to other runners I had "natural talent". Its a bunch of BS. Trust me on this. 100mpw is a staple of successful distance running accross the world. You find me a Kenyan that doesnt do that and we can talk. Because you wont.

There has been more than one 2:04 marathoner who trained/trains in the 80-85 mpw range.

all right, talk about someone that is straight trolling. That is just idiotic. maybe the week before they run the marathon they run 80. or may be their first week of running ever they ran 80. BUT NO ONE runs that little and runs 2:04 NO ONE. I know you are just tyring to get a response out of me, and you got it. But seriously, what are there like 3 people in the history of the world to run sub 2:05.

long dong silver wrote:

There has been more than one 2:04 marathoner who trained/trains in the 80-85 mpw range.

It is probably important to make a distinction between how someone capable of a 2:04 marathon should train and how your average NCAA athlete should train. If you are modeling what you should do after someone, it should be someone competing at your level who has found success, not one of the world's elite.

I don't understand why, but it seems like a great deal more of the world's elite run lower mileage than the runners at the top of their division in the NCAA. Perhaps the exceptions are just more apparent, but I'd be surprised if more than 5 out of the top 20 people at NCAA XC last year trained in the 80-85 mpw range or lower. And really, 80-85 mpw for somebody running at the top of D1 XC is proportionally more running that 80-85 mpw for a 2:04 marathoner.

Just my opinion.

Here is the math I'll break it down

(n00b training + escuses + runners on here reinforcing the excuses) / the number of miles you run under 100 each week x how ever many weeks you are training = you performance for the year

Reasoning from evolution? Seriously? I have my doubts that our ancestors on the Serengeti were doing 120 miles/ week, 20 minute tempo runs and repeat 400s at 5k pace with 100 meter jog recovery. And running a 26:17 10k is not going to save you from a cheetah.

I remember you said to mention an African who did less than 100 mpw. I linked to an article about Moses Kipsiro, runner up at World Cross, 4th in the Olympic 5k, and the 14th fastest 5k runner in human history (12:50.72), who does "80-100, often quite a bit less." You talk about "science," but I can't think of anything more unscientific than rejecting facts because they don't fit your theory.

I have absolutely no clue what theories regarding training for distance running could possibly have to do with political liberalism. I could just as easily mock the high mileage obsession of some of you as, "look at these candy-ass liberals, they just jog around all the time! Everyone knows that it's good hard track work that's key!"

And to the OP, my team in college ran about 90-95 mpw, probably a little less because most of our courses were a bit short. Freshmen did about 50 and worked up over the years. We had a few guys that did well north of 100; they were top 7 but not the best on the team. We were pretty good, having a few top 10 NCAA finishes over the years.

To all those people responding to "sorry to rain on your parade", you do realize he is a troll, do you not? There isn't a chance that someone could be as clueless about running as he is. He will mention things about science, when it is scientific studies that reinforces the fact that everyone is different and should train differently. What works for one person, doesn't always work for the next. It is pretty simple really. Train hard, keep a detailed training log, listen to your body and over the course of a few years you will begin to figure out what works best for YOU. Everyone has heard the stories of how someone increased their mileage and improved, just as they have all heard the stories of the person who lowered their miles and improved. Others added more speed work, some increased their tempo runs, some decreased them, some added weightlifting, some took it away, etc. etc. etc. More than anything, we are all different and while certain training principles are necessary for everyone to succeed, there are many ways to get there depending on the person.

Sorry to snow on your circus wrote:

To all those people responding to "sorry to rain on your parade", you do realize he is a troll, do you not? There isn't a chance that someone could be as clueless about running as he is.

I wouldn't be surprised either way, but I agree, I think he is a troll. However, I often find arguing on the internet, especially about running, fun for its own sake, even if the other person is a troll. I agree with the rest of your post as well.

ludaj, what'd you run in the 1500 today?

sorry to rain on your parade wrote:

all right, talk about someone that is straight trolling. That is just idiotic. maybe the week before they run the marathon they run 80. or may be their first week of running ever they ran 80. BUT NO ONE runs that little and runs 2:04 NO ONE. I know you are just tyring to get a response out of me, and you got it. But seriously, what are there like 3 people in the history of the world to run sub 2:05.

This thread shows that some men have run in the 2:04s on low volume.

Renato Canova said that Duncan Kibet and James Kwambai did 130-140km per week and ran mid 2:04 in the first post.

Boo! Kaki wrote:

sorry to rain on your parade wrote:

all right, talk about someone that is straight trolling. That is just idiotic. maybe the week before they run the marathon they run 80. or may be their first week of running ever they ran 80. BUT NO ONE runs that little and runs 2:04 NO ONE. I know you are just tyring to get a response out of me, and you got it. But seriously, what are there like 3 people in the history of the world to run sub 2:05.

This thread shows that some men have run in the 2:04s on low volume.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2959804

Renato Canova said that Duncan Kibet and James Kwambai did 130-140km per week and ran mid 2:04 in the first post.

Thank you, as that was indeed where I had gotten my info. I have read another article where Kibet and Kwambai's coach (Claudio Berardelli) says himself that they run "130km a week".

Your opinion is that we shouldn't copy people who are really good? Just the ones who are decently good?

every time I look at you jokers post it is the same junk science that you cite. "The fact are on your side" haha well cite them then. I am waiting. Because honestly you have cited an unpublish NON peer reviewed letsrun thread. I just have this sneaking suspicion that some of these posters are either Kenyans or Coaches of Kenyans or perhaps other athletes that are putting in those 100mpws and want to keep the golary to themselves. BECAUSE HONESETLY there is no way that you guys could be SO obtuse. you start citing obscure athletes running obscure amounts of training, that is IF TRUE, more than likely how much they run at the LOWEST part fo their season. BECAUSE these gus are no doubt running 100mpws. I'll obtain the logs, i'll bring in the evidence because it all points to that these other posters are either trolls or dooping you.

I went from 9:25 in the 3k to 8:45 this past winter, doing the same mileage I was running last year. Sometimes raising mileage isn't the answer, but training with a brain is.

sorry to rain on your parade wrote:

I'll obtain the logs, i'll bring in the evidence because it all points to that these other posters are either trolls or dooping you.

Please do! So far only your opponents are the ones with any evidence.

I still think you're a troll.