Cam Levins interview. Talks mileage & training.

+1 to conto.

Some of you guys are monumental pussies.

I can only imagine the whinging if you guys tried sports like cycling or tri where you're putting in 25-30 hours on the road.

15 hours of running? Really, you can't find time for that?

You're a joke.

Sick for a week 10 days before Boston... so a dnf.

Slightly lower training for Chicago (but still riding that base) got me a 2:39:58 in the 2011 Chicago Marathon.

I am not a good runner in general, and am even a worse distance runner, and have taken 7+ of the 12 years I've been out of college off (no running between 2000-2002, 2003-2004, 2006-2009). I've run 2 sub 27:00 5 miles in my life (15 years ago), one 34:10 10k on the roads (7 years ago), and a 1:14:55 half (1 year ago)... so, by the the standards of most everyone on this board, not worthy to go on a run with 90% of you. So before you knock the time, think about this: I don't have the talent you may have. So I had to work for it. I wasn't born with huge lungs and quick feet, so I had to train for it... make time for it... and get what I could out of my body. To me, that is what running is all about. Making the most of your ability.

My goal was sub 2:40:00, did it, and have run maybe 10 times since. I have no interest in keeping that level of commitment to be mediocre at best. But running that sub 2:40:00 will be the highlight of my running career, so I'm pleased with it and that's what matters.

On a separate note: Saying a guy isn't that great at time management because he finds it so hard to run 100 miles a week while enjoying the massive freedoms that college allows, isn't really being all that mean. I stated a very realistic way to get in well over 100 miles a week if you don't waste time. Not sure anyone why anyone would feel that's so offensive.

Many of you are a little too sensitive.

Oh... and I never ever get the "then" and "than" right when I type quickly. On top of being slow, I'm obviously not very smart. And what else is really bad is sometime I write run on sentences, use punctuation that is really unnecessary and often call things like I see it. The horror.

So there you have it... I'm slow, make a ton of mistakes while I write, and am outspoken when I hear something that sounds ridiculous to me. Still don't see how that makes telling someone they must not be that great at time management a horrible thing.

8/10

Ya got em riled up there tonto..conto!

Conto is right. Hundred mile weeks take less than 2 hours of running a day, which if you're honest is less time than you spend goofing around on the internet.

+2My coworker has this phrase that he whips out at times: "the pussification of America."

woz up wrote:

+1 to conto.

Some of you guys are monumental pussies.

I can only imagine the whinging if you guys tried sports like cycling or tri where you're putting in 25-30 hours on the road.

15 hours of running? Really, you can't find time for that?

You're a joke.

So you were probably waking up at 5, going to bed at 11, doing your run at 9:00? I don't think that would be enough sleep for me to run 100 mpw effectively. I also would have trouble going to bed if I had just finished my run like 30 minutes earlier. It's not just about squeezing it all in in one day, it's about squeezing it all in in a way that actually makes sense.

well......... wrote:

I would have a hard time getting up at 6 AM every day because a few days a week I have lab from 6 PM - 10 PM (and yes, it takes the whole time, even goes a little over). It's harder when you're a physical science or engineering major.

^^ is the correct answer. Cam is an exercise physiology major at Southern Utah, not a chemical engineering major at Cal. Makes a bit of a difference. Fatigue plays a major role when you have a very difficult, time-consuming major. Many of the sciences have major lab commitments as well. Sure, you can force yourself to run 100+ miles per week with doubles, but with a greater total allopathic stress load, your chances of breaking down are far greater.

It's not the time, it's the effort.

As you should know if you are doing it, running 2 hours a day is hard. Really hard. My running days are long gone, and was over 30 years ago, and I was never able to run that much.

True, I was more of a 1500 man, but I had thoughts of moving up to the 5k because that would have been more my ideal distance, but I seriously could never maintain he physical and mental discipline of running more than about 65 miles a week.

One summer I was able to build up to 80-90, and was feeling great, but once school started I just could not maintain it. I realize it's all about mental discipline, but it's also about wise progressions and getting good rest. Once your body adapts (and assuming you are not running too fast) 2 hours is physically doable, but always mentally hard.

I really question, though, the value of the "average" runner doing such mileage. Heck, I was running faster than you on half the mileage. You do have a faster marathon time than me (since I never ran one), but is it really worth taking that much time away from your family (even if the kids are asleep you wife is not) just to run 2:37?

Your last question has no objective answer. If all that time spent running to get a 2:40ish marathon isn't worth it to you then it's not and that's fine. To others it may be worth it and that's fine too. But the thing is, you don't KNOW what's going to happen when you do really big miles. Maybe you "just" get 2:37. Maybe you get 2:27 or 2:17, maybe you get 2:50 or maybe you just get sick of the whole business and give up. The issue is whether you want to find out or not.

As for the time thing and being in college, there's not likely to be any time in your life when life will be more set up to allow a lot of running than college will, well, not until retirement. At times in college I did 120-130 mile weeks and I am NOT a morning person and NEVER did an early morning run except when the team had doubles at the start of cross country season.

If you're carrying 18 credits, you probably have days with four or five classes and others with two or three. On days when I had classes at 9 and 10 I'd often run for an hour or so at 11, have lunch, go to a couple more classes, then run again at practice at 4. If I didn't have free time at mid day, I'd often do a second run after practice at around 9 PM and go to bed around midnight or 1 AM. So there'd be four or five hours of class, maybe three spent running and showering afterward, nine hours to sleep and another seven or eight hours to study or screw off.

So people not wanting to get up early means they have poor time management?

Also, this would be a difficult schedule for even a sub-2:40 stud like you to maintain for the 4-5 required, performance-based, years of a collegiate career.

cmurph and Sagarin,

I 100% agree... 11PM - 5AM is not enough sleep for 100 mile weeks, let alone 150 mile weeks. I could not do that. No way.

I have a gym at work and live in the suburbs. So the way I did it was wake up at 5:30 and get the 5:42 train. I can run to the train station in 3-4 minutes, and would have my clothes ready to go. Didn't brush my teeth or anything. Hopped out of bed, thew on my clothes and left.

The train would get to 125th street at 6:07. If I stayed on the train, it would arrive at Grand Central at 6:17 and then its a 10 minute walk to my office. That's 20 minutes of commuting I just cut out and instead, made it 20 minutes of running time. Anyway, off the train at 6:07 and run to 7:15. End up at the office where I kept work clothes. Shower, shave, brush teeth and at my desk by 7:30-7:35.

I work all day, take train home, put kids to bed, run 35 minutes, shower, and be done for the night. Sometimes my morning and evening routine would flip flop if I was working late and wasn't going to see the kids anyway (i.e. if I had to work until 7:00, the kids will be in bed before I get home, so might as well run longer at night and sleep in and run shorter in the morning). Anyway, in bed by 10:00... though admitedly, in the hardest part of training when I was also doing workouts, I was feeling pretty groggy by 9:00 (though would 9 out of 10 times stay up to 10 so I could hang out with my wife). 7.5 hours of sleep was enough for me at that level.

This was running 100 mpw... so I dind't run doubles on Saturday and not every day.

blort,

It was worth it to me for a very short period of time so I could get that sub 2:40. You're right... I have a saint of a wife who would usually read while the kids napped and I ran. I think she liked the quiet time, honestly. I didn't run that kind of mileage for very long (a few months) as it took me 2 years to build up to it after a 2.5 year layoff of no running. It was worth it to get my sub 2:40, however, is not worth it any longer (and why I've run 10 times since Chicago). In my warped world, whether I run 2:39:58 or 2:30:01, it doesn't matter. The next barrier is the 2:30 barrier, and I will never be within 5:00 of that no matter how much I train. Yes, some time was taken away from my wife (not my kids), but how is that different then her going to Yoga on Saturdays, or out with friends on a Thursday night? I did none of that. Running, work, and being a dad/husband was my life. So, to answer your question... yes, it was worth it to get to 2:40, its not worth it to continue to do it to get to a possible 2:35.

To some of the others who like to make personal attacks on me:

My point is not to say I am great and someone else is not. I am not great. I was a decent, by runner's standards, runner. I realize that. My point is if I can do it, others can as well. I don't view the fact that I ran 100 mile weeks special. That's the point. And nor should you. In a way, I'm encouraging anyone who doesn't think they can to say, "yes you can!". If a schlepp like me can do it, so can you. The people who are "mad" at me are insecure and need to attack. I'm actually complimenting you. I'm saying, "dude, you're better then me and I can do it so you can do it". Again, not sure how that is bad. Maybe I have a strange way of encouraging people. For that I apologize. Add it to my flaws.

Very impressive time management. I have to applaud you for doing that

thirt-two:

I did not say that at all. Per your exact point (thanks for inadvertantly supporting me)... don't say you don't have the time when really what you want to say is you don't feel like getting up early. Two different things completely.

Now back to Cam Levins, what I am really wondering is the content of that mileage. How fast does he do it? What types of workouts does he do? How often does he do them?

I can certainly respect anyone running 100 miles a week. It hard to maintain this level for any period of time. I also respect your desire to get a sub 2:40. That's a time that most people can never run, and most who can never will.

I really respect that it was a short term goal for you and that it's not worth it continuing.

There is nothing wrong with trying to be the best you can be, but you need to be realistic as well. Everyone knows if they have what it takes to be a great, or just a decent runner. When you progress from 65 to 75 to 85 miles a week, you should really be able to tell if it has been worth it and if it is worth continuing.

If you are elite level, you can find the time to run 100-120 miles a week in school. You can even find the time to run 150 (though I would not recommend it unless like Cam Levins, you really think you body can withstand it). If you are just decent, I really wonder why you want to do more than 80-85 unless, like you, it's for a one time big goal. Running 100mpw in college if you are just some 14:45 guy just does not make sense to me.

Now if you are a 14:45 guy as a freshman running 70, then a 14:30 guy at 75, and then a 14:15 at 80. I could see trying to go to 100 your senior year to just get sub 14:00. You'll probably never get a chance again. Maybe, I suppose, maybe the same argument could apply if your were a 15:05 guy and just want to break 15:00 by as much as possible your senior year. But, again, this is a one time type thing. Why continue at this level after college just to become take another 10 seconds off your time.

I suppose that's a question everyone needs to answer for their self. It would not be worth it for me.

Some points to note if you didn't catch it:

He went from 15:27 (HS) to 13:18 (college) running progressively high mileage.

He was having trouble hanging in the closing laps of major races so he decided to "take risks to get to the next level."

He trains at 5,846 feet - which Cedar City's elevation. If he's hitting nearby trails its probably even higher than that.

150 at altitude. No wonder he's a beast.

I feel like you are forgetting that some people do not run for the sole reason of seeing if they can take 10 seconds off their 5k pr. Also, I don't get why some people think it is some crazy commitment to run 100mpw. Yeah, it takes some time and mental energy but if you can't dedicate two hours a day to something there are some serious time management issues to be noted. Five miles in the morning, 9 in the afternoon and a 16 mile long run. Not that hard if you run smart.

You sound like you don't really enjoy running, since you dropped it cold after reaching your goal. Congrats, but I could never spend that much time on something I didn't enjoy.

I enjoyed it... just not enough to keep at it. I also ran injured since that last comeback that started in 2009. I have a pinched sciatic nerve so most days it was very painful to run. That made it a lot easier to stop.

But really, I'm just a very goal focused person. Always have been. I also enjoy a lot of different things... so giving up one thing I enjoyed isn't much of a big deal as it has been filled by other things I enjoy. And it all gets easier when you consider I reached my goal and it was literally painful to run.