Congratulations to Ron Hill -- 50 Years of Daily Running

He'd already been running for at least ten years prior to starting his streak so yes, he would know.

HRE wrote:

He'd already been running for at least ten years prior to starting his streak so yes, he would know.

Yes, the ancient battered body works just like it always used to....

His streak is the reason for his horrible decline and erratic performances from over-training.

Treadmills count? Since when?

Aid: If you need crutches, a walker, or a pool, it doesn't count. Treadmills count.

I enjoy my days off, knowing the full recovery makes me faster than a pointless mile to keep an irrelevant streak alive.

At 25-35 mostly easy miles a week for the past twenty some years coming at the back end of a career when he had all of ONE year in which his total mileage exceeded 5,000? You think that's overtraining? You don't think that a day of running a mile or two at 10-11 minute pace is resting? You have a low threshold.

But if you're going to blame his streak for his "horrific decline," then you must also credit it for his tremendous success and I'd bet that most of us would happily run in the mid 50 minute range for 10km when we're in our mid 70s for the career he had before age 50.

HRE wrote:

At 25-35 mostly easy miles a week for the past twenty some years coming at the back end of a career when he had all of ONE year in which his total mileage exceeded 5,000? You think that's overtraining? You don't think that a day of running a mile or two at 10-11 minute pace is resting? You have a low threshold.

But if you're going to blame his streak for his "horrific decline," then you must also credit it for his tremendous success and I'd bet that most of us would happily run in the mid 50 minute range for 10km when we're in our mid 70s for the career he had before age 50.

Hill's obsessive training was his downfall as an athlete. He could have been more consistent and had a better career. The why's of this are well documented.

A mile or two at 10 minute pace is pointless, the resting part is irrelevant.

But a 27 minute mile on crutches is not a run any way you cut it.

His streak is not the reason for his success, he succeeded in spite of it.

I wouldn't trade his success for a 50 minute 10km at 70 and he didn't have to either.

Hill had two stretches each year where he ran 30-40 miles a week for 4-6 weeks and as I said, only once ran more than 5,000 miles. How is that obsessive? Because he had no days off? At his peak, Shorter had a six year stretch during which he missed six days. Do you really think that's less obsessive?

And Hill could have had a more consistent and better career? Really? He was a world class runner from 1963 to about 1978. He has two gold medals in major championship meets, a win at Boston in course record time, a second at the World Cross Country Championships, a marathon time that was at least the second fastest ever run when he did it.. How many people have had better careers or longer times at the top? How many of his contemporaries are even racing in their mid 70s? And if you had a genie offer you that career but said by your 70s you'd still be able to run each day but wouldn't be able to beat 25:00-55:00 for 5 and 10k you really would not take the deal? That's really hard to believe and it makes me think you've got some sort of axe to grind about running streaks.

A 10-12 minute mile is no more or less pointless than one run at any other pace. It may seem pointless to you but if it has a point to the person running it then it isn't pointless and if a mile run on crutches is faster than one walked on crutches why isn't it a run?

Yes he could have. He was fried for the two races he should have won.

His breaks of easy running were always at a point where it was too little too late.

Using crutches is not running. A mile in 27 minutes is somehow running?

Christ on a bike you streakers are a bit off.I have nothing against people that want to run every day but that's not all we're talking about here.We're talking about redefining what running is.

Your streak is probably over too.

Nope. My streak is fine just as Ron's is. You don't get to define for other people what they're doing and criticizing a guy who had one of the best careers of his day, and many other people's days as well, just makes you look like a know it all. How on earth would you know when he took his rest periods? And now you're moving from claiming he didn't rest enough to claiming that he didn't rest at the right times. Is that from your own experience of resting properly enough that you produced performances comparable to Hill's or is it from your experiences coaching others who turned in performances comparable to Hill's?

I wouldn't trade his success for a 50 minute 10km at 70 and he didn't have to either.

Serious question: Is that considered a good time at that age? I'm sure Ed W. would be in the 40s at least. I do agree with you that running streaks are pointless. It takes more discipline to actually sit out a day than to mindlessly go out there when injured or overtrained!

Lorenzo the Magnificent wrote:

Frequency: At least seven runs in seven days. No twofers. In other words, don't come in late from a trip, run from 11:40 p.m. to 12:20 a.m. and give yourself credit for two days with one run.

I like your rules, though I always divide my days by when I sleep. I've done runs after midnight that went down in the log as on the previous day.

Ok, I got lazy. Ed did a 38:04.13 10km at 70!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_masters_athletics#10000_metres

Gary Oldman wrote:

If a daily run is the key to any persons survival from day to day I hope they have a really good back up plan.

You should not "talk" like that to someone with suicidal tendencies. You may be the trigger.

Go and educate yourself, Gary.

Have great respect for RH. However there was always the showman element about him, which is why he persisted in calling his streak 'alive' when we all knew decades ago it was dead due to the crutches nonsense. But he still kept at it hoping this would be forgotten. Not so, but he still gets the publicity for it so he won!

Ron Hill, as a great runner, had other ways of gaining attention. Running every single day for fifty years--including a day running with crutches, which is about as bad-arse as it gets--is off the charts in terms of difficulty. And consider that he was running huge mileage during a good portion of that time. I might run every day for six months in a row prior to a marathon and then take a week or two off and I'll take days off when it might prevent injuries, but it is hard to fathom running every day for 15,000 days or more.

One of Them wrote:

Gary Oldman wrote:

If a daily run is the key to any persons survival from day to day I hope they have a really good back up plan.

You should not "talk" like that to someone with suicidal tendencies. You may be the trigger.

Go and educate yourself, Gary.

People with suicidal tendencies shouldn't think the world will tip-toe around their delicate constitution.

Stop with the entitlement. Don't read or listen to people. It's on YOU, not them.

HRE wrote:

Nope. My streak is fine just as Ron's is. You don't get to define for other people what they're doing and criticizing a guy who had one of the best careers of his day, and many other people's days as well, just makes you look like a know it all. How on earth would you know when he took his rest periods? And now you're moving from claiming he didn't rest enough to claiming that he didn't rest at the right times. Is that from your own experience of resting properly enough that you produced performances comparable to Hill's or is it from your experiences coaching others who turned in performances comparable to Hill's?

They don't need to tell us they have a streak going when they don't anymore.

The pathetic "you can't and haven't coached anyone to do what he did" is weak.

Keep hobbling and calling it running, just don't tell us it's something bigger.

Good running training is getting as close as you can to your potential and holding it for as much of your life as you can.

Gary Oldman wrote:

What the he11 is wrong with you?

Gary Oldman wrote:

One of Them wrote:

You should not "talk" like that to someone with suicidal tendencies. You may be the trigger.

Go and educate yourself, Gary.

People with suicidal tendencies shouldn't think the world will tip-toe around their delicate constitution.

Stop with the entitlement. Don't read or listen to people. It's on YOU, not them.

What do you know about people with suicidal tendencies?

Like the poster above said, what is wrong with you?

Why can't you just admit you know nothing about a certain subject and present your opinions as that, as opinions and not as facts?

Running every day has kept me alive.

There's nothing you can say that will change that.

I told you I would talk to you, so that you would understand me. What did you do? You chose not to talk to me and write this post as if you knew what you are talking about.

It is your choice to be ignorant and judgemental and that says a lot about you.

And entitlement?

I don't think the World tip-toes around me.

Delicate constitution? Do you know what caused my suicidal state?

I hope you will never have to go through what I did.

As for my streak,...

I love running.

I don't brag about the streak. Only people very close to me know about it.

Very often I don't feel like going for a run and when I get back I feel a lot better.

If you can't understand that it can be a beneficial thing for some people then you have no reason to be on this thread.

Gary Oldman wrote:

Keep hobbling and calling it running, just don't tell us it's something bigger.

Good running training is getting as close as you can to your potential and holding it for as much of your life as you can.

Who gave you the authority to state what is good running training?

I know a former sub 63 Half-Marathon runner who is now happy to run 1 hour, easy, 6 days a week.

We are talking about running streaks here. Not competitive training running streaks.