does running 100 miles or more per week make one faster?

Not for most people.

hobby wrote:

then why are ultra distance runners not the best 5k runners?

People who run 100 mile races should easily run a fast 10k

but their not.So,does that prove high mileages doesn't make one fast.

What makes you think someone who runs 100 miles races is running 100 mile weeks outside of a race week?

Most of the ultra people I know run less than the road runners. Which is probably a factor into why they are slower at 5k. Among many others.

hobby wrote:

then why are ultra distance runners not the best 5k runners?

People who run 100 mile races should easily run a fast 10k

but their not.So,does that prove high mileages doesn't make one fast.

Issat you Richard99?

You have not provided the other half of the equation/comparison.

If Usain Bolt ran 100+ miles per week, would he be fasteror not? I say he would not be faster, would be much slower.

If a person running 80 miles per week with quality workouts included then switched to 100+ miles per week but had to sacrifice some of his quality sessions, then no he might very well be no faster than before.

Running 100+ miles/week does not equate to being faster, but is does have a positive coorelation to being stronger.

hobby wrote:

jjjjjj wrote:

Yes, it does, but you have to compare apples to apples. Someone running 60 mpw with three fast workouts may well run much faster in a race than someone with 100 mpw all very slow, but someone running 100 mpw with three fast workouts will crush the 60 mpw three fast workout runner, other things being equal.

so,it's a combo of slow easy runs and fast short runs.So,if a person

only does 100 mpw slow easy runs they would be slower than a

person who does 100 mpw of slow and fast runs.

Depends on the talent, the FT/ST fiber composition and how it got periodized.

If you read the JK threads way back 140 miles a week with high end aerobic,

unforced effort, got a guy to a 4 minute mile.

slower and greater recruitment of st muscle fibers! running fast makes one fast!

Running 100 + miles a week will build strength. This allows one to perform his/her tempos and fartleks better. Which in turn allows one to perform his/her intervals better. Which in turn allows one to perform her/his (not sexist) race better. BUT, but do not go below 100 miles. This is a magic number.

The higher the mileage, the faster you will potentially be to a point (say 120-150 miles or so). BUT you cannot just do that ALONE to get faster. The key is a HIGH MILEAGE BASE that you work up to over years (it takes 7 years on average to reach peak performance for a runner who gets serious). THEN, most importantly, you have to take all the lung, blood, oxygen transport, mitochondrial, capillary, tendon, joint, and muscular physiological gains and convert all that high slower mileage changes you have forced on your body to SPEED USE. You MUST do hard-core speed work for at least 2 months after this high-mileage, long, buildup phase. THEN you will see real results. Mileage alone is just the background foundation -- you still have to build the house... of SPEED on top of it. Otherwise you will see gains -- but they will just be small and seem not worth the massive extra time and effort. Have to do speed work.

"I ounce did about 6 weeks of 100 mpw just to see if I could do it. I followed a Lydiard schedule as best I could and mixed in some faster stuff as I acclimated to the distance. The next racing season was PR central, even with backing down to 60-80mpw. The boost in fitness was substantial."

****************************************************************************************

Elucidate and educate by relating your training log from this period, please.

Thank you.

This made me cringe. By the way, a solid 8/10.

hobby wrote:

People who run 100 mile races should easily run a fast 10k

but their not.

grammarian wrote:

This made me cringe. By the way, a solid 8/10.

hobby wrote:

People who run 100 mile races should easily run a fast 10k

but their not.

HRE wrote:

I can't think of any activity where people who are short on talent get better at the activity by doing less of it than people who seem to have some talent.

Bomb disposal training.

duh2 wrote:

HRE wrote:

I can't think of any activity where people who are short on talent get better at the activity by doing less of it than people who seem to have some talent.

Bomb disposal training.

POTUS

hobby wrote:

then why are ultra distance runners not the best 5k runners?

People who run 100 mile races should easily run a fast 10k

but their not.So,does that prove high mileages doesn't make one fast.

One must consider that most ultra distance "runners" are not actually ultra distance runners, they are in fact ultra distance hobbyjoggers. They run ultras for the social media "likes" / "kudos'" rather than to actually improve as runners.

In fact some of these guys I see who do these "runs" don't even run weekly mileage which a properly training marathon runner would find acceptable. Therefore it shouldn't come as any kind of massive surprise to find they can't run decent 5ks.

Dude, I think you are mixing up the ultra crowd with the half marathon people. That is the most ridiculous race distance. While it takes no talent to run 13.1 miles, 26.2 miles, or 50 miles, it takes significantly more training and effort to get thru a 50 mile or longer race, even if you are hiking (which most are). I have run many and have yet to meet one who is doing it for the Instagram! I guarantee know one is going to suffer for 12 hours for Instagram. The same can't be said about local 5ks, 10k, and half thons where you get a medal even if you are disturbingly fat and walk a 3:20 half. The biggest violaters are the half marathoners, end of story. Anyways, you obviously have never pushed yourself in any meaningful distance if you are making this comment.

Sprinting speed matters. Physiologists measure T&F potential talent by 200m performance.

If one cannot break 30 seconds for 200m, no matter how many miles one runs a week, one is not breaking 2 minutes for 800m. It would be difficult to break 2 minutes for 800m without being able to sprint sub-27.5 200m.

One's 1500m personal best is correlated to one's Marathon best. A Bill Rodgers, Dick Beardsley type runner may race Marathon 32.5 times 1500m potential. Runners like Rod Dixon or Mohammed Farah may race Marathon 36 times 1500m potential. Speed matters more than Marathon crowd on here state.

AP5000 wrote:

Dude, I think you are mixing up the ultra crowd with the half marathon people. That is the most ridiculous race distance. While it takes no talent to run 13.1 miles, 26.2 miles, or 50 miles, it takes significantly more training and effort to get thru a 50 mile or longer race, even if you are hiking (which most are). I have run many and have yet to meet one who is doing it for the Instagram! I guarantee know one is going to suffer for 12 hours for Instagram. The same can't be said about local 5ks, 10k, and half thons where you get a medal even if you are disturbingly fat and walk a 3:20 half. The biggest violaters are the half marathoners, end of story. Anyways, you obviously have never pushed yourself in any meaningful distance if you are making this comment.

Actually, I'd agree - Half marathoners are the biggest infringers on the hobby-instagram-jogging front. Although, like I said before, I'd definitely place the ultra "runners" after that. Who knows, maybe you personally haven't met them because you are running them. But I definitely see people "running" ultras without even putting in what you'd call respectable half marathon training...

br0ski wrote:

There is a little thing called talent that has a say in this argument.

+1 no one with real talent does ultras