how do people run a 100 mpw

You sound like a sour grapes kind of guy. You also sound like you are much more extrinsically motivated, rather than intrinsically motivated like many higher-mileage runners I know.

And, it is hilarious that you are dissing on people running 70-90 mpw (which could be 100% commuting to/from work, by the way), yet you spend the time to run 35-40 mpw, and spend spend additional time BIKING to/from work. And, going hiking on the weekends.

Maybe some people prefer to run than spend SO MUCH OF THEIR LIFE biking and hiking.

If you could still run around 31 minutes with a bit more work and the races are being won in 30:xx you'd be very tempted to just go for the win.

30 miles isn't going to give me a 15 min. difference in a marathon. And I didn't say I would never do the 100, I said that as a Master's level runner there is no way I want to put that much time and effort into it, 60-75 mile weeks take up more than enough.

If I were a collegiate runner or a pro or a sub-elite to elite guy trying to get or keep some shoe money, obviously I'd do whatever it took. But I'm 47, there's no reason to run a 100M week unless it's just want to see if I can do it.

Ouch. Sounds like he hit a sore spot with you. I don't think it sounds like sour grapes at all, he has a realistic view on his performance in scale to his life, effort, ability, and "pay off".

I don't know if running attracts OCD types or if the sport makes people this way, but man do we have a lot of 'em.

schweddy balls wrote:

bdbgbdb wrote:

I don't know how people run on their lunch break without a shower facility or run from home to work for the same reason.

Those should be your easy barely sweating runs.

I know, I know, you live in Atlanta etc. etc.

For some of us - and I would say most of us - a shower is absolutely necessary 6 months out of the year. Even 12 months out of the year for professional jobs Maybe not if you're just hanging out or working blue collar, but certainly if you are going to work in an office environment.

One of the only things that I didn't like from the Great Dr. Sheehan's books was his "Honest sweat doesn't stink" mantra. It isn't really the stink that I am worried about, it is the general look of "I just ran 8 miles and didn't shower."

Even if I am running easy, I am going to sweat through a shirt after 8 miles of running March-September. My hair will be wet and I will be gross. If I am going to sit down with clients or meet with my co-workers, I need to shower.

I was lucky to have a gym at my office, so I had full access to a shower, towels, lockers, toiletries, etc. I kept shoes and a blazer at my desk and ran with the essentials in a running pack for my commutes.

The cool down thing is also important in the summer. We have had threads about this before, but there is nothing worse than going running at lunch and then showering too soon, only to have the sweats hit hard once you've showered and returned to your desk (or worse, a meeting). It is terrible because it appears that you've just started dripping ridiculous amounts of sweat out of nowhere for no reason. LOL at some of the times it has happened to me.

When I was coaching HS cross country and T&F, I had several kids on the autism spectrum. They were joys to coach, possibly because they were so focused and obsessed with running, as autistic individuals tend to be about everything.

Every one of them THRIVED in distance running. Not that they were all great, but they and their parents all said they had found their 'thing' after failing in other sports and activities. Make of it what you will.

800 dude wrote:

Uhm no wrote:

"Assume you're already going to be running 50 or so for general fitness/health/sanity"

You don't need to run 50 miles per week for fitness or health, maybe 20 at most. If you need to for sanity, well, that pretty much says it all.

50 miles/week is just 45 minutes of exercise per day. That's like one episode of a TV show. All the guidelines and research say 30 minutes per day is the minimum that adults should be doing, which is definitely more than 20 miles. It's probably even more important for people with sedentary jobs.

Anyway, the reason I assumed 50 miles/week is because I think it's reasonable to expect that someone with a background as a high level runner will probably want to do a little more than just the absolute minimum that doctors say you should be doing for health.

That would be a 6:30 miles, which everyone on here can do in their sleep of course, but isn't what most people can do. And the 30 minutes per day recommendation is along the lines of walking for 30 minutes per day, not running 45 minutes per day - at 6:30 miles or otherwise. No one needs 50 miles per week for health reasons.

But beyond that, the OP said 30-35 miles per week wears him out, so saying to start from a baseline of 50 miles per week is a bit off topic.

No, it's for 'sanity'. Eye roll....

I don't know if running attracts OCD types or if the sport makes people this way, but man do we have a lot of 'em.[/quote]

When I was coaching HS cross country and T&F, I had several kids on the autism spectrum. They were joys to coach, possibly because they were so focused and obsessed with running, as autistic individuals tend to be about everything.

Every one of them THRIVED in distance running. Not that they were all great, but they and their parents all said they had found their 'thing' after failing in other sports and activities. Make of it what you will.[/quote]

Its because it's one of the few sports where even if you suck you still get to compete and one where one can focus on pure volume, even if they lack speed, i.e the important part of being a competitive runner.

In basketball you can just go shoot a million balls, but if you're 5'8 and can't play def, you won't make the team. fball- all skill & sized based as well. throwing 500 passes a day means nothing if you're 5'6 125 lbs.

I'd say running, swimming, diving, gymnastics, golf lend themselves to where the overly obsessed can do well even if they lack real talent. One can compensate for talent by "over doing it" and reach a small modicum of success.

geetar wrote:

I don't know if running attracts OCD types or if the sport makes people this way, but man do we have a lot of 'em.

When I was coaching HS cross country and T&F, I had several kids on the autism spectrum. They were joys to coach, possibly because they were so focused and obsessed with running, as autistic individuals tend to be about everything.

Every one of them THRIVED in distance running. Not that they were all great, but they and their parents all said they had found their 'thing' after failing in other sports and activities. Make of it what you will.[/quote]

Its because it's one of the few sports where even if you suck you still get to compete and one where one can focus on pure volume, even if they lack speed, i.e the important part of being a competitive runner.

In basketball you can just go shoot a million balls, but if you're 5'8 and can't play def, you won't make the team. fball- all skill & sized based as well. throwing 500 passes a day means nothing if you're 5'6 125 lbs.

I'd say running, swimming, diving, gymnastics, golf lend themselves to where the overly obsessed can do well even if they lack real talent. One can compensate for talent by "over doing it" and reach a small modicum of success.[/quote]

So in other words, It's a real sport where hardwork pays off and you can't just sit on you arse and get a pass on your natural abilities.

Sounds about right.

high mileage equals real work wrote:

geetar wrote:

I don't know if running attracts OCD types or if the sport makes people this way, but man do we have a lot of 'em.

When I was coaching HS cross country and T&F, I had several kids on the autism spectrum. They were joys to coach, possibly because they were so focused and obsessed with running, as autistic individuals tend to be about everything.

Every one of them THRIVED in distance running. Not that they were all great, but they and their parents all said they had found their 'thing' after failing in other sports and activities. Make of it what you will.

Its because it's one of the few sports where even if you suck you still get to compete and one where one can focus on pure volume, even if they lack speed, i.e the important part of being a competitive runner.

In basketball you can just go shoot a million balls, but if you're 5'8 and can't play def, you won't make the team. fball- all skill & sized based as well. throwing 500 passes a day means nothing if you're 5'6 125 lbs.

I'd say running, swimming, diving, gymnastics, golf lend themselves to where the overly obsessed can do well even if they lack real talent. One can compensate for talent by "over doing it" and reach a small modicum of success.[/quote]

So in other words, It's a real sport where hardwork pays off and you can't just sit on you arse and get a pass on your natural abilities.

Sounds about right.[/quote]

If you think great athletes in other sports besides running get that way by sitting on their arse, you are the worst kind of obsessed, inferiority complex-wearing distance geek.

geetar wrote:

I'd say running, swimming, diving, gymnastics, golf lend themselves to where the overly obsessed can do well even if they lack real talent. One can compensate for talent by "over doing it" and reach a small modicum of success.

Then many of them end up thinking "If I could do that, anyone could, because I am not talented."

The problem with that line of logic is that you may not be talented in raw speed, but you may be talented in durability. The former is very visible, the latter not so much. So they end up believing that anyone can run 100mpw if they only want to.

Just Another LRC idiot wrote:

geetar wrote:

I'd say running, swimming, diving, gymnastics, golf lend themselves to where the overly obsessed can do well even if they lack real talent. One can compensate for talent by "over doing it" and reach a small modicum of success.

Then many of them end up thinking "If I could do that, anyone could, because I am not talented."

The problem with that line of logic is that you may not be talented in raw speed, but you may be talented in durability. The former is very visible, the latter not so much. So they end up believing that anyone can run 100mpw if they only want to.

I would say that only a very small percentage of active runners 'could not' run 100 mpw if they really wanted to. I can understand runners NOT WANTING to do it for whatever reason but that is different. Running 100 mpw is not a significant physical challenge at all. I would equate it to the marathon where you see all those overweight soccer moms 'finishing' a marathon.

Some runners will benefit from 100 mpw and some won't but being capable of doing it is different.

Just Another LRC idiot wrote:

geetar wrote:

I'd say running, swimming, diving, gymnastics, golf lend themselves to where the overly obsessed can do well even if they lack real talent. One can compensate for talent by "over doing it" and reach a small modicum of success.

Then many of them end up thinking "If I could do that, anyone could, because I am not talented."

The problem with that line of logic is that you may not be talented in raw speed, but you may be talented in durability. The former is very visible, the latter not so much. So they end up believing that anyone can run 100mpw if they only want to.

They believe that 100mpw is a magic bullet for success. It's actually a lazy way of going about training.

geetar wrote:

Just Another LRC idiot wrote:

Then many of them end up thinking "If I could do that, anyone could, because I am not talented."

The problem with that line of logic is that you may not be talented in raw speed, but you may be talented in durability. The former is very visible, the latter not so much. So they end up believing that anyone can run 100mpw if they only want to.

They believe that 100mpw is a magic bullet for success. It's actually a lazy way of going about training.

And that is a dumb way of going about thinking.

Haji wrote:

I would say that only a very small percentage of active runners 'could not' run 100 mpw if they really wanted to.

What are the basis for this opinion? Because you and your buddies could?

Do you think Bernard Lagat and Diego Estrada are exceptionally fragile?

On LR, there is this theme that "anybody" could run 100mi/wk if they just slow down. It always has amazed me how distance runners seem to have such low self esteem with the "If I could do it, anybody could." attitude. There is a reason why most of us stuck with the sport and 9 out of 10 did not. It is talent. Whether that talent good speed, getting in shape quickly, or durability, ultimately it comes down to being pretty good at running relative to the general population.

Just as a tall person with long arms tends to make a good swimmer, volleyball or basketball player and one with short arms does not, and a shorter strong build tends to make a better gymnast or wrestler than a tall lanky one. These are obvious physical differences and running physique is less obvious, but still requires relatively longer legs and a slighter build and strong heart and lungs.

There is an experiment done on a large scale every year in High Schools in the US. It involves millions of kids who run track and end up racing the mile/1600/1500. How many of these males break 5:00 for the mile (or equivalent)? It is a pretty small percentage and few who fail at this continue to run at a college level. By the time you get to running 100mi/wk, you are dealing with about 10% of the people who started that running journey in the first place (very few HSers are running that much). Then if you look at that small %, you would find that some percentage of them could not handle continuous high mileage. You are probably now down to a single digit percentage of those who started that running journey. So "anybody" is a grossly inaccurate assessment.

Sure, train to you maximum at some point in your life if you want to be a serious runner. But don't assume that anyone can do it, or even that you could handle it yourself until you have done it. Can anyone understand Quantum Physics? Can anyone sing with beautifully with perfect pitch? No. That same diversity exists in people's athletic abilities.

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

Haji wrote:

I would say that only a very small percentage of active runners 'could not' run 100 mpw if they really wanted to.

What are the basis for this opinion? Because you and your buddies could?

Do you think Bernard Lagat and Diego Estrada are exceptionally fragile?

Those guys COULD run 100 miles a week if they wanted to, and certainly would if they wanted to run a fast marathon.

great example wrote:

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

What are the basis for this opinion? Because you and your buddies could?

Do you think Bernard Lagat and Diego Estrada are exceptionally fragile?

Those guys COULD run 100 miles a week if they wanted to, and certainly would if they wanted to run a fast marathon.

Yeah, if they ran all 100miles at slow recovery pace.

And what's the point of doing that? Just so that you can tell other people that you have run 100mpw?