A runner absolutely must obtain the ability to train at 120-150 (or more) miles per week by the peak of the career in or

You want an example of someone who ran too many miles, pushed himself too hard in general, and whose legs and whole body suffered as a result and was thus completely fried before he hit his late 20?s?? How about Al Salazar? The guy was tough as they come, and a personal hero, but, like many intense runners, pushed himself beyond what was sane. Yes, that is what made him great (and an element of that ferocity is of course necessary to be great), but, it also was his downfall. He had a very short world-class career, and when he should have been having his greatest glory and been at his peak form, 1984, he was already burned out. I?ve read things where he was quoted as saying that he would wake up in the morning and could barely get out bed. NO hyperbole there, but literally could NOT climb out of bed and walk out of the bedroom he was so banged up from training. But he would gradually loosen up (in a relative sense) to the point where he could start limping out the door. Eventually he would end up running some really long run before the day was over. He just would not rest or take it easy, no matter what his body told him.

True story: I was watching TV back around 1984 (can not remember if it was pre-Olympics or post, but it was right around that time. I think it was post-Olympics), and was flipping channels. Suddenly, I came across a channel that was showing a runner from the waist down running around a track. This caught my attention (obviously) and I paused to see what this was about (the volume was down, so I had no idea). My first CLEAR impression was, upon viewing the stride of this person jogging around the track was: this is a ?special-needs? person, or some very old person, because I had never seen a more screwed up stride in my entire life. As the camera panned up and I saw that it was Al Salazar?..I was in shock. I knew he had an unorthodox style, but this was BEYOND belief! One leg was pointing in, one out, one side appeared shorter than the other, one leg was dragging along, and it looked like he was limp-racing around the track. I will NEVER forget that. This guy had destroyed his legs through running, and of course he ended up doing virtually no quality running after 1984 (he had that one bizarre prozac-assisted Comrades victory, before shutting it down again, but that was it.). The guy is a hero, but his career could have even been better if he had someone to hold him back here and there.

Look, guys, 120 miles per week is NOT an incredible amount of mileage. YOU (and the rest of this country) need to think outside YOUR box if you have the notion that it IS a lot. 150 per week is BORDERING on a lot, but it's not like I'm advocating one hundred and EIGHTY per week as some magic number. Plenty of elite runners do 180, even 200+ per week, so what I'm putting forth as a mileage standard is only moderate by comparison. Even everyday (non-elite) runners can do 120 per week (with a full-time job) with no problem. And (if they do it sensibly) guess what most of them find. They find that they feel stronger, leaner, and more efficient, and their subsequent performances (after filling in the other necessary elements of training) are SUPERIOR to what they achieved without that mileage base. In fact, most people report a distinct difference (performance-wise) after running at 120 per week during base training vis-à-vis running at 100 per week, indicating that 100 per week (which many Americans are ingrained to believe is "a lot") is NOT a sufficient mileage to produce all the requisite metabolic changes in a large percentage of the population.

The bottom line is that the number of people who respond favorably to relaxed high mileage running is FAR greater than the number who show equal improvement from using low mileage, super high intensity training. And FAR more people get injured from doing hard track work too often than from doing less intense high mileage running (as long as they use a sensible progression to arrive at that mileage). In fact, I guaranTEE more careers have been outright ruined by too much intensity than by too much mileage. High mileage will NOT kill your speed, so you can always add your bread-and-butter training recipe on top of a mileage base, and then almost always with superior results.

You're probably thinking, "Yeah, you said 'MOST people run better with a huge base.' What if I'm NOT one of those people? What good does running 120+ miles per week do me then, wise guy?" To that I will say that you will never know if you WILL find that extra performance boost unless you try it. In fact, you won't even know what events you're best suited to! That's why I say that trying the higher mileage, endurance-oriented route (instead of thoughtlessly blowing it off) is the ONLY way that you (yes, YOU) will find out what DOES work best for you and will allow you to reach your true potential as a runner. And it's not like all I'm talking about here is LSD. I said you need to be able to TRAIN at 120+ per week, not JOG that much. Just because most of it needs to be relaxed doesn't mean all of that is slow plodding.

If you do everything right and still can't get past x miles per week without trouble, so be it. I suppose I'll have to admit that you ARE an exception. But you're still going to be at your best if you get as much (training, that is; not all slogging) as you CAN get during your base periods. All the speedwork, all the plyos, all the other work to develop explosiveness can be added ON TOP OF your FITNESS, but without fitness, you're missing the whole point of training.

JK,

You're wasting your precious time. It's common knowledge that all of the studs on this board are incredibly talented individuals who fall out of bed each morning with the ability to go 12:50. Why aren't they running this in meets? You guessed it, those pesky college classes are getting in the way.

The Africans know this and are desparately trying to squirrel away prize money now knowing that our universities will be unleashing inhuman physical specimens at any moment. They only wish that they posessed the raw talent to get away with only 50 miles / wk. (Rumor has it Geb is shutting it down after this season because of Jorge Torres' arrival on the scene.)

In any event, you and Messrs. Lydiard, Wetmore, et al. are old school and still espousing the "no talent" way to run. The notion that 150 miles a week produces results is quite laughable. I pity those poor Third World runners who will soon be humiliated by our boys.

SeriousRunner2003, just because someone has run really good times, you can not conclude that they MUST have reached their full potential. Obviously, there are plenty of runners who would be examples to the fact that if they "only" ran 28:40/8:00/13:50, they would have been underachievers.

Huh? I've improved every year I've run in my life (I even set a marathon pr this past year so I can count 2002).

And Bob Kennedy fell off the face off the earth (if that's what you want to call winning a USATF title in 2001) after he got creamed by a some high school kid in a car.

We all have very short memories. Kennedy was USATF champion in 2001. He only missed this last year. Goucher was right behind him. Yet everyone acts like they'll never run again. I guess others think the same about me.

All I can say is my training is going great. This week was probably my best week of training ever.

And JK's not saying that every kid in America should go run 120 miles a week overnight. It takes years of steady development to reach your potential in this sport. But too many people want the quick fix.

weldon,

how long did it take you to get up to 120 miles a week? how much were you doing in college? how much have you increased your mileage every year?

All I can say is my training is going great. This week was probably my best week of training ever.

You said you were hanging it up--saying you wanted to see if anyone here was interested in your apartment in Flagstaff. If we all believe everything you say wejo--and we do--isn't suicide just around the corner for us?

Wejo, Please reread my 2nd post. By no means did I state anything as fact, but asked for input on a theory I have noticed, and used Kennedy as simply one example. And yes, my opinion only, and from a time stanpoint only, 5th in the olympics and a sub 13 to winning the US (not a world distance power)championship in a very mediocre time, by comparison, is quite a drop. Many of Bob's problems, as well as many others seem to have come after a boost in training milage. Typically, they hit some pr's and kick ass prior to a big drop. Who's to say this is not good, or what the athletes are after? I did not advocate any training method or knock any either, simply throwing out an observation for scrutiny. What do you think? Have you noticed this? Condensed: Milage boost, followed by great running, followed closely by long-term problems.

Dear SeriousRunnerof2003,

I guess you will never make it to the top like most of the humans, it's OK. Please don't blame JK, for your inability to make it to the top. Listen to Ah come to help, your broken now so just realize JK was not talking to you or most of the guys on this message board.

Wejo:

Please explain why JK has taken Ryan Deak (he is now a HS junior)to 120MPW in less than a year's time. I guess that's what he refers to as gradual progression. I think he likes the check that comes each month from Deak's Dad and is looking to hook some more innocent HS'ers looking for the magic formula so that he can cash their checks as well. What's next JK, 5th and 6th graders with trust funds?

when did deak run 120????

Normie, I comprehend what you are saying. You are stating truthfully that which you think you know--but what of that? We only get a punch and jab response from wejo and JK. But it must also be noted that we take that same approach to them en mass. Who is to blame? I blame myself mea culpa. Well, someone has to take the blame--as well as finding a cure. No one better to do that than moi.

JK is saying that Deak at this point needs a great aerobic base. No one will argue with that. He says he does not give Mr. Deak any more than he can handle--so we have to accept that even though it sounds a bit much. However, that has not stopped any of us, including myself, from needleling JK for more profound answers regarding something he has already adequately addressed as much that can be imagined on a message board.

I think JK you cannot possibly respond adequately to any of us concerning a single runner--nor should you even try. Indeed, you cannot more than you already have inform us of your general understanding of training because it, too, will fall short of convincing us that you have any insight greater than the average joe--speaking in general about anything will tend to do this.

So, all you can do is to maybe help us see how you perceive faults and good ideas related to other runners that you are NOT involved with. That way you will be speaking on the same plane as us who are NOT in your shoes and NOT dealing directly with same person who you are training. Not of us here can relate to what Ryan can and cannot do like you can. See I have found the only cure.

Catman, for the love of all that's decent and good, STOP. POSTING. NOW. PLEASE. YOUR SERIOUS METER ONLY HAD FIVE MINUTES IN IT AND THAT EXPIRED MONTHS AGO. This board grows dumber with each and every one of your posts. GO AWAY.

Why don't you try to grow up and quit dogging people? You add nothing to these boards except your babified complaints. Your modus operandi, mcenroe, is getting old--putting it mildly. You CANNOT BE SERIOUS because you have never been anything but a clown. We know you have a small penis, mcenroe, and we, like Tatum O Neil, are rather sick of you straining to get so much undue attention. Do not blame the world for your small penis when most of the world had nothing to do with you existance. You net to act more like your small penis brother--and knock off your trying to hide your small penis by shouting above everyone. It is really sick that you do this.

JK, Wejo, I am actually trying to learn something. I have an open mind and like to hear other perspectives. Don't be deterred by some of the obscure posts this thread is now getting. My experience tells me that a large number of athletes who jump their milage to the 120+ level have a 2-4 year window to succeed before fighting one problem after another. To go back to your original quote JK, how does someone "PREPARE to run 120-150 mpw'? Are you speaking of building up to it? Does this inlcude weight training or a stretching plan to allow the body to adapt? Is it simply a genetic ability to handle it? What are you referring to? As I said before, I am looking for insight, not challenging anything for the sake of an argument. Even if high milage does shorten a 'high end quality' career (a theory I wonder about), many young runners might make that trade to tap their greatest potential, and there is certainlynothing wrong with that decision. Is there a way to determine or guess if an athlete can handle the milage without diving in? What determines if this is the best move? It can't be best for everyone due to the many different physiologies, structual differences, etc. out there. Thanks for any input.

JK is right. The first post of the thread says maybe JK means you should be able to do 120 -150 but it's not necessary to do it. If you are able to do it, then why not do it? Is it because you are lazy or have other priorities?

And a HS jr. doing 120 MPW at 7000' may be a good thing. In Kenya they call them champions.

JK...How much improvement can someone who has never attempted the 120-150 per week plan possibly expect by going this route? Previous highs have been 95-105, but have found I have overtrained myself by trying to push the pace during this period and not running relaxed... and easy.

Lifetime pr's are 2930 10k, 23:27 5 miles. 1:18 25k. Have not raced much over the past several years, although when I have it has been consistent...14:45-14:30 5k effort. Have been running and training but not with any real intensity or focus, have been focusing more on my professional career. Decided to give it one more big go around through 2004, and have been getting after it, since last summer. During my off years my milage still averaged 85-100 and had no injuries of any type.

Will be entering the master's rankings this spring and feel I can physically still compete with the younger guys while also going after the top masters guys like Eddy, Masai and the others.

Will this approach over do it or just go as I feel, stick to the plan and see what happens?

... is NOT at 120 per week. But what if it was? If it was of low intensity and if HE felt comfortable with it and thoroughly enjoyed his running, what would be the problem? I haven't suggested that he run more than 100 in his highest week during the Summer (I think he actually did 103), and that was only a one time deal, to test the waters a little. He had been at (I think) 87 for a highest week prior to Spring track, then most of his weeks were in the FIFTIES (not high at all, huh?) during the Spring. He averaged in the low 70s during the Summer, with some fairly low weeks at the beginning and with some 70-ish weeks later to offset the couple of weeks he had over 90.

That mileage is NOT high except by the weenie standards you've been programmed to BELIEVE in. In the 1970s, it would have been considered medium - maybe even LOW. You want high for a HSer? Read "Running To The Top Of The Mountain" by Joe Newton and pay attention to the 216 miles in ten days that the York guys are reported to have done during their "camp". Then look at the subsequent weeks of 146+ and 142. They didn't drop below 90 in a week until the week of the state meet. If you think those numbers are trumped up to look impressive in print, think again. Tom Marino (who won Illinois State X-C in 1974 ahead of York's Ron Craker) told me that MOST of the top teams in Illinois were averaging over 100 per week back then. That was pretty much the norm for serious HS runners a lot of places. Rudy Chapa ran up to 130 in HS. Jeff Nelson ran up to 142. Gerry Lindgren ran so much you'd have to express it in scientific notation! All three of those guys set still-standing HS records. Of course, Nelson and Lindgren DID fall off the cliff afterward, but that was just as likely due to INTENSITY as it was due to mileage. In Nelson's case, it couldn't have helped to race the likes of Salazar in workouts as an Oregon Frosh.

It's now pretty clear that CONSISTENT high mileage in HS is not as conducive to long-term development as is INTERMITTENT high mileage (stimulation/adaptation principle), with a gradual progression in both the volume and the duration of the "high" periods. It's also VERY obvious that high HS mileage coupled with high INTENSITY usually provides a stellar HS career but not much improvement beyond that (ex: Nelson, Hulst, Lindgren). However, as some regular visitors to this site are fond of saying, "You can't burn out if you've never caught fire." I know that's not as important as looking at the long-term picture, and I do advise Ryan Deak and other HSers with the bigger picture in mind, not allowing them to STAY at "high" mileage for very long at a time and keeping the intensity at no faster than the LT during those higher weeks. Ryan, in fact, likes the feeling of FLYING and he is prone to test himself more frequently than I would recommend (he also had some pretty hard running in his background prior to my involvement), so I deliberately advise him to UNDERtrain in terms of intensity. When he was at Lincoln, I was writing detailed schedules for him. Now that he's back at Maclay, I'm more of a consultant, but my main roles in his development are 1.) to foster an ENJOYMENT of running, and 2.) to teach the PRINCIPLES of long-term aerobic progression, periodization, sequencing sessions, and peaking.

If you've been at this site (or at other sites such as TnF Media) long enough, you'll know that I don't recommend very much structured "training" (except for some technique work) for 5th and 6th graders. Instead, the thing that seems to be best for long-term development at that age is lots of (predominantly aerobic) PLAY. Kids that age will slow down when they sense they're going too "hard" and they'll stop when they feel they've played enough. They DON'T need some loudmouth with a stopwatch out there telling them to "pick it up" or to "get back to work". Having said that, running a lot at that age didn't seem to hurt Geb, unless you point to his recent losses as an inevitable result of "burning out from too much mileage as a kid".

So I'm afraid the trust fund is out. Great idea, though. Since I'm such an unscrupulous crook, I think I'll con some poor 10-year-old suckers out of their college funds by getting them to invest in something that hasn't been invented yet, like time travel or "over unity" devices.

JK this is the best post I have ever read from you. Nevermind the con artist crap--that was just to provoke you to respond. It is good to see you thinking long term for Ryan and thinking what is the most natural, less stressful course for him to follow. It is going to be different strokes for different folks--so I am sure Ryan has long and short term goals that maybe none of us here can really relate to. I was under the impression--by you--that Ryan was doing 130-140 miles per week workouts--and I'd consider that a little much for anybody in high school. I'm glad you cleared that up.