Minimum mileage for sub-65 half

Olympic Trails wrote:

What is the minimum amount of mileage that you think someone would need to run to qualify for the Olympic Trials with a sub 65 minutes half marathon?

This of course depends on the talent of the person - so let's say this person was good enough to run D1 but not at the pro level.

A friend of mine who was a DI all American in the 90s (13:59 I think) ran a 65:xx half on 65 miles a week. He would more than likely be the exception not the rule.

~40mi/week

13.1 miles

There is no way you can qualify without running around 100MPW.

The answers of 40 or 65 are complete crap. I know this for a fact. The guys I knew after college were running 100+. Those guys worked their butts off and still barely made it.

It's not just running though. My buddies did core 4xweek and different plyometric workouts. I'm sure I'll get bashed here for mentioning that, but it works...it's needed.

There is a low percentage of people who can handle 100MPW. It can be done though. I'm been working up to 80MPW, training with one of my buddies who qualified. I know eventually I will qualify if I can raise my total mileage up to 100.

jones22 wrote:

There is no way you can qualify without running around 100MPW.

The answers of 40 or 65 are complete crap. I know this for a fact. The guys I knew after college were running 100+. Those guys worked their butts off and still barely made it.

It's not just running though. My buddies did core 4xweek and different plyometric workouts. I'm sure I'll get bashed here for mentioning that, but it works...it's needed.

There is a low percentage of people who can handle 100MPW. It can be done though. I'm been working up to 80MPW, training with one of my buddies who qualified. I know eventually I will qualify if I can raise my total mileage up to 100.

Yeah... no. I ran under 63 and have run over 100 twice in my life. I probably averaged 80 in the 8-10 weeks leading up, and I'm not even that good. I am sure the best guys could break 65 off pretty dang low mileage... 50-60 with enough intensity would probably be enough.

Also, did core a grand total of ZERO times as well.

Not to be a jerk...but I truly doubt this is true. Either that...or you weren't really sure about your mileage. Many people will based their mileage on a certain pace (7min/mile for example). What actually happens though is you are running much faster.

So, if this is true. I bet you ran close to 100 multiple times.

You also say you did NO core? Again, doubtful. There are many things that could relate to that...helping someone move furniture, painting, cleaning, etc. You just don't realize what you are doing.

jones22 wrote:

Not to be a jerk...but I truly doubt this is true. Either that...or you weren't really sure about your mileage. Many people will based their mileage on a certain pace (7min/mile for example). What actually happens though is you are running much faster.

So, if this is true. I bet you ran close to 100 multiple times.

You also say you did NO core? Again, doubtful. There are many things that could relate to that...helping someone move furniture, painting, cleaning, etc. You just don't realize what you are doing.

I had a college teammate break 28 and run 63 flat off 85-100mpw on a given week, definitely no core and definitely no stretching. Certainly no manual labor job.

Went on to actually do core and break 62.

Ok, sure I guess I did lift my dinner plate a few times and did some laundry. I don't think that counts as core work. ZERO intentional strength work was done.

And I definitely don't base my mileage on a pace... I run with a garmin and just write whatever that says rounded to the nearest mile unless I know the length of the route for some reason.

8 weeks leading up to the race pulled straight from the log:

50, 74, 64, 92, 105, 74, 63, 53 = 71.75 average. Sorry I lied, 72 not 80.

Previous 10 weeks to increase sample size not including off week preceding the 8 weeks above..

63, 91, 95, 81, 62, 74, 78, 71, 80, 42 = 73.7 average. Take out the 42 that was a race week, and it's 77.

I think you are overestimating how hard it is to run 65. And again, I'm B list at best. Mo Farah could run 65 minutes off 20 mpw probably.

jones22 wrote:

Not to be a jerk...but I truly doubt this is true. Either that...or you weren't really sure about your mileage. Many people will based their mileage on a certain pace (7min/mile for example). What actually happens though is you are running much faster.

So, if this is true. I bet you ran close to 100 multiple times.

You also say you did NO core? Again, doubtful. There are many things that could relate to that...helping someone move furniture, painting, cleaning, etc. You just don't realize what you are doing.

Bernard Lagat ran 62, and he usually runs maybe 70/week.

doo doo wrote:

jones22 wrote:

Not to be a jerk...but I truly doubt this is true. Either that...or you weren't really sure about your mileage. Many people will based their mileage on a certain pace (7min/mile for example). What actually happens though is you are running much faster.

So, if this is true. I bet you ran close to 100 multiple times.

You also say you did NO core? Again, doubtful. There are many things that could relate to that...helping someone move furniture, painting, cleaning, etc. You just don't realize what you are doing.

I had a college teammate break 28 and run 63 flat off 85-100mpw on a given week, definitely no core and definitely no stretching. Certainly no manual labor job.

Went on to actually do core and break 62.

Chico state runner Scotty Bauhs. That guy hasnt been running well lately. What's up doo doo? Got the insider info?

Good lord guys, I'm just trolling. Core? Lifting furniture? Painting?

I thought it was easy to see? ehh, whatever.

To be serious...yes, I do agree with you guys. To the OP, in my opinion, 60MPW would do it for the right person. Qualifying for the OT isn't easy no matter what you do. I'm assuming you are asking this because you are unable to run ALOT of miles. Am I right? I wouldn't worry so much about that.

I'm not very good, but was a 4:13 miler in high school and only ran one half (71) when I was 18. After being injured everyday of my life after high school, I also questioned this. I was in very good shape running 60MPW after college. However, this would only last a few months before injury. The point is though, there is no doubt in my mind running a 65 half can be done with mileage in this range.

I'm going to put the chances you are the same person that posted above at ... 10 %.

But you said you knew for a fact that it couldn't be done!

Averaged 50-60 for the season and broke 65. Workout days were long and recovery days were very short.

univarse wrote:

Mo Farah could run 65 minutes off 20 mpw probably.

Doubtful. It took him 120 mpw to run 59:30.

Truly, no time requires a certain mileage. That doesn't even make sense so I don't know why some of you think so. Whatever got you to 70 will be you to 69 then to 68 then on and on...

I really don't have that much talent. My best times r from when I was 18 n 19 with best of 16min 5k n 4:32 mile. But last years got back into running after a 10 yr. break, I'm now 33 n ran ran 80 min half off of 20-24 mpw for about 3 months... So I think it's possible for someone very talented to run sub 65 off of 50-60 mpw...

jesus christ it fukin depends. are you super talented? Then liek 40 mpw. Are you not? Then liek 150 mpw. God it fukin dpeends dont' uj people understand that........

yes. you've summed it all up. thank you! there's NO one answer

adsfadsfadsfadsfads wrote:

jesus christ it fukin depends. are you super talented? Then liek 40 mpw. Are you not? Then liek 150 mpw. God it fukin dpeends dont' uj people understand that........

I ran 6620 off about 60 a week and mainly threshold work and tempo runs for my harder work outs. Was prone to injury but if I could have handled higher mileage I think 80 would have done it for me.