Minimum mileage for sub-65 half

it's all dependent on the athlete/runner.... some guys I know hit around 120 to qualify while others could be between 80-100. Once you get past college and have a full time job, the miles get tougher to find and squeeze in. Not to mention the extra plyos, core, lifting, etc.... A runner who is managing 80+ or ~ after college, and still doing the extras is plenty enough I believe. like I said, it's all dependent on the athlete.

Look up how many miles Sandoval ran before winning the OTQ marathon.............

I agree it depends on the person and that obviously Mo Farah could break 65 with very little mileage at all. What made me think of the question was a friend who said he doesn't someone in the ability level I described could run sub-65 off of 70 or less miles/week. He was a 14:05/29:10 guy in college so pretty good but not pro level.

To jones22 's question - you are correct, I have had a lot of injury issues high mileage (70+) doesn't make sense for me.

jones22 wrote:

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

Rubbish. I was on an above average D1 CC team. We had a couple of NCAA standout runners and the rest of the top 7 were respectable 25ish or better 8K guys. None of us did more than 85 mpw (my mpw never more than 60 actually but I was a slacker). 1 of our runners went 2:20 in the mare after finishing up his last NCAA CC season. Pretty sure he was trying to get an OT qualifier and just missed. I know 2:20 is not sub 65 - but it is a comparable mark - maybe a touch slower than 65, but not much. I think at least our top 2 guys were in sub 65 shape as they would run sub 24 for 8K in cross and also did well when we moved up to 10K for NCs.

Sub 65 is definitely putting yourself in rarified company. It does not necessarily take a specific MPW total to get there though. Agree with you that 40 to 65 probably not gonna cut it, but it depends more on the athlete than it does his mpw. Good luck to you with your training and efforts to qualify.

Notrunninganymore wrote:

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...

That's apples and oranges dude. You're talented, then ran a few times, then ran a slow half marathon. None of that suggests that someone talented can run 65 off of 50-60 mpw.

Unfortunately, I agree with that assessment, or less mileage even, but your logic added zero value and I want to be a hater.

I was a D1 runner. The year after college I took 6 months completely off from training due to injury. I then started running building up starting real low about 30 miles a week up to the mid 80s for the last couple of months. I ran 65 low.

I'm far from the most talented guy out there. I gurantee there are guys who are talented enough to break 65 on less than 50 a week. Probably on around 30 miles a week. As much as you want to believe that if you work as hard as you can you'll rise to the top the bottom line is for most of us there are guys whose talent level is so much greater than us that can get the same or better results with far less training.

BTW the lowest mileage guy I personly know whose broken 65 was a friend who ran 64 low on mid 70s. And if not mistaken wasn't Lagat in the mid 60s when he ran 61 at New York?

A decent runner wrote:

As much as you want to believe that if you work as hard as you can you'll rise to the top the bottom line is for most of us there are guys whose talent level is so much greater than us that can get the same or better results with far less training

^ This is one of the most spot-on, accurate statements I have seen on this site in a while. Talent wins out just about every time. Where were you a few weeks ago when I was trying to convince some ostrich that sprint speed is innate and not really a trainable activity?

It all depends on talent... I ran a sub 65 off about 90 K (56 miles) per week. High quality workouts... 5 by 1600 meters in 4.25 and 16 * 400 at 62 with 1 minute break. I bet there is Kenyans who have the talent to do it on 40 miles per week if I could do it on 56.

Ca$hclay wrote:

^ This is one of the most spot-on, accurate statements I have seen on this site in a while. Talent wins out just about every time. Where were you a few weeks ago when I was trying to convince some ostrich that sprint speed is innate and not really a trainable activity?

Sprint speed is completely a trainable activity. Sprinting is a muscular activity. It is no different than weight lifting or vertical leaping. Are you seriously going to claim that guys can't increase their bench press maxes and vertical leaps too?