100 mpw is just 7 am and 7 pm per day.

This dude gets it. You must be new here.

bumba bumba bumba bumba wrote:

People don't spend 5 hours a day watching TV. They spend 5 hours a day Chillin'. Because 5 hours is the qty of Chillin' they need, so they can Deal.

If now all of a sudden they replace 2 hours of Chillin' with jogging, then how are they going to Deal? How does that work?

You're looking for a concrete link so here's something that was posted here some years back. This is from someone who ran 15:14 at age 44:

12/08/08-12/14/08: (Week Total: 23.7) (5.5M 46:12) (5M 45:04) (0) (0) (5M 49:30) (8.2M *Race) (0)

*USATF Masters 10K XC Spokane WA: 20th Overall 35:32 DQ, no chip. 25° w/40MPH gusts. 2M WU: 17:00

12/15/08-12/21/08: (Week Total: 21.5) (5.5M 49:50) (0) (5M 44:12 ) (6M 63:46) (5M 47:24) (0) (0)

12/22/08-12/28/08: (Week Total: 31.5) (5M 50:04) (5M 48:24) (0) (5M 41:08) (3M 25:26) (6M 47:10) (7.5M 61:10)

12/29/08- 01/04/09: (Week Total: 51.7) (5M 48:49) (0) (7.2M 71:15) (10M 1:41:04) (8M 79:41) (8M 63:37) (13.5M 2:02:01)

01/05/09- 01/11/09: (Week Total: 50.2) (8M 77:59) (5M 45:51) (0) (10M 1:27:50) (7.2M 67:15) (15M 2:19:54) (5M 40:57)

01/12/09- 01/18/09: (Week Total: 60) (7.2M 67:56) (13.2M 1:57:24) (7.2M 70:07) (10.2M 90:00) (7.2M 59:33) (0) (15M 2:32:13)

01/19/09- 01/25/09: (Week Total: 50.7) (7.2M 72:53) (7M 67:00) (7M 67:33) (5M 46:51) (0) (9.5M 73:33) (15M 2:18:45)

01/26/09- 02/01/09: (Week Total: 41.4) (5M 47:08) (5M 47:47) (0) (5M 41:33) (7.2M 69:34) (10M 1:37:04) (9.2M 1:33:10)

The question of frequent racing for slow trainers has come up here so it's worth noting that there are no races here. Some years back after a very good indoor performance at either a mile or 3 km, can't recall anymore, I had an e-mail from him saying it was his first race in months. In later years he upped the volume but not the pace. If anything he slowed down. His comment about all this, which I think mails it, was "You don't need to train fast to race fast. You need to train fast to race your fastest."

If you still want examples, Bob Kennedy went sub-14 after a long base period at altitude

Coebra wrote:

If you still want examples, Bob Kennedy went sub-14 after a long base period at altitude

And Usain Bolt would probably break 11 off a base period of basketball and Mcnuggets, what's your point? A sub-13 guy breaking 14 is about as far from meaningful as you can get.

Tbol wrote:

Coebra wrote:

If you still want examples, Bob Kennedy went sub-14 after a long base period at altitude

And Usain Bolt would probably break 11 off a base period of basketball and Mcnuggets, what's your point? A sub-13 guy breaking 14 is about as far from meaningful as you can get.

Please read the thread you are commenting on. The question is whether ANYONE can break 16 off a period of easy running (obviously true), not whether one should plan on doing this to reach their potential (though you could do quite well).

Simple answer: If everyone did it, it wouldn't be impressive.

Be happy if that's what you do.

I'm happier with a much more fulfilled life and running 50-60mph. I'm also not injured.

Geez louis wrote:

I'm also not injured.

Irrelevant, high mileage doesn't cause injury.

Adding to the convo wrote:

Geez louis wrote:

I'm also not injured.

Irrelevant, high mileage doesn't cause injury.

What does cause injury?

genuine interest wrote:

Adding to the convo wrote:

Irrelevant, high mileage doesn't cause injury.

What does cause injury?

Mostly no one knows so they attribute it to whatever they don't like. If you don't like intervals or hard running you attribute injuries to running too fast too often. If you don't like volume you attribute injuries to too many miles.

Real life wrote:

Because most of us have real life's like work family etc. Runners are selfish weirdos on the whole

this

It's only 98 miles. Get your math straight.

Being a wuss.

Since when did sub 16 in the freakin 5k become a degree of measuring quickness? That's an ok, but likely not sponsored, women's time.

I'd hope you could do that on just easy running, it's not even 5:00 pace.

Jus sayin wrote:

It's only 98 miles. Get your math straight.

Read the first post of the thread.

Injury Expert wrote:

Being a wuss.

Yeah, if you keep running with pains, you get used to it.

So many runners are fixated on avoiding injuries, because they want an excuse not to work harder.

genuine interest wrote:

Adding to the convo wrote:

Irrelevant, high mileage doesn't cause injury.

What does cause injury?

Lack of recovery

Overtraining

Not warming up

Overstretching

Muscle imbalances

Worn out shoes

Bad form

I'd say you have been chicked many times yourself trying to break 20min 5k yourself

southbysouthbest wrote:

high mileage isn't hard wrote:

Flat out wrong. There are many benefits and adaptations that come with easy mileage alone. Plus once you adapt to the mileage, it become very easy, as easy as 50 mpw used to be. At this point you can add in tempos, speed work, and hills and further improve.

Show me ONE runner who has even broken 16:00 in a 5k off of easy mileage alone. Just one. We have hundreds of thousands of running logs publicly available, so finding one should be easy.

I look forward to seeing it.

I went to high school with a guy who went 15:50 for 3rd place at the Stanford invitational his sophomore year off less than 30 miles a week of pure easy running. We may have done some 400s but they ended up being pretty slow jogs rather than actual speed work. Obviously this kid was an outlier, but hey, you asked for ONE runner.

The fact that they raced as OFTEN as they did totally negates the claim that they trained using ONLY LSD. That's completely false. Racing is part of training - hard to argue that point.

I certainly do not disagree with the efficacy of LSD. I see too many runners doing easy runs too HARD (even if it doesn't fell like it subjectively) with too much quality during their harder sessions. That said, low intensity running is a great way to train (especially for injury prevention + longevity) so long as SMALL amounts of quality are thrown in periodically.