I met a guy in his mid 50's who is a 2:30-2:40 marathoner who claims he runs ~100 mpw around 9:00 pace with some faster runs sprinkled in. He said over 90% is 9min pace.. How does this work? Would that actually help someone improve?
I met a guy in his mid 50's who is a 2:30-2:40 marathoner who claims he runs ~100 mpw around 9:00 pace with some faster runs sprinkled in. He said over 90% is 9min pace.. How does this work? Would that actually help someone improve?
not a chance this type of guy and training exists. Unless he was a 2:15 guy at a younger age.
How is this not believable? Of course this kind of training exists.
How many mid 50s guys are going sub 2:40?
Ed Whitlock?
I have no idea but the OP sounded more interested in the specific training rather than the age of the runner in question.
10mpw wrote:
I met a guy in his mid 50's who is a 2:30-2:40 marathoner who claims he runs ~100 mpw around 9:00 pace with some faster runs sprinkled in. He said over 90% is 9min pace.. How does this work? Would that actually help someone improve?
Yeah, this would work. 90 miles easy and a 10 mile marathon pace tempo is going to get you close to your marathon potential. Having said that, to be running 2.3x in your 50s you obviously have some talent and many high mileage years behind you.
The guy definitely exists and definitely is one of the top runners in the US for his age. I'm just curious what would happen if most other people ran 100 mpw at 9 min pace. I would flat out get bored.
By way of example, 2 guys over 50 went sub 2:40 at Chicago this year, and both were 50 (one at 2:35 and the other 2:39), and only one was American. Probably fastest legit course in the country and one American over 50 broke 2:40 and that guy was 50 and ran 2:39.
The guy the OP met was either an anomaly or perhaps referencing older times.
Just another fat guy wrote:
Ed Whitlock?
Yeah, I live near Ed and have talked to him a number of times at races over the past 16 years or so. I'm sure he has slowed down now, but 10-15 years ago when he was in his 70s he was running high volume slow mileage, and that's all he did other than race. It's been well-documented.
He ran 17:30 in the first race I ever entered. I believe he was 69. Incredible.
Smoove wrote:
By way of example, 2 guys over 50 went sub 2:40 at Chicago this year, and both were 50 (one at 2:35 and the other 2:39), and only one was American. Probably fastest legit course in the country and one American over 50 broke 2:40 and that guy was 50 and ran 2:39.
The guy the OP met was either an anomaly or perhaps referencing older times.
He was likely referencing older times. I think this training for these kind of times holds pretty true, though.
And I think that is the challenge of anecdotes. There are just some anomalies out there. Some people can get to their ceilings quickly but have trouble improving after hat. Others need lots of work to get to their ceilings.
The anomalies are not useful for the average runner as a basis for planning their training. Everyone should figure out what works for them, but the best bang-for-your-buck proposition is probably to start with programs designed by established exercise physiologists.
That ultimately may not be the best course for everyone, and a high volume/low intensity approach may turn out to be the right deal for some, but were I playing the odds, I'd focus on intensity first and then up my mileage to the highest amount I felt comfortable I could get away with without materially increasing injury risk.
Run less Run Faster was designed by established exercise physiologists.
somebody do the math for me, 100 miles a week at 9 min pace is how many hours of strictly running a week?
I believe that's equal to 900 min, or 15 hours per week, or nearly 2 hrs 9 min per day....
Basically a part time job LOL. Running that much that slow is time consuming. Since we all agree 2:40 is possible with this program (!) do we also agree 50 mpw at 9 min pace can yield a 1: 20 half? all else being equal
I know a fellow that fits your description...maybe the same guy...and he is definitely extraordinary. Trains 9 min pace (at best) for ~100mpw and still runs in the 16's for 5K as a 50+ year old runner. Not really a marathoner though.
I've often wondered if the reason for his success wasn't mostly due to weight control. Like maybe the running was just time consuming way to stay exceedingly light...run a good bit...and not get hurt.
It's my understanding that Ed Whitlock is only about 115 lbs. Maybe that's his secret.
My friend got really lean doing all the long, slow running. So much so...that you could make the case that his success was due to weight loss.
Smoove wrote:
By way of example, 2 guys over 50 went sub 2:40 at Chicago this year, and both were 50 (one at 2:35 and the other 2:39), and only one was American. Probably fastest legit course in the country and one American over 50 broke 2:40 and that guy was 50 and ran 2:39.
The guy the OP met was either an anomaly or perhaps referencing older times.
I know plenty of guys in their 50s who run smaller marathons all over the country and place top 3 regularly. Just because they don't all run the Chicago Marathon doesn't mean they aren't out there.
10mpw wrote:
I met a guy in his mid 50's who is a 2:30-2:40 marathoner who claims he runs ~100 mpw around 9:00 pace with some faster runs sprinkled in. He said over 90% is 9min pace.. How does this work? Would that actually help someone improve?
I think the guy you met is either a figment of your internet troll imagination, just to get some reaction or he lied to you.
But do they run sub 2:40 on fair courses? Because exchanging place for time seems to be a mixture of apples and oranges.
I used Chicago as an example because it is one of our biggest and most prestigious marathons and also the fastest of the world majors held in the US (that guy runs between 7:30 and 8:30 pace on easy days based on his Strava data). The underlying point, I think that Chicago is a good guide to show how rare a 50+ year old sub 2:40 marathoner is.
Honestly, in any given year, what is your best guess as to how many guys 50 or older run sub 2:40? Of those, how many would you guess do so on a non-gimmicky net downhill course (I would accept Boston as such a non-gimmicky course)?
For example, I just checked: CIM (a fast net downhill course) - no one 50 or older ran faster than 2:44; St. George's (a very fast net downhill course) - one guy over 50 (and he was 50) ran 2:36, but no others ran faster than 2:42); Grandmas (arguably the top US marathon that is not a world major) - no one 50 or older ran faster than 2:48.
If you are being honest, I think you would agree that it is very few, all of which goes to my even bigger underlying point that these guys are anomalies and we shouldn't really expect what works for them to work for us.