Running 100mpw at 9min pace. What result would you get?

There are very few marathoners in their 50's who can break 2:40.

I agree with previous posters who stated that this

Is likely beneficial for weight control

Is likely an older runner who was much faster when younger

Is likely a runner who needs to work that hard to be at that level

He may not be improving by doing this, but likely this is what he has found that works for him. Perhaps he gets injured going faster or harder, and the high volume is a way for him to provide the needed training stimulus to be at that level.

There are obvious benefits from doing so many miles as a marathoner. Good training for energy systems, efficiency, aerobic maintenance, etc.

9 min pace is about right for easy base pace for a 2:40-2:45 marathoner. Nine minute flat pace can be much more taxing than you think if he is running this on hilly courses, trails, at altitude, etc.

Add in 10 miles a week at harder faster efforts and it could work.

The faster miles might be 5x one mile, 8x 400, 3 mile hard tempo one week; 3 x 3miles a bit quicker than half mara pace and 8x200 another week;

10 miles close to half marathon pace another week, etc.

Yes this would take a lot of time, but I am sure its worth it and works for him.

I'm pretty much this guy, except I'm in my early 30s and I don't run that much anymore. My marathon PR from college is about 6:00/mile, now I'm probably in shape for a 6:30/mile marathon.

I do my easy days however I'm feeling, honestly anywhere between 8:00-10:00/mile, rarely faster than 7:30/mile unless I'm running with other people (and then sometimes I'll start feeling good and want to run 6:30/mile...). If I run at night after work I'll often go 10:00/mile for 4-6 miles on flat ground.

Running with other people makes it easier for me to run fast, there's a group of guys I sometimes meet up with on Tuesdays and they'll hammer 6:30/mile for 6 miles. They're all a lot slower than me too.

I do workouts at normal paces for my ability, although I've been struggling to do good tempo runs these days (lack of training partner) so I'll occasionally do them on the treadmill or something.

Up until a couple years ago I didn't know how far or fast I was actually going on my easy days, I had a few routes I'd call "9 miles" or "7 miles" or whatever and I just went by time, I'd aim for 80-85 mins a day and I'd call that "11 miles".

Then I got a GPS watch and realized how slow I was actually going on my easy days. But I think things are working the way they're going, so I don't see any reason to change it.

Two weeks ago, Strava says I ran 49 miles in 7h 14 mins with 2,310 ft of elevation gain. That includes one workout day and averages out to 8:51/mile. Five weeks ago I ran 65.1 miles in 9h 24m with 4,134 ft of elevation gain. That works out to 8:40/mile (although with a significant amount of elevation).

My most recent race was a 4.5-miler with about 200ft of elevation gain at about 6:00/mile, but I did a fairly long run the day before so I might have been in slightly better shape than that.

Doped or clean? 🤔

Just another fat guy wrote:

Ed Whitlock?

Rip

xlev2 wrote:

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

Sure.

Remember some faser stuff is 'sprinkled' in. 10-20% faster stuff is 5-10 miles at 50 mpw, and 10-20 miles at 100 mpw. I doubt many elites to much more than 20 miles per week of race specific or non-easy running.

xlev2 wrote:

somebody do the math for me, 100 miles a week at 9 min pace is how many hours of strictly running a week?

15 hours.

4 hour long run? And then 11/6 or 1h49.8min per day, on average, the other six days.

I'd say that is darn near 'typical'.

I raced my first marathon in 2015 Chicago at 54 and ran 2.51 along way from 2.40 but I averaged just outside 9.30 a mile for over 100 a week

And yes it takes a lot of time

My two overdistance runs were 30 miles and took almost 5 hours

Joe Henderson was the big guru behind "long slow distance" in the early 1970's. There was a guy with a PR somewhere in the 2:20's who swore he ran extremely slow miles all the time (Bill Scobey, possibly).

LSD has limitations, of course. I can't see doing it all the time. Those who have had success with long slow miles likely had more success when they were training more intensely. If the OP's friend can average 5:35 miles for a marathon, it would be almost painful running 9 minute miles.

9:00 isn't that slow. Wejo was running 7:30 to 8:00 pace when he ran 28:06.

When I was in shape to do 6 miles tempos in under 30 minutes in training, my average pace was around 7:45.

I just looked up my first marathon (I've only run two) in 2012 when I was 43. I ran 2:54 after starting to cramp 20 miles in. Sure, my training was not at all optimal for a marathon, but I run mainly because I enjoy being out on the trails and in the mountains. I was just running, and not doing specific training for a marathon. My average running pace according to my training log for the 13 preceding weeks, along with the fastest run(s) of the week:

82 mile, 10:48 pace, the marathon @6:37 pace, 9 miles @7:20 pace

97 miles, 13:36 pace, 12.1 miles @6:47 pace

81 miles, 11:16 pace, 13.4 miles 2,076 ft climb @8:27 pace

98 miles, 10:41 pace, 27.9 miles @7:36 pace, 12K race @5:48 pace

106 miles, 9:58 pace, 5.55 mile 2,000+ ft climb @8:53 pace, 5.3 miles @7:33 pace (warm up for orienteering race)

120 miles 11:12 pace, 13 miles @7:28 pace

104 miles, 10:51 pace, 7.4 miles @7:34 pace

98 miles, 10:34 pace, 14.5 miles (hilly) @7:48 pace

115 miles, 12:06 pace, 9 miles (hilly) @7:43 pace

89 miles, 11:27 pace, 9.4 miles (hilly) @7:40 pace, 15 miles (rolling) @7:56 pace, 1 mile on kind of snowy track 5:30

42 miles, 11:32 pace, 12.65 miles (very hilly) @9:15 pace

130 miles, 10:09 pace, fastest run 20 miles, 4,300 ft climb @8:51 pace

38 miles, 12:33 pace, fastest run 9.1 miles @9:01 pace

A lot of those miles were slow, walking pace jogs with my old dog. I had maybe less than 10 miles (non-downhill) total in the 13 weeks preceding the marathon that were as fast as the marathon pace.

I haven't been good at long races like the marathon or long trail runs probably because I don't do marathon specific training (and the resulting slow average pace). My shorter distance speed is decent. Up until I was about 40, I could pop a sub-5:00 mile at the end of long runs whenever I felt like it. When I in my late 20s, I could knock out sub-4:40 miles at the end of long runs even though I wasn't training and hadn't raced in a couple years.

What's the guy's history? Was he faster when he was younger? Did he once train faster? Or has he always trained this way?

Bob Deines is who you're thinking of, not Bill Scobey, not by a long shot.

HRE wrote:

Bob Deines is who you're thinking of, not Bill Scobey, not by a long shot.

Profile of Bob Deines

Olympic Trials

August 18, 1968

Alamosa, Colorado

129 Qualifiers, 60 Finishers, at altitude

1. George Young (AZ) 2:30:48

2. Kenny Moore (OR) 2:31:47

3. Ron Daws (MN) 2:33:09

4. Bob Deines (CA) 2:33:13

5. Steve Matthews (CO) 2:33:17

6. Ed Winrow (NY) 2:34:51

7. Nick Kitt (CA) 2:35:09

8. Doug Wiebe (CA) 2:35:31

9. Bill Clark (CA) 2:36:14

10. Jeff Reneau 2:38:46

900 minutes. Can't believe no one else got this answer yet.

HRE wrote:

What's the guy's history? Was he faster when he was younger? Did he once train faster? Or has he always trained this way?

For the fellow I know that trains this way...here is how I remember it...probably not 100% accurate...but pretty close...

In his prime years, he ran 4:15 for the mile...low-mid 14's for 5K...running fairly low mileage...maybe 30-40 mpw. I'm not sure what his training was like but it wasn't particularly hard. I think he was a good runner in high school and college.

In his low-mid 40's...he was running in the mid to upper 16's for 5K...getting hurt a lot...having other problems...weight was up etc.. He was training low mileage at slow pace. Whenever he tried to train faster, he got hurt. He started running running lots of miles at ~10min pace or slower.

I guess he started feeling good because he kept increasing the mileage to where he was doing 80-100mpw. No one wanted to run with him because it was so slow and took so long. His times improved steadily and he got back into the 15's for 5K. He also ran really good times for 1500m. Ran 36 flat for Falmouth as a 44 or 45 year old.

He's continued training this way into his 50's and has run consistently good times and is one of the better runners in the country in his age group.

He continues to race frequently. He's naturally very fast. Not a marathoner. More like a miler.

He found an unusual method that worked well for him.

It would not work for you though...so don't get any ideas (meant kiddingly).

Runners are notorious for fudging on their training, either intentional or unintentionally underestimating their efforts.

Sometimes it's because they don't want to brag about how "great" they are, other times it's because they are just wrong. If you are a guy that can run 6 flat or faster for a marathon, and you do some easy stuff at 800, it's easy to start "mis-remembering" and all you remember is that it was really easy... so maybe it was 800, but to your perception is that it was SO easy it had to be crazy slow... like 930!.

Runners self reported training times are as reliable as fisherman's stories about the one that go away, or golfers reported scores.

There is a guy in my town who is in his 50s and has run sub 2:40, although the article doesn't state what pace he does his miles at. I've heard he runs 3 times a day on a treadmill most days. Yikes!

http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/runner-aims-for-marathon-age-group-sweep

I remember reading that John Treacy, in his prime, would do much of his running so slowly that no one in Ireland would do these runs with him.

The article on Viren training at runnerstribe site has some of his running with a heart rate below 100.

This is anecdotal, but worth thinking about.

Boston 2016 50-54yr

Place Bib Name Official Time State Country Ctz

1 84 Fiz, Martin 2:30:57 ESP

2 291 Pliska, Kenneth 2:39:48 CO USA

3 517 Fifield, Tracy S 2:42:10 UT USA

4 693 Galaviz, Jose Francisco Sr. 2:45:58 MEX

5 644 Boyce, Albert 2:46:30 CA USA

6 415 Garnier, Louis-Philippe 2:46:32 QC CAN

7 403 Maldonado, Ricardo 2:47:57 AZ USA

8 871 Hung, Chung Yam 2:49:09 HKG

9 527 Power, Rich M. 2:49:47 MI USA

10 499 Mescal, Jeff 2:50:40 IN USA

55-59 was 2:45xx

NYC 2016Men's Age Group: 50-54

1 Eric Lachevre (50), FRA 2:43:27

2 Marcel Wolf (52), FRA 2:49:40

3 Brad Kelley (50) CPTC, USA 2:50:55

Men's Age Group: 55-59

1 Douglas Fernandez (56) NEWB, VEN 2:43:54

2 Robert Cipriano (56) SOME, USA 2:46:38

3 Bostjan Svab (55), SLO 2:48:14

Bob Schul Country wrote:

not a chance this type of guy and training exists. Unless he was a 2:15 guy at a younger age.

The time is probably BS. Seriously the number for sub 2:40, mid 50s guys isn't a very big list. Running 90mpw slow and 10mpw fast doesn't seem overly crazy. Debating if you should be running 8mins or 9 mins seems like waste.