Who's consistently run 100 mpw with a fulltime job?

HRE wrote:

We've probably been down this road before but the experience you describe in going from 50 to 70 was EXACTLY what I had and I concluded that I was going to hold that level for a while and then run more. It actually did make those problems easier, not easy, but easier. Running more gets you fitter which makes running easier. I struggled much more at 40-50 a week than I did at 100-110. That does not go on infinitely but it does happen. I know others who had similar experiences. I don't know if that would be the case with everyone or not but I do know that no one will get that answer from reading a message board.

How old were you when all this happened? What you described is not surprising if you were young when you got started. Do you know any example of the same for someone who found 100mpw in mid-40s easier than 50mpw in mid-30s?

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

How old were you when all this happened? What you described is not surprising if you were young when you got started. Do you know any example of the same for someone who found 100mpw in mid-40s easier than 50mpw in mid-30s?

Obviously once you can manage 100 mile weeks 50 is like being on holiday. I had a stretch of time in my 40s when I got back to the 100-150 range for a while to see if I could get the same sorts of improvements that had happened in the past. It wasn't really any harder or easier than it had been when I was younger. But it didn't give me much in the line of improvement.

In other words, you don't want to answer my question, because it doesn't support your narrative. Very mature, indeed.

I did answer your question. I had a spell in my 40s when I ran triple digit miles. You asked if I knew anyone who'd done that. How is that not an answer?

Oh, mid 30s? I think I only ever knew one serious runner who was in his 30s, I don't know how far into his 30s he was but yeah, he did about 90-100 much of the time and had a wife and one or two kids, can't recall.

Elcapitainobviouso wrote:

Upped mileage over two months ?! I went from 50-90-100 .. with much less times.

Yup, and to be honest I think it was too fast of a build up for me. Whenever I increase volume I go through the same cycle. During my build up I feel great. For the first month or so I feel tired but my times get much faster. Around two months I hit a wall. By three months I have to drop back down. After a month of lower mileage my body/mind recovers and I can return to the higher mileage and sustain it. I went through this same cycle when I went from a 20mpw casual jogger to a 50mpw 'serious' runner, and then again when I went from 50mpw to 70-80mpw. I don't have a running background (decent cross country runner in high school but I did club ultimate Frisbee in college) so every time I increase mileage its a new all time high. Runners with more lifetime miles and serious training might have it easier. Or maybe I'm just mentally and physically weak.

50 - 90- 100mpw seems like a ridiculously fast build up. Were you able to hold at 100 without injury or burnout? If so, props. That's impressive.

The point of my post was that, time management wise, going from 75 to 100mpw was pretty easy. It's less than 3 additional hours of running per week and since that time was tacked onto existing runs I really didn't feel like I was spending more time on the roads, trails, or track. Time spent stretching and cross training (drills and strength/agility work) was the same. The fatigue of those extra miles kicked my butt though and I just decided it wasn't worth it. There are other things I valued more.

This would be my life, except I can't sleep regularly enough to consistently manage doubles. The good news is the lack of doubling with any frequency helps make me less tired for some other activities. If I was more disciplined about running, though, I have to think this is the most true schedule.

Ron Hill and a lot of runners used to run to and from work. When looking for a house he even mapped out a radius where he could still do it

Would save a lot of time doing it that way and no ridiculously early starts.

If youve got kids under 3 you are going to be relying on your partner a lot.

Almost wrote:

The point of my post was that, time management wise, going from 75 to 100mpw was pretty easy. It's less than 3 additional hours of running per week and since that time was tacked onto existing runs I really didn't feel like I was spending more time on the roads, trails, or track. Time spent stretching and cross training (drills and strength/agility work) was the same. The fatigue of those extra miles kicked my butt though and I just decided it wasn't worth it. There are other things I valued more.

But would it be easier for you to handle a higher mileage if you could spend more time on recovery? For example, sleep is the best cure for fatigue. Would it be easier for you to recover if you could sleep more, including naps? (Deena Kastor once said that most "overtrained" people are actually "under-recovered." More sleep and better nutrition usually allow most people to train more.)

Another factor that Coe/Martin point out in their book (I think that's where I read this) is that the stress one feels from work/school/family/relationship etc. could affect one's ability to recover from fatigue. So having a stressful job could limit one's ability to train to the max.

A "full time job" could also mean different things to different people. It's one thing to have a 40 hr/wk job with regular schedule. It is another to have a 50-60hr/wk job with some irregular schedule. The latter increases the stress level. in addition to time constraints.

Good post but what constitutes "adult talk?" Never heard this study; I don't think you are wrong but would love more info.

I think also running 100 mpw is easier if you are elite--if you are running 5-6 minutes/mile that means more cramming miles in, obviously.

12 miles = 72 mins

Hobby jogger at 9 min./miles = 8 miles, 72 mins.

That's a big difference too.

Now son, I know you’ve got ideas, let me tell you my thoughts

There comes a point when one hundred mile weeks are too much of a survival liability for some. There are many more skills than running required to survive this cruel world that I, by the holy names, apologize for and yet felt compelled to bring you into the world for. Things won’t turn out as planned. There will be financial stresses and delays and misguided forecasts. Social and romantic goals will take more time than anticipated. There is only so much a person can do day by day and it’s better to have a well rounded portfolio. Unless you believe you have special genetics to be the best in the world, something beautiful and awe inspiring, or that it is absolutely necessary to get to the all things considered best version of yourself, it is not practical. But it all depends on how well things are going. If you really have managed to get a lot of money and have the discipline and knowledge, you can fund your own training with the sky as the limit. This is very uncommon in my experiences. The best would be to combine this with favorable group training. Again, the best laid plans of mice and men, great teams are hard to keep together and people tend to fight. One hundred mile weeks are too much risk to take on without proper ballast and safety. To put it blunt, it’s not advantageous to do, unless one has spousal security, financial abundance, and social security, harmony. We take inspiration and motivation as a given here, for all circumstances whatsoever, that’s the productivity of the passionate runner.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I ran about 110-145 miles a week 1973-1974 while working full time. At age 54-55 (2005-2006) I averaged 70-100 miles a week while working full time. It would be tough doing it for lengthy periods without sacrificing other parts of your life.

Igy

That was some big mileage.

Were you based in Boise at that time also?

"Adult talk," in the articles I read was just interacting with your kids, reading to them, taking them for walks or to the playground, eating meals with them, taking them along to the grocery store when you go, playing with them and their toys, stuff like that as opposed to plopping them in front of the TV or stashing them in a play pen and doing something on your own.

And you are obviously correct in your point about covering more ground in the same time if you're running faster. When I and most of the people I wrote about were running 100 mile weeks people did not train as slowly as many seem to now. Eight minute miles were really as slow as anyone I knew or knew of ran and they were pretty rare. But even at eight minute pace you can get 100 miles in a week on two hours a day. I totally get why someone would not want to spend that much time running if they weren't a professional or close to being one but I also know from experience that it's not anywhere near impossible for someone who wants and is determined to do it.

I'm the sort of person that needs 8-10 hours sleep a night to function. Its a huge hinderance when you have a full day and you're trying to fit in the miles.

Its no surprise that lots of successful entrepreneur need very little sleep too. Richard Branson, Jack Dorsey etc..

mol_42 wrote:

I'm the sort of person that needs 8-10 hours sleep a night to function. Its a huge hinderance when you have a full day and you're trying to fit in the miles.

Its no surprise that lots of successful entrepreneur need very little sleep too. Richard Branson, Jack Dorsey etc..

I could never sleep more than 8-9 hours at a pop and when I was teaching. I could never get to sleep much before 1:30 which was a problem as I was supposed to be at work at 7:00. That had nothing to do with time constraints. I just dreaded the arrival of another school day. I'd have a nap after my afternoon run and then do a second run around 8-9 PM. I usually caught up on sleep during weekends.

No one who works 40 hours a week will beat me in a marathon -Bill Rodgers