How many LRCers actually run 100+ mpw?

*their

noreaster wrote:

At the BAA 5K in Boston I saw in the results a 40-year-old run 14:52. You think that's legit? I've raced at the master levels for a couple year now and train at times with a couple master guys who can run mid-15 for 5k.

I never heard of this guy.

BIB NAME AGE M/F CITY ST CTRY CTZ DM

119 Parks, Jeremy 40 M Westminster CO USA

Official Finish Overall Gender Division

14:52 22 / 8923 22 / 3766 1 / 468

40 is not a very high age for endurance performance. A 41 age won a marathon in China at 2.11 some months ago.There are many more examples of this.

googler wrote:

COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:

one guy to 1.02.08 in Great North Run (won by Mo Farah in 1.00.00)

Thomas Ayeko

A lady to 1.07.43 in Rome half.

Angela Tanui

Maybe I gave the wrong seconds on Greath North Run then. It was Duncan Mayio at 5th place just some seconds over 1.02. Some weeks after that he ran 2.09.26 for 4th place in Eindhoven marathon.

Smoove wrote:

I would say that the more miles that you can run without sacrificing your ability to do your workouts at the proper pace and without materially increasing the risk of imminent injury, the better you will perform over time.

Well... yeah!

I've started to doubt the high mileage style because it seems excessively difficult when I'm stuck in the 16:10's (grass, not track) when high schoolers on 30-40 mpw can destroy me. The weight room could just be a justification that "hey, if I'm not fast at least I've definition" or "I'm not fast but my form is pristine!".

Might as well read Once A Runner again and quit being a baby though compared to the consistency of some people in this thread.

I think this guy ran at Southern Illinois University In the 90s.

noreaster wrote:

At the BAA 5K in Boston I saw in the results a 40-year-old run 14:52. You think that's legit? I've raced at the master levels for a couple year now and train at times with a couple master guys who can run mid-15 for 5k.

I never heard of this guy.

BIB NAME AGE M/F CITY ST CTRY CTZ DM

119 Parks, Jeremy 40 M Westminster CO USA

Official Finish Overall Gender Division

14:52 22 / 8923 22 / 3766 1 / 468

Hjjjfdgj wrote:

I think this guy ran at Southern Illinois University

In the 90s.

noreaster wrote:

At the BAA 5K in Boston I saw in the results a 40-year-old run 14:52. You think that's legit? I've raced at the master levels for a couple year now and train at times with a couple master guys who can run mid-15 for 5k.

I never heard of this guy.

BIB NAME AGE M/F CITY ST CTRY CTZ DM

119 Parks, Jeremy 40 M Westminster CO USA

Official Finish Overall Gender Division

14:52 22 / 8923 22 / 3766 1 / 468

Also won overall masters this year at Bolder Boulder.

Meanwhile, another age grouper here, grand masters. Running 60-80 mpw, range 5K to marathon.

If you give the guy the upper end of that range and bring him down to about 31 low for a fair course at sea level, then the sub 15 comes across as a good runner having a great day and probably not anything more than that. Good on him.

COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:

It is articles like this that gives "normal" runners a wrong picture how it really is in the true world. Pounding out 35 km 7 days a week in the morning and get something good out of that sounds not to be true.

COACH J.S

Point was that running MUCH more than 100mpw in the marathon spesific phase can work very well (even to marathon WR). He obviously included a lot of quality in those 35km runs, to improve his ability to run fast and still burn fat at a high rate, which enabled him to sustain the pace. He had the natural speed for a fast marathon, the problem was for him to keep up the pace throughout the 42 195m. You seem to think that the same system will work for everyone.

Of course it will, he's a wizard and it is magic!

COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:

noreaster wrote:

At the BAA 5K in Boston I saw in the results a 40-year-old run 14:52. You think that's legit? I've raced at the master levels for a couple year now and train at times with a couple master guys who can run mid-15 for 5k.

I never heard of this guy.

BIB NAME AGE M/F CITY ST CTRY CTZ DM

119 Parks, Jeremy 40 M Westminster CO USA

Official Finish Overall Gender Division

14:52 22 / 8923 22 / 3766 1 / 468

40 is not a very high age for endurance performance. A 41 age won a marathon in China at 2.11 some months ago.There are many more examples of this.

And for everyone of those example, there are a 100+ guys who have had huge drop offs. Now sub 15 isn't crazy (Lagats 13:06 on the other hand is. Call 15-25s or so off what an ideal prime race might have been if he trained for the 5k at 27). It is the type of time that you would expect from a low 14 guy in his prime to be running.

Smoove wrote:

Of course it will, he's a wizard and it is magic!

Magic isn´t enough to turn over basic physiology.

Agreed. My best time as a masters was just over a minute (1:03) off of my best collegiate time, and I had a great day when I set the collegiate time and a so-so day when I set the masters time.

Tabitha Wheelwright wrote:

You could run for all 60 minutes of a day, or run 45 and do core work for the other 15. Any ratio is valid, but you will always face a choice of either/or.

Where is the balancing point for you? If I gave up 30 minutes per day to do core work that would be ~4 miles/day or nearly 1,400 miles per year (conservative estimate).

Good question. For me, it's not a question of cutting into my running time. I usually cut it into my running time, whether I get to work a little later or come home a little earlier.

If it's one thing the world needs right now it's to have less commitment to a corporation. I don't give them any more than the 40 hours a week in my contract. It's amazing how many pushovers just end up working more hours then get endlessly injured / unfit / fat.

Live to run wrote:

I usually cut it into my running time

*work time

I was between 100-150 for several years but never really had an easy pace. Once I loosened up, sort of like your first 10 minutes, pretty much everything I did was at my marathon pace which got faster and faster, or even a bit faster, over the years, at least by my standards. Occasionally I'd have a day when I was useless and ran much slower. I was probably a minute per mile slower on those days but they felt much harder than my regular runs. The other exception to the usual pace would be if I ran in the morning. That always slowed me.

U.N.O. wrote:

Smoove wrote:

Of course it will, he's a wizard and it is magic!

Magic isn´t enough to turn over basic physiology.

Basic physiology in combination with magic is unbeatable! ;)

U.N.O. wrote:

COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:

It is articles like this that gives "normal" runners a wrong picture how it really is in the true world. Pounding out 35 km 7 days a week in the morning and get something good out of that sounds not to be true.

COACH J.S

Point was that running MUCH more than 100mpw in the marathon spesific phase can work very well (even to marathon WR). He obviously included a lot of quality in those 35km runs, to improve his ability to run fast and still burn fat at a high rate, which enabled him to sustain the pace. He had the natural speed for a fast marathon, the problem was for him to keep up the pace throughout the 42 195m. You seem to think that the same system will work for everyone.

So you obviously believe he pounded out 35 km in the morning all 7 days in the week?

When one look at the training of Kenenisa Bekele or Eliud Kipchoge there is more "normal" 30-40 km long runs just once a week.

Tabitha Wheelwright wrote:

Smoove wrote:

I would say that the more miles that you can run without sacrificing your ability to do your workouts at the proper pace and without materially increasing the risk of imminent injury, the better you will perform over time.

Well... yeah!

I've started to doubt the high mileage style because it seems excessively difficult when I'm stuck in the 16:10's (grass, not track) when high schoolers on 30-40 mpw can destroy me. The weight room could just be a justification that "hey, if I'm not fast at least I've definition" or "I'm not fast but my form is pristine!".

Might as well read Once A Runner again and quit being a baby though compared to the consistency of some people in this thread.

Great! At least one more salvation from the high mileage brigade. "The Magic" is not about how many miles you run. It`s more a matter of how you run your miles.

It seems that either you do not understand that miles and smart training are not mutually exclusive, or you are willfully ignoring that fact in an effort to make it seem like you know something new that no one else in the world knows.

Let me state this simply: If you do not negatively impact your health or readiness for workouts, more mileage is better than less mileage for distance running.

You raise the question of where that line is, and how you know where it is. The simple answer is that your athlete needs to listen to his or her body, you need to get feedback from them, and you need to consider their past experience with mileage, injury and performance.

To be clear, I am not sitting here and saying hit 100 miles per week. I have done that only once in my life. My best 14 week stretch of mileage was for my 2nd marathon, and I averaged 75 mpw for that stretch, which included that 100 mile week. For my subsequent marathon, I averaged 70 mpw for that same stretch, topping out at 90.

And you know what? Those miles were all run at specific paces (or specific perceived efforts) for specific purposes.

So don't mischaracterize the position that "other things being equal, more is better" as "you have to run lots of miles" or "the quality of your miles is secondary to the number of miles run."

If you want to have a thoughtful training conversation, then have at it. But stop with the constant self-promotion disguised as secret knowledge which is delivered with condescension.