Did old runners lie about the training mileage? (Pre-GPS)

I think misjudged is a better word than lied. And as of today, some runners were more meticulous about knowing exact distances than others. were Personally, if I had a ten mile course, I was satisfied knowing that it was close to ten miles. I wouldn't have been fussed if it really was 9.8 or 10.3 or if my 100 mile week was really 97 or 102.. Others got quite fussed about things like that.

time and distance wrote:

As an "old runner" I have found that in my pre-GPS watch days I generally overestimated my running routes by about 5% to 10%.

This.

I did some longer runs on the track, maybe 10 miles. When I laid out a road course, I would measure it by car several times and always add a little more, never wanting to run less because hell we were training, not cheating to get a BQ.

Intent to always run a little more, not a lot less. If ever in doubt, do one more mile, one more block.

Also we knew our pace pretty damn well, so could get very close simply on time.

I used to do it in the car. I knew that because of tire wear or whatever 1.05 equaled a mile in the car I owned. I knew that because I would compare it against a TAC certified running course.

I also did the string thing or used a piece of paper against a scale on a map. This wasn't as far off as you would think.

I did some miles on the track also.

The common thread is that runners were geeky back then and they still are now. You find a way.

I forgot to mention that I used to measure off a loop with a 200' tape measure. It took a while but you can't get more accurate than that.

I still do this for my XC team. I have a 1k loop that is measured by tape because I don't trust the GPS that much because those things can be off sometimes. 100' off is a big deal when you are trying to hit workout paces.

GPS and other technology-facilitated measurements confirm that my distance estimates were accurate to within 200 cubits.

Seriously, knowing pace was, and remains, key. Even without using a map to measure BITD, my old estimates have proved to be usually within a quarter-mile on runs of 10-15 miles, within a half-mile on my 18-22 mile routes, and a lot more accurate for shorter runs.

I used to use terms like "long 10" for something that was about 10.3-10.5, and "short 10" for a 9.5-9.7 miler.

I ran for 20 years without a GPS. I tried one of the early GPS watches and found it to be inconsistent over the same courses, therefore inaccurate. I got another in 2016 and it is much more consistent and probably pretty accurate.

Most of my 20s and 30s I estimated run time divided by 7:00 to 7:30 per mile. It was not exact, but not way off either. On hillier courses, dirt, etc it probably inflated mileage by about a few %, certainly less than 10%.

With my GPS now, I realize how much running I ignored on workout days. When I do repeats and jog around between reps, I never used to count that mileage but it adds up to an extra mile or so on the day.

Overall, we probably were not as inaccurate as you think. Very few people I knew intentionally inflated mileage. We were typically very conservative with estimates because we knew they were estimates. We also learned to run by feel which helps on race days when you feel great or terrible so you can adjust.

Later I used a surveyor's wheel a few times to measure some shorter intervals but usually went to a track for that.

I wasn't all that fast back then but damn to be that fast now.

Btw I recall a few times running 10 miles at what would be considered a jog on purpose and then sprinting the last 100 yds. Holy sweet jesus it was pure effortless immortal running like you may have in a dream. That was in my youth, today the hamstrings would probably exit my body of I tried it. Hmmm....

I'm a millennial and I never heard about people doing that indeed, but it's not like anyone who has the slightest clue about math/geography would have a hard time figuring out how to do it...

Right, we're talking about you millennials, so this qualification is highly in doubt!

I am an older runner and I guess I lied about my mileage.

I logged one eight week stretch with 309.13 miles on average an re-measured the courses in 2012 with GPS. I found out that most of my courses were logged short and my average was actually 317.5 miles in those 8 weeks.

Second thing I found out is that the 'thon that I ran on sub 2 hour pace till mile 26 was actually long, too. At the point where I had to stop in reality I already had run 26.35 miles.

So I ran the first sub 2 hour 'thon.

Seb Coe did

Dunno about USA, but where I live (East Europe) roads have milestones every...kilometer, and smaller marks occasionally every 100m, it's been like since they were built, so you can easily run an accurate distance even without measuring before.

Some old runners did lie about it either on purpose or miscalculation or not adding in what some called "junk miles".

I never lied about mine. I didn't understand about lying about it. It was short for 1500 training and long for 400 training and a little long for 800 training.

everyone lies

Heck, if I run 7.6 miles, I go around the entire rest of the day ready to swear on my Bible that I ran 8 miles. You just don't worry about exaggerations. They don't affect anyone. No one hands out trophies for nice, full training logs.

When I finally got a GPS watch and measured all my standard runs, it turned out that I had actually underestimated the distance. My "6 mile run" was 6.3... My "10 mile run" was 10.2, etc.

You don't even need to be that old to remember pre-GPS running days. The Garmin Forerunner was introduced until 2003 and I imagine that it took a few years before they became common. I didn't get a GPS until 2015...

Before a GPS I would measure courses on MapPedometer or similar websites. That gave me a reasonably accurate overall distance. I would estimate my speed by clocking the time over a known distance. Ex- This intersection to that intersection is 1.5 miles and I covered it in 12 minutes so I must be going about an 8:00 pace.

Before I discovered those websites I would drive routes with a car and apply the 'known distance' concept to estimate speed while running.

If I couldn't drive the course I would count mile markers on roads/bike paths, read hiking maps for trail lengths, or use the protractor on a map (similar to the map-and-string method).

But usually I just guessed. Ran for 80 minutes and it felt like I was going at a 8:00 pace.... We'll just call this a 10 mile run. I miss that a bit. The GPS sucks me in and gets me obsessed with pace and distance. The other day I ran an extra loop around the block so I could hit my planned 12 miler vice leaving it as an 11.8 miler. There's really no functional difference....

Talltales1 wrote:

I was reading Jack Daniels Running Formula last night and read a blurb about some runner from the 60's/70's who said he averaged 300 miles a week for 8 weeks... that just seems absurd and not even believable in the slightest way.

Is it possible that these guys lied about their mileage of vastly overestimated it?

I tend to think so - without GPS watches - how would you even know how far you're running? Also - without GPS, I think it would be very easy to embellish your totals..

I think lots of people lie about their mileage, which is why Strava is nice. You still get people who upload phantom "treadmill" miles - some probably lying, but it keeps us in check..

Yes, indeed how WOULD you even know how far you are running? Without that watch that is 98% accurate HOW would you be able to tell whether you were running 4:30s or 7:30s? There could not be any way!!

I would go out and run for 70 minutes slow and call it 10 miles, but how would I know when the same course 3 years later while running hard only took 60 minutes? It is not possible!! I used to tell people I ran 85-95 miles a week during this time, clearly I have no idea due to NO GARMIN WATCH!!

I was just 11 when I started running and the running club had a few courses mapped out in the neighborhood behind the Middle School. You do know what a middle school is right? Maybe I need to put a link to a picture of one in here? For you I mean.

There was a 1-mile loop and a 2.5 mile loop that were wholly different, but how would we have known if that was accurate? My very first day at running club we had a 1-mile time trial and I ran a 6:29. But that was probably a lie!! The club coach was our PE teacher and he had run track and played lacrosse in college, so how would it have been possible for him (without Global Positioning Satellites) to make an accurate 1-mile course? It was probably just a random length loop? Never mind that 6 years later I ran 4:15 for the same distance!! That required a TRACK!! Where a surveyor laid out a 400-meter oval very exactly!! Or at least we believe he did? Perhaps that was inaccurate in the 70s and we just fell for that lie as well? Maybe that was only a 4:45??!?

I HAVE ALSO read about that guy "from the 60's/70's who said he averaged 300 miles a week for 8 weeks" and I am certain that if this one person may have embellished their mpw for a brief part of their life that EVERY RUNNER for 20 years in America DEFINITELY did also. Every one of them. That is not hyperbole. Also, they lied because they did not have Strava to keep them honest.

Think about why those fockers from 30-50 years ago did this. Like Frank Shorter saying he averaged 118 miles for 10 years from 1969-1978? How could he have known what he was doing? I mean he set 10 American records, but I don't trust the clocks from before 2005. So he is clearly lying!!

Just look at the U.S. Annual List for the Marathon from 2017 and you will see the reason for their guile!! Compare this to the annual lists for 1978-1986 and you will see that the race courses were short too!!

Talltales1 wrote:

I was reading Jack Daniels Running Formula last night and read a blurb about some runner from the 60's/70's who said he averaged 300 miles a week for 8 weeks... that just seems absurd and not even believable in the slightest way.

Is it possible that these guys lied about their mileage of vastly overestimated it?

I tend to think so - without GPS watches - how would you even know how far you're running? Also - without GPS, I think it would be very easy to embellish your totals..

I think lots of people lie about their mileage, which is why Strava is nice. You still get people who upload phantom "treadmill" miles - some probably lying, but it keeps us in check..

Forget mileage. It'll just leave you skinny and with low self-esteem. Get SWOLE and step into abundance. Reps count, not mileage. Remember that.

I don't know how people did it back before internet but I don't use gps or a smart watch or anything to calculate my distance.

I use google map's distance calculator.