Health issues from long term high mileage/marathon

concerned runner wrote:

I'm glad someone brought this up. I'm concerned about one of my friends. He works 40+ hrs a week and is now doing 100+ MPW in SINGLES. Yes, in singles. I've tried suggesting doubles but his schedule doesn't allow (but somehow allows for a 20+ mile run at 3 AM?). I'm super worried and don't know if there's anything I can say or at least if there are warning signs he's gonna get seriously hurt. He refuses to take supplements like iron too, saying he can get it all from his diet. Does not go to doctor to get levels tested either. Is there anything I can do?

my friend started doing 100-110 in singles and had some huge breakthroughs. He does his runs at 8:00-8:30 pace and dropped into the mid 2:20's from a few years struggling to break 2:30 in the marathon. his 10-mile and HM also got faster too. like 1:13 to 1:11-low. 53:40 for the 10-mile from 54:40's

mileage just works for him. he does 1 little mid-week workout, like 4x 400m + 4 mile tempo at MP and then races once a week at shorter distances. sometimes an ultra here or there

some people respond to mileage. my body breaks down in dramatic fashion

That alleviates some of my concern. I'm not sure why my friend does this high level of training though. He is not training for any particular race and hasn't raced for a few years. Refuses to recover the day before a race and it's been to his detriment. May have broken 3:00 once. He definitely has more potential than that.

moanswers wrote:

Gainesville/Miami guy wrote:

Glad you mentioned arthritic changes. Yes lots of sedentary folks experience them too but I would bet the percentage is much greater among high mileage runners.

actually, it's not. in fact runners are supposed to have less arthritis than sedentary folks.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3756679/https://www.runnersworld.com/ask-the-sports-doc/can-i-outwit-arthritis-symptoms

Yes, “runners are supposed to have less arthritis than sedentary folks”, but that isn’t the issue. Look at the subject line. “long term, high mileage” runners. The scholarly article acknowledges that “these results may not apply to truly elite athletes, but for recreational runners...” The article makes clear that the main benefit of running is to reduce BMI. Skinny folks have less arthritis.

The Runners World article by the doctor who has been a low mileage runners surmises that “moving away from repeated and high volume impact loading on the joint may extend your cartilage “wear.”” His article is mostly anecdotal and says nothing more specifically about this topic. But for those of you who have had - or will need - hip or knee replacement, I urge you to heed his advice. Do NOT resume running thereafter. These prostheses do wear out over time. And the more wear you put on the joint, the shorter its lifespan.

Miles have taken their toll in the form of hamstring tendinopathy, which is a sort of arthritis of the hamstring/tendon complex. Knocked me out of the game for two years or so until I realized I had to take rest days as rest days (not cranking out the work out at 90% every time) and add some cross training into the mix. Now settled into 60 - 70 mpw, which is just about right for these aging legs.

+2..every once in a while these threads amount to something worthwhile..great breakdown..I've seen some runners only in their 30s with some serious gait issues and it looks terrible to even watch them run

Sasha Pachev wrote:

- Reduction of stress in life (managed to do this somehow while providing for a wife and starting with one and now up to ten children).

You have ten children! What is wrong with you man? On an individual level that's just insane, and on a societal level irresponsible. Overpopulation and competition for finite resources is the root cause of the majority of the world's problems.

Talking with others it’s a little different for everyone. However the guys I knew that were running 100+ broke down. It took a while but a lot of these guys can not run if they wanted anymore.

For most when they hit their 40’s they kept it going like they were 20. The ones I’m talking about were beasts the way they trained. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a mileage guy. When put together correctly it will make you fast.

My own experience was topping off around 120 per week. It made me fast (for me that is) but it never felt good. There was no hump that I ever got over. The only time I ever felt good was the day before a Marathon. Otherwise, I was always sore and beat up.

Cuckoo-Land wrote:

The Way We Were wrote:

Your problem is that you ran only 60-80mpw. When you felt aches and pains, you should have gradually increased your mileage. Once you are over 100mpw, you should feel it easier to handle the volume.

The reverse happens when you cut back on mileage. You initially feels better. But once your body gets used to a lower mileage, you find it not as easy. And then you are tempted to cut back even more. It's a downward spiral.

Anyone without disability can handle at least 100mpw. You just need to ignore your aches and pains. Like most things i life, they will go away if you ignore them long enough. It's all about motivation and commitment.

Oh you will see if this cavalier approach will pay off for you when you are getting older... good luck

Ed Whitlock ran 3 hrs a day in his 70s. Age is just a number...

The Way We Were wrote:[/b

Ed Whitlock ran 3 hrs a day in his 70s. Age is just a number...

Age is just a number? Well, since you cite Ed Whitlock, here are his numbers:

Marathon:

Age 48 - 2:31

Age 74 - 2:54

Age 85 - 3:56

He didn't run marathons when young but probably would have been well under 2:20, at the very least. So in his last years he was almost 2 HOURS slower than his youthful self was capable of. Two hours! Those numbers show how absurd that cliche is. And Whitlock was incredible compared to others in his age group.

Ask any 70 or 80 year old how his numbers compare to those of his youth/prime.

Gainesville/Miami guy wrote:

The Way We Were wrote:[/b

Ed Whitlock ran 3 hrs a day in his 70s. Age is just a number...

Age is just a number? Well, since you cite Ed Whitlock, here are his numbers:

Marathon:

Age 48 - 2:31

Age 74 - 2:54

Age 85 - 3:56

He didn't run marathons when young but probably would have been well under 2:20, at the very least. So in his last years he was almost 2 HOURS slower than his youthful self was capable of. Two hours! Those numbers show how absurd that cliche is. And Whitlock was incredible compared to others in his age group.

Ask any 70 or 80 year old how his numbers compare to those of his youth/prime.

I was not talking about the marathon time. I was talking about training volume. He ran 3hrs a day in his 70s. Did he ran 4 hrs a day when he was younger? No. Just because you are older, that doesn't mean you need to run less. Most older runners end up running less because they lose motivation. But if you keep your motivation high, you can run as much as you used to in your younger years.

Point is...Whitlock is not your typical runner. He was blessed with speed and good overall genetics.

Fdkcfjj wrote:

Point is...Whitlock is not your typical runner. He was blessed with speed and good overall genetics.

He was not typical because he was highly motivated till the end. Most runners lose motivation as they age.