No exceptions.
No exceptions.
Only running 28% more distance to train for an event that’s 845% as long? Sad.
If you're not knocking out 130 miles a week for a marathon you're not trying very hard.
Harden the F up.
Move 5K down to 60 and marathon up to 100.
Pathetic
Meh. There are exceptions. I only hit 70 three times in college, usually running 55-60 because I was new to running as a college walk on and couldn't handle higher volume without significantly increased injury risk. I did just fairly well at the 5000m and wa a decent 10,000m runner.
an honest assessment wrote:
5k: 70 mpw ..No exceptions.
How about these exceptions of guys who all ran under 13:15 running (for the majority of the weeks leading up to such performances) less than your "MINIMUM mileage" standard:
Doug Padilla
Jim Spivey
Alan Webb
Bernard Lagat
Just off the top of my head. All ran in the 60's mpw range while training for 5k. Some less.
what does "respect the distance" mean?
I would say a decent mileage for marathon is around 80, and 10k is about 60. however, the 5k is a different distance for some people and a person can perform well off lower mileage. 3.1 miles isn't exactly a distance that needs to be "respected."
sub-15 can be achieved off 40 mpw.
right....lol
johnny bean wrote:
sub-15 can be achieved off 40 mpw.
I got to ~15:20 around 50 mpw, so this is definitely believable for people more talented than me.
But on the same coin we could all run so much faster just running more.
Doesn't Justyn Knight run like 30 miles a week? I think you can get away with it if you run all quality and are insanely talented.
Depends on your goals. I have no desire to dedicate my life to running...but I am willing to put in an hour or so of work per day, maybe a little longer than once per week. If I can run under 3 hours for the marathon off like 50 miles per week, and I know I'm "settling" for a time that is lower than my true capabilities, am I not respecting the distance?
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
an honest assessment wrote:
5k: 70 mpw ..No exceptions.
How about these exceptions of guys who all ran under 13:15 running (for the majority of the weeks leading up to such performances) less than your "MINIMUM mileage" standard:
Doug Padilla
Jim Spivey
Alan Webb
Bernard Lagat
Just off the top of my head. All ran in the 60's mpw range while training for 5k. Some less.
To be fair, none of them know as much as a letsrun troll poster though so they don't count.
120 for a marathon, not 90. If you're doing less, you're really doing half marathon training.
Knightinshiningarmor wrote:
Doesn't Justyn Knight run like 30 miles a week? I think you can get away with it if you run all quality and are insanely talented.
There are exceptions to every rule, but I think this thread is meant for the average to good college athlete, not the best of the best.
Another idiot trying to impose some cookie cutter solution on everyone because he believes he is the most knowledgeable person on the planet...
johnny bean wrote:
what does "respect the distance" mean?
I would say a decent mileage for marathon is around 80, and 10k is about 60. however, the 5k is a different distance for some people and a person can perform well off lower mileage. 3.1 miles isn't exactly a distance that needs to be "respected."
sub-15 can be achieved off 40 mpw.
Decent times can sometimes be run without showing the distance any respect.
In each case, if those athletes learned to RESPECT THE DISTANCE, they would run faster. Even Lagat did 70 to 85 for his best 5Ks.
And yes, 120 for the marathon is a lot better than 90... these are minimums.
Didn't Steve Jones set the marathon WR back in the 80s on 80-100mpw?
Different people, different physiologies will achieve their best results using the optimal mileage.
The obsession with "mileage" on this website makes me laugh
Jones' WR was w/ no pacesetter after 6 miles
If we are discussing moderately talented runners only (55-56 sec 400 capability), that also means we are talking about