Unpopular Opinion: You can run well off 35-40 miles/wk

I am starting to realize that this site is dominated by former 15 minute D3 guys who don’t know what it is like to run fast. Sure Morgan McDonald could run 14:30 wth no training. He could run 14 minutes on little training. It’s the real training that gets him from 14 minutes to 13 minutes. All of you slow guys would use somebody like him as proof that low mileage works if he was at some crappy school running 13:59 on 30mpw.

The 90s called and they want their training back.

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/29/sports/track-and-field-slower-times-at-american-high-schools.html

In a sense this question is unanswerable. Someone who ran 90 miles a week in college will get along very well off 40 miles a week in their mid-30s. Someone who does not have that kind of training background, however, will probably not run as fast, or reach their full potential off 35 to 40 miles per week. That is just my theory, would love to hear other thoughts.

NeedSomeTalent wrote:

If you have some talent, any race 8k or under you can run very competitively off 35-40 miles a wk and 2 workouts per week. Change my mind.

There is a reasonable amount of truth to this ... especially for 5k.

If the purpose is to have fun and be just good enough to outkick the hobby joggers at your local 5k then that's fine. In reality, those are incredibly mediocre times unless you're a girl or a sophomore in high school. Calling that running "well" is a stretch in any sense and a bad joke to any actually competitive runners.

This is why America sucks at running wrote:

If the purpose is to have fun and be just good enough to outkick the hobby joggers at your local 5k then that's fine. In reality, those are incredibly mediocre times unless you're a girl or a sophomore in high school. Calling that running "well" is a stretch in any sense and a bad joke to any actually competitive runners.

Why does everyone think OP is talking about training necessary to be one of the NCAAs best trotting our Morgan McDonald and Karissa Schweizer as counterpoints? I assume he’s talking about training necessary to run like 16-17 minute 5Ks as an adult in their 30s or 40s or something similar in other distances.

Doesn't Donovan brazier do bout half this? 800m is less.than 8k I believe

Wow21 wrote:

This is why America sucks at running wrote:

If the purpose is to have fun and be just good enough to outkick the hobby joggers at your local 5k then that's fine. In reality, those are incredibly mediocre times unless you're a girl or a sophomore in high school. Calling that running "well" is a stretch in any sense and a bad joke to any actually competitive runners.

Why does everyone think OP is talking about training necessary to be one of the NCAAs best trotting our Morgan McDonald and Karissa Schweizer as counterpoints? I assume he’s talking about training necessary to run like 16-17 minute 5Ks as an adult in their 30s or 40s or something similar in other distances.

THIS. And the 16:37 5k I ran is slower than the 15:49 I ran a few years back in college. But the 15:49 was on a track off of 4-5 months of 40/week. The 16:37 was on the roads off of 2 months of 40/week. Needed more time. I understand that these are not world class times, but I wasn't born with world class genetics. If I was, maybe it'd be worth it to run 80/wk and push.

NeedSomeTalent wrote:

Nope, actually ran 9:01 in the 3k and 15:49 in the 5k off 40-50 miles/wk in college. Still running 35-40 now and running road 5ks in the 16:30s.

By your own admission you ran 15:49 on 50 mpw, but can only manage 16:30 on 35. What further proof do you need?

NeedSomeTalent wrote:

But the 15:49 was on a track off of 4-5 months of 40/week. The 16:37 was on the roads off of 2 months of 40/week.

The 5k on the track was a legit distance. My guess is the road 5k was only 3 miles, which puts your REAL time at about 17:15. The roads are notorious for being short courses.

NeedSomeTalent wrote:

If you have some talent, any race 8k or under you can run very competitively off 35-40 miles a wk and 2 workouts per week. Change my mind.

Exactly. Sure as hell won't be chasing an OTQ or a sub 3 marathon (without some serious talent), but you can still run some respectable times and feel good about your running.

Here's the reality, especially once you have a family, you better learn to maximize every run and whatever time window you have. With a young kid(s), like what I am dealing with, disrupted sleep is a serious, serious lag and pushing out the miles can be a slippery slope. So, if 30-40 mpw keeps you fit and feeling sane, then so be it. With the daily disrupted sleep I am getting, I know for at least another year, I can't really push the mileage too far relative to myself because I am just not getting the proper recovery.

Will you be even more competitive with increased mileage? Duh..but not everybody has the time luxury, and has to work with what they're able to squeeze in. I'd like to work up to a block of 60-70 mpw for a marathon, I just know it won't happen for a few years, but maybe that's for the best. Whatever works for that runner and keeps them healthy, then so be it.

another data point wrote:

In college, I averaged about 40-45 mi/week w/ 2 workouts and ran 1:55/3:59 for 800/1500 + 25:40 8k in XC. Not great, but not bad either. In my mid-30s, I picked up running again and have run a 16:03 5k, 1:14 half marathon, and 2:48 marathon off 35-45 mi/week w/ 1-2 workouts. Obviously, my marathon suffers most at lower mileage, but 5k-half I think are doable. I'd like to run sub-16 and sub-2:40 before I turn 40 though, so I am planning to bump up to 50-60 next summer and see what I can do.

Very similar situation for me, although not nearly as fast in college (ran senior year only, 35-min 10,000). A year after graduation, I ran 16:04 and 2:40:30 off 42 miles per week.

Similar mileage and regular VO2max workouts netted 17:10 and 2:56:03 at age 43. Like in your case, the low MPW is most evident in the marathon.

At age 58, running 42 mpw average with dedicated VO2max and LT workouts, I ran 18:58 and 3:07:23. Again, the marathon is a bit weak by comparison.

Next year, at age 60, for the first time in my life, I plan to maintain 60 mpw, and aim for sub-3. Well, I should say, 60 mpw average will be the first time if I do it ... I have always planned to do it!

Good luck with your quest for sub-2:40!

Here is my unscientific rule of thumb.

80MPW = 5k PR

70MPW = 5k PR - 10 seconds

60MPW = 5k PR - 20 seconds

50MPW = 5k PR - 30 seconds

40MPW = 5k PR - 45 seconds

30MPW = 5k PR - 1 minute

20MPW = 5k PR - 1.5 minutes

So if I am a 30 year old guy still capable of 15 minutes at 80 MPW but only have time for 30 MPW, l will top out at 16 minutes. Some of you knuckleheads would come on here and claim that 30MPW is optimal because you are winning your local road races running 16 minutes on only 30 MPW not realizing that you are capable of 15 minutes. Choosing to do it as a life balance is great but don't claim that you can achieve your maximal race effort.

Predictor wrote:

Here is my unscientific rule of thumb.

80MPW = 5k PR

70MPW = 5k PR - 10 seconds

60MPW = 5k PR - 20 seconds

50MPW = 5k PR - 30 seconds

40MPW = 5k PR - 45 seconds

30MPW = 5k PR - 1 minute

20MPW = 5k PR - 1.5 minutes

So if I am a 30 year old guy still capable of 15 minutes at 80 MPW but only have time for 30 MPW, l will top out at 16 minutes. Some of you knuckleheads would come on here and claim that 30MPW is optimal because you are winning your local road races running 16 minutes on only 30 MPW not realizing that you are capable of 15 minutes. Choosing to do it as a life balance is great but don't claim that you can achieve your maximal race effort.

The point is, if your 'maximal race effort' is still sub-sub-eilte it's worth running 80mpw or more?

Sometimes a nice life balance and smart training are more rewarding.

I agree that as it is more rewarding for most, including me. I disagree with posters who claim that you can achieve as much with 35 MPW as with 80 MPW. It is like the barefoot movement or the non-immunization crazies.

One of my main points that has been ignored is that mileage only works if you can stay healthy and don't ignore VO2max and speed work. Obviously all things equal if you add mileage you will be better, but as you add mileage for many people, injuries crop up and they neglect the most important parts of improving running: workouts.

I kind of tried to bring it up. For me, workouts lead to injury far more than mileage does. So I run more miles and fewer gut wrenching workouts and I'm just as fast or faster. Why is that?

And why is it that you add more miles and get injured?

Is there something inherently different for us (that whole slow twitch v. fast twitch thing or natural talent or whatever)? Or is there something each of us is doing wrong if we get injured so regularly?

itdepends wrote:

I kind of tried to bring it up. For me, workouts lead to injury far more than mileage does. So I run more miles and fewer gut wrenching workouts and I'm just as fast or faster. Why is that?

And why is it that you add more miles and get injured?

Is there something inherently different for us (that whole slow twitch v. fast twitch thing or natural talent or whatever)? Or is there something each of us is doing wrong if we get injured so regularly?

I think for me it's that my mechanics are not great (slight heel striker, weak hips and glutes) so the more pounding my body takes the more likely I am to get injured, this goes for both mileage and long workouts (4+ miles of fast paced work). I know that running more miles can force you to improve your mechanics, but it kind of feels like a chicken and the egg sort of thing. I need to get to 70 miles/week to improve my mechanics long term, but I can't get there without getting hurt. So I stay around 40, focus on the quality, and still improve with consistent running.

Interesting. I'm a fore/mid-foot striker, but am most prone to lower leg injuries like achilles and foot arch stuff. I also have a hip imbalance that I work on daily but have not been able to completely get rid of.

Still, faster stuff just hits my body harder than more miles. I even did some strides this morning and am feeling somewhat off from it. The funny thing is, I have no doubt I will end up feeling better tomorrow after an easy 10+ miles.