How fast do you have to be for your weekly mileage to be "worth it"?

I can agree with your point for 5k times.

However, the scale from 50-80 seems a bit aggressive.

It could also be argued that 50-60 miles per week with intense workouts, intervals, core work to acheive the time you listed could take a longer amount of time per week than someone running 80 base miles.

If what someone is doing doesn't interfere with their relationships, job, sleep, well being then why not? More people on our country could benefit from exercise vs sedentary "time wasting"

Would be interested to hear what triggered you to create this?

I spend around an hour a day playing chess and the same amount training.

This I steal from my TVtime.

What a waste.

Amateur wrote:

I can agree with your point for 5k times.

However, the scale from 50-80 seems a bit aggressive.

It could also be argued that 50-60 miles per week with intense workouts, intervals, core work to acheive the time you listed could take a longer amount of time per week than someone running 80 base miles.

If what someone is doing doesn't interfere with their relationships, job, sleep, well being then why not? More people on our country could benefit from exercise vs sedentary "time wasting"

Would be interested to hear what triggered you to create this?

I started this because there has to be a point where running becomes too much, and I want to know where it is. I think it does matter how fast you are though.

The point that a lot of people are making, saying that a lot of people spend more time watching TV, is irrelevant. people watch too much TV too, but it doesnt make running too much ok. it's like saying drinking booze all day is ok because some other people do heroin all day which is worse.

Theory : Double training for each 10 percent increase in performance.

percents: age graded percents

cost : times 2 growth multiplier

mile: race time for a mile

mpw: duh

quality: traditional breakdown tempo vo2 rep

base: easy miles

percents cost mile mpw quality base

70 1 7:16 12.5 2.5 10

80 2 6:18 25 5 20

90 4 5:33 50 10 40

100 8 4:58 100 20 80

Well, listen to the great one, Frank Shorter who said that most of your miles should be at an aerobic, conversational pace.

After doing 2 intervals workouts of about 5k each, you would do a long run aeorobically paces and then a few shorter runs also aerobically.............don't overdo the hard stuff and you'll be fine.

0jj wrote:

Well, listen to the great one, Frank Shorter who said that most of your miles should be at an aerobic, conversational pace.

After doing 2 intervals workouts of about 5k each, you would do a long run aeorobically paces and then a few shorter runs also aerobically.............don't overdo the hard stuff and you'll be fine.

Well that was Frank Shorter. Many other elites did most of their mileage at a steady pace i.e. Ron Clarke, Mark Nenow, Steve Jones, Derek Clayton, John Walker etc. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

What about the health improvement aspect of exercise? Are we charting the value of general well-being and societal fiscal responsibility in terms of savings due to less frequent hospital visits as we age, regardless of our fun-run times? Why are we focusing on 5k speed when many people who are running say 40-100MPW are training for 10ks, halves, and fulls as well as the occasional turkey trot? They may never reach a sub-16 minute 5k at 70MPW, but they could qualify for Boston, which might be a significant life goal. Is it more important that one's personal-time be used most expeditiously or that we create the maximum benefit to society per individual?

sparrowhawkes wrote:

What about the health improvement aspect of exercise? Are we charting the value of general well-being and societal fiscal responsibility in terms of savings due to less frequent hospital visits as we age, regardless of our fun-run times? Why are we focusing on 5k speed when many people who are running say 40-100MPW are training for 10ks, halves, and fulls as well as the occasional turkey trot? They may never reach a sub-16 minute 5k at 70MPW, but they could qualify for Boston, which might be a significant life goal. Is it more important that one's personal-time be used most expeditiously or that we create the maximum benefit to society per individual?

There are other healthy activities and people should vary them. The amount of running should be based on the chart.

The marathon fad or excuse may be part of the problem. BQ dreams are another bad excuse to spend hours and hours of your time for an ego boost. It's not much different than spending time and money going after a high from drugs. BQs should really hold no value other than allowing you to run in the race. And if you cant with the chart's prescribed mileage? With the extra time that you are not wasting running, spend it working to get in and raise the funds for a charity bib. Most feedback is that doing so is much more rewarding personally, while also building social connections, promoting the sport, and directing funds to charities. Marathons and BQs are an enabler of unhealthy activities and needs to stop. What should happen is that the BQ times are lowered and more spots open up for charity runners.

ric flair woo wrote:

formerbosox9yo wrote:

My belief (for 25-40 year old hobby jogger) for 5k times:

10 miles - 30:00. If you can't break 30 minutes when running 10 miles a week, drop some mileage and spend the time on something else.

20 miles - 24:00

30 miles - 20:00

40 miles - 18:00. There is no reason to be running 40+ miles a week if you can't break 18 in the 5k when doing so. Spend some time doing something else.

50 miles - 17:00

60 miles - 16:00

70 miles - 15:15

80 miles - 14:50

90 miles - 14:25

100 miles - 14:00

What do you think?

that's the dumbest chart I have ever seen. everyone is different. chris derrick was running 60-70 mile weeks in high school when he busted out a 13:55 5k at Arcadia, solo effort. some of the slowest kids on our team in college were the ones who insisted high mileage was the key. they weren't even in our top 15

I ran a 16:58 4:21 1500m double off of 10 miles per week and about 7 hours of basketball per week. For an extended period of time.

16:33 off of 25 miles per week

15:50 off of 55 miles per week

blew up running 80 miles per week but still ran a 15:37.

Compare me to someone like Justyn Knight He would be MUCH faster off of my training and probably win a NCAA title from it haha. He is also probably a good 2-25 lbs lighter than me. Everyone is different. Try not to get caught up in mileage on charts...unless its YOUR chart. just my opinion.

formerbosox9yo wrote:

ric flair woo wrote:

that's the dumbest chart I have ever seen. everyone is different. chris derrick was running 60-70 mile weeks in high school when he busted out a 13:55 5k at Arcadia, solo effort. some of the slowest kids on our team in college were the ones who insisted high mileage was the key. they weren't even in our top 15

That is a perfect example why this chart works. It showed that Chris Derrick had talent and should focus more time on running (doesn't have to be in miles). The kids on your college teams doing high miles and not in your top 15 it shows they focused too much on running. It might have made sense for them to quit and find another sport, maybe intramural ultimate frisbee, that they could focus their time on.

how is chris derrick a perfect example of how the chart works? your chart says he should be between 15:15 and 16:00. He ran 13:52 in XC and 13:55 5k in track

To the guy running for an hour a day, that's what it's all about. Runners take this ish wayyyy too seriously, and the ones so obsessed over their times or what they're running in relation to some elite likely won't be running well into adulthood. Just be thankful you can run. Too often, that blessing gets lost pursuing their strava records or some undiagnosed OCD complex.

This whole thread is about one guy's chart and the opinion that generated it. There's no real need to take any of this seriously. But the problem with this kind of thinking is that it doesn't seem to accommodate to people wanting to be a lot faster. I'm a 20:00 guy, let's say. MAYBE if I'm running 100 miles a week something's out of whack and I should drop about 70 of those miles. (This is not a premise I share but I'll work with it.) If I am actually running 100 mile weeks there's a really good chance I'm doing it because I want to be a lot faster. Maybe I'm thinking that if the 14:00 guys are running 100s and I did too I could get a lot closer to that kind of performance.

0jj wrote:

Well, listen to the great one, Frank Shorter who said that most of your miles should be at an aerobic, conversational pace.

After doing 2 intervals workouts of about 5k each, you would do a long run aeorobically paces and then a few shorter runs also aerobically.............don't overdo the hard stuff and you'll be fine.

Maybe HRE can weigh in here and correct my details, but I think it's easy to misunderstand Shorter's training. His says his easy days were "aerobic" but that is for a high efficiency, high-threshold marathon runner with a sub 5min/mile marathon pace so his easy pace was still pretty quick--sub 6 min/mile and he did a lot more short, hard track intervals that is common for today's marathoners.

meant to write he did a more hard intervals than is common for today's marathoner.

Shorter always said he was really a track man who ran marathons well because he did so much mileage and also had speed from his track sessions that most marathon runners didn't have. Stories would come out of Gainesville about sessions he'd do like 15 x 440 in 62 with the last one at 58 with a 110 jog. And in recent years there have been people here posting about how slowly he did his distance runs, 7:00 pace seems to get mentioned a lot. That's not the kind of story we were getting from guys who ran with him. Six, maybe six thirty miles was more in line with those stories. That's still easy running for a guy who can hold five minute pace for a whole marathon.

Another perfect example of why this chart works. You probably should have been running around 60 miles a week. The extra 20 wasn't worth the 13 second faster 5k.

ric flair woo wrote:

formerbosox9yo wrote:

That is a perfect example why this chart works. It showed that Chris Derrick had talent and should focus more time on running (doesn't have to be in miles). The kids on your college teams doing high miles and not in your top 15 it shows they focused too much on running. It might have made sense for them to quit and find another sport, maybe intramural ultimate frisbee, that they could focus their time on.

how is chris derrick a perfect example of how the chart works? your chart says he should be between 15:15 and 16:00. He ran 13:52 in XC and 13:55 5k in track

The chart isn't to determine how fast you are, its to determine at what point the extra miles becomes a waste based on your 5k time. This Chris Derrick example is perfect. He is fast so putting in a lot more miles is worth it for him as he has a higher potential.

I guess this is made for someone who doesn't enjoy running. I do enjoy running, so this chart is meaningless for me.

An hour a day equals 30 hours a week?