Age is important . In my late 50s it takes almost double the MPW to achieve the same results compared to early 40s (at 17-18min/5k level) in addition to healthier lifestyle, etc.
Age is important . In my late 50s it takes almost double the MPW to achieve the same results compared to early 40s (at 17-18min/5k level) in addition to healthier lifestyle, etc.
30:00 -- 5 minutes on letsrun per day
24:00 -- 15 minutes
20:00 -- 30 minutes per day
18:00 -- seven hours on letsrun per week
17:00 -- ten hours per week
16:00 -- 14
15:15 -- 21
14:50 -- 28
14:25 -- 42
14:00 -- 70 hours on letsrun per week
now debate the cause and effect, which causes which?
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.[/quote]
___________________________________
Only John Walker was as good or better than Shorter.......but yeah, steady pace is aerobic.
Why should people have to take up a new hobby just because theyre not “fast enough” to meet your imaginary standards? Who cares if the person never break 20? You will never break 13 so why don’t you take up a new hobby?
r3thh wrote:
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.
___________________________________
Only John Walker was as good or better than Shorter.......but yeah, steady pace is aerobic.[/quote]
Frank Shorter PBs:
3000 Metres 7:51.4h Oslo (NOR) 03 AUG 1972
5000 Metres 13:26.62 Zürich (SUI) 24 AUG 1977
10,000 Metres 27:45.91 London (GBR) 29 AUG 1975
Marathon 2:10:30 Fukuoka (JPN) 03 DEC 1972
Mark Nenow:
3000 Metres 7:43.01 Köln (GER) 20 AUG 1989
5000 Metres 13:18.54 Oslo (NOR) 28 JUN 1984
10,000 Metres 27:20.56 Bruxelles (BEL) 05 SEP 1986
5 Kilometres 13:56 Carlsbad, CA (USA) 27 MAR 1994
10 Kilometres 27:23 New Orleans, LA (USA) 01 APR 1984
Marathon 2:14:21 New York, NY (USA) 06 NOV 1988
Nenow better at 3000m, 5000m, and 10000m.
Derek Clayton:
5000 Metres 13:45.4h Melbourne (AUS) 25 NOV 1971
10,000 Metres 28:45.2h Oslo (NOR) 08 JUL 1969
Marathon 2:08:34 Antwerpen (BEL) 30 MAY 1969
Clayton better at the marathon.
Ron Clarke:
2000 Metres 5:08.7h Melbourne (AUS) 18 MAR 1966
3000 Metres 7:47.2h Västerås (SWE) 27 JUN 1967
Two Miles 8:19.6h London (GBR) 24 AUG 1968
5000 Metres 13:16.6h Stockholm (SWE) 05 JUL 1966
10,000 Metres 27:39.89 Oslo (NOR) 14 JUL 1965
20,000 Metres 59:22.8h Geelong (AUS) 27 OCT 1965
One Hour 20232 Geelong (AUS) 27 OCT 1965
30,000 Metres 1:34:35.0h Melbourne (AUS) 25 APR 1966
Marathon 2:20:27 Tokyo (JPN) 21 OCT 1964
Clarke better at the 3000m, 5000m, and 10000m.
Steve Jones:
800 Metres 1:47.43 Macomb (USA) 27 MAY 1978
3000 Metres 7:49.80 London (GBR) 13 JUL 1984
Two Miles 8:26.71 London (GBR) 27 JUN 1980
5000 Metres 13:18.6h Lisboa (POR) 10 JUN 1982
10,000 Metres 27:39.14 Oslo (NOR) 09 JUL 1983
3000 Metres Steeplechase 8:32.00 London (GBR) 08 AUG 1980
5 Miles Road 22:43 Dublin (IRL) 08 MAR 1992
Half Marathon 1:01:14 Birmingham (GBR) 11 AUG 1985
Half Marathon 1:00:59 * South-Shields (GBR) 08 JUN 1986
Marathon 2:07:13 Chicago, IL (USA) 20 OCT 1985
Better at everything compared to Frank Shorter.
John Walker:
800 Metres 1:44.92 Christchurch (NZL) 29 JAN 1974
1000 Metres 2:16.57 Oslo (NOR) 01 JUL 1980
1500 Metres 3:32.4h Oslo (NOR) 30 JUL 1975
One Mile 3:49.08 Oslo (NOR) 07 JUL 1982
2000 Metres 4:51.52 Oslo (NOR) 30 JUN 1976
3000 Metres 7:37.49 London (GBR) 17 JUL 1982
Two Miles 8:20.57 Stockholm (SWE) 17 JUL 1975
5000 Metres 13:19.28 Cork (IRL) 08 JUL 1986
Better at everything compared to Shorter at 5000m and below.
What limited mileage for me was not wanting to run in the morning before work
Here was my training
Mon 5
Tues Track
Wed 10 miles with club
Thurs Track/hills
Fri 5-7
Sat 5 or race
Sun 10-12
A lot of running every day which does not add up top that much miles
I was only training for distances up to the half
Off this I ran 15:54 for 5km
Meanwhile a guy I trained with did the same training possibly less and ran 14:40 5,000m and 8:44 steeplechase
So I could have got up before work every day to have him still beat me
So partly I agree with the op but I'd have still run every day if I was slower as I loved running. I hated running early in the morning especially before work so didn't do it. For 2 years I was doing night school twice a wk. The first year every morning on those days I'd set my alarm early. Only twice did I actually get up and go running. Its not like I skipped running I would still go at 9pm
I struggle to imagine that even morning people enjoy going twice a day. You would have to get up early go to bed early and basically just work and run with barely any time to relax, watch films or socialise
Back when I was running you were not winning any races running 33 min 10km. Low key I'd get around 10th average local race you'd be about 20-50th
Maybe i should have doubled to see what i could have done at the time I didn't realise the importance of higher mileage but I was never going to be that good anyway.
So I'm somewhere on the middle on this question its partly how much you enjoy training and partly if it gets the results to make it worth it. Mainly the former
Running helps keep my depression at bay.
I haven't run a 5k in 8 years -- no idea what I'd run now. But I damn well know that I'm not wasting time out there.
harrysmith wrote:
Age is important . In my late 50s it takes almost double the MPW to achieve the same results compared to early 40s (at 17-18min/5k level) in addition to healthier lifestyle, etc.
I agree. That is why I specified that the chart is for 25-40 year olds.
I'm not suggesting dropping running entirely. I will never break 17 anymore either by sticking with the chart, but I can still get in some good running. It just doesn't consume my life and I have more time for my family, friends, and new activities I never knew I'd love. And the standards aren't imaginary, there is obviously a point in which running too much is not worth it in the grand scheme of things. My chart may have to be adjusted though, and that is the purpose of this thread. I'm just trying to determine where that point is.
You are saying that it is OK for someone to run 40 miles a week if he runs a 17:30 but not if he runs a 19:30. The 19:30 runner is wasting his time and not contributing to society by running that much. But the same can be said about the 17:30 runner. How does running a 17:30 do anything for society that warrants a person spending more time running? Because it can beat some weak competition at a local Turkey Trot? And there is no need to stop at 40 miles and 17:30. Unless someone is elite and competing for real prize money/appearance fees or Olympic medals (or run for a school team if he or she is younger), that person is wasting his/her time running any amount beyond what is necessary to achieve health cardio fitness.
So your logic has rendered your own chart is useless. All you really need to do under your bizarre reasoning is to provide a range of what a healthy amount of running is for cardio fitness. Anyone who is not elite or on a school team should be no higher than that range.
With one exception. For people like you who have trouble with basic reasoning, a course in logic would probably be a better use of your time than doing any running at all. Since the rest of us do not appear to have a need for such a course, we can use the extra time to run.
I know this is probably pointless to ask. I've done it on other threads like this where someone is writing about people who spend too much time running, but here goes. Why do people like you think there's some identifiable amount of running that's "too much?" A secondary question is why you guys always say that instead of running people could be starting businesses, learning new skills, doing volunteer work, etc.? Most of us, if we ran less, would just watch more TV or surf the net more. Doing all of that stuff you mention seems like working. Running is recreation. Most of us know if we're running too much in the same way that golfers or bowlers know if they're golfing or bowling too much and that amount varies from golfer to golfer or from bowler to bowler. So please, take me through your thought process that lead you to think there is some identifiable amount of running that is correct based on one's race times and why you think you're the guy who can identify that point.
I posted at first and was a bit taken back by the brash statement made, but after thinking about this, I think the OP is actually onto something. If this was stated in a face to face conversation, I think we can all agree the original intent would be received better and it would have expanded better than a message board.
Ironically I was listening to an amateur runner, he's older, mid to late 40s who made a pretty big life transformation in the last 6 years. His mileage is up there with elite ultra runners, yet he isn't breaking 3 for the marathon, but is close. At first, I wanted to fall over listening, then I heard him out, and was actually, inspired. He's never been hurt, runs a TON of races, and he just kept stating how happy it makes him and whatever times come from his big mileage is just fine with him. Hey, is it traditional? Not by a long shot, but it's unique to him and it lets him balance his life relative to what he wants. Sure as hell can support that vs turning to drugs and depression.
There obviously is some truth in mileage and times. Outliers exist, but we can't dismiss the original intent of the conversation. I've never run more than 42 mpw, probably done that 4-5 times in my life, consistently around 30 mpw, and I am a 19:12 5k, once my child sleeps better, I can get some more mileage in, so around 30 mpw allows me to be consistent and not broken. I guess whatever you can fit in, maximize it.
Some running is obviously good and healthy. I think a 17:30 runner will be running their mileage more efficiently than a 19:30 runner on average, so the difference in suggested mileage may only be only a slight difference in time spent running and on average (across thousands and thousands of runners), the 17:30 runner gives slightly more back to the running community than a 19:30 runner, about the difference in time spent runner per the chart.
Yes, i agree there are always exceptions to the rule. The chart is merely suggested guidelines that most people should fit into.
And great job, you appear to be right in line with the guidelines!
HRE wrote:
I know this is probably pointless to ask. I've done it on other threads like this where someone is writing about people who spend too much time running, but here goes. Why do people like you think there's some identifiable amount of running that's "too much?" A secondary question is why you guys always say that instead of running people could be starting businesses, learning new skills, doing volunteer work, etc.? Most of us, if we ran less, would just watch more TV or surf the net more.
I do think quantifying the question harms his rhetoric, but I'm not so sure the intention behind the post is that far off. At some point outside of pure enjoyment (which IMO has to be rare for people spending a majority of their free time running unless they are actually competing), it becomes a detriment to one's well being whether injury-wise or quality-wise. I know for me, I've been running for almost two years and have only seen little improvement. I'm now pushing to get to 50 mpw, and the amount of time and energy it saps from me probably isn't actually worth it considering my goal right now is a sub-2 hour half marathon.
Should I really be waking up at 430am to run almost every day for a few hours and then crashing at ~9pm only to be what's considered a rather slow runner? My kids go to sleep at 8pm. I'm getting an hour of "me" time (or with-the-wife time) a night and it's draining.
I also know that if I stop training to get faster at these races, I will stop running. I don't have a history of running. It's always been a struggle for me. I think that's why I enjoy it so much; it's a new challenge that has presented me with the opportunity to be ambitious.
As far as your secondary question, I don't think watching TV or reading a book or surfing the net is a terrible thing to do as a hobby. Especially if you work a full time job and/or have a family, escaping into another world to relax is certainly time worth wasting. Would I be more content binging a show at night and sleeping til 630am without the need to have 60-90 minutes worth of workout-quality energy? I think I might be. But I press on.
Because we know there must be at some point running becomes too much. 700 miles/week is too much on average, 1 mile/week is too little on average. Where is the line crossed on average? It is absolutely identifiable on average, and some people may differ.
Because with extra time people COULD be doing it. Sure they may replace wasted time of running with wasted time doing something else, but it doesn't change the fact that the time is wasted by running. If they ran the correct amount of miles, then filled up some other time with tv or whatever, then that's a separate discussion about finding what the right amount of screen time is worth. The argument of that running too much is ok because you'll just be watching more tv instead like trying to justify the amount of time doing heroin is ok because a lot of people would just replace that time with some other addiction.
Generally on average a person's utility not running is not affected by 5k performance that much, so we assume runners of all skills will get the same utility of their time not running (obviously people will spend their freed up time differently, with families, etc etc etc, but we are talking averages here). So we know the opportunity cost of more time running. However, we also have to judge how much utility they are getting from the running on average. This is best measured by 5k time, as it is correlated to a number of other important factors that are not necessarily easily computable (social utility from their running, impact to the local economy, personal health and wellness, health and wellness of their family, etc. etc.) 5k time on average correlates to all those factors, and 5k ability is VERY easy to compute on an individual basis, so its a PERFECT measure for identifying on average how many miles you should spend running.
formerbosox9yo wrote:
Sure they may replace wasted time of running with wasted time doing something else, but it doesn't change the fact that the time is wasted by running.
That is not a fact. That's just your opinion.
Mileage should never be based on how fast you are. It should only be based on how much you can handle, based on your age, body type, etc. I know people who run 70+ mpw and only run 17:00 in the 5k. I also know people who run 40 mpw and can run low-14:00s.
this is retarded wrote:
Mileage should never be based on how fast you are. It should only be based on how much you can handle, based on your age, body type, etc. I know people who run 70+ mpw and only run 17:00 in the 5k. I also know people who run 40 mpw and can run low-14:00s.
The 70+ mpw guy running 17:00 5k may be maximizing his 5k performance by running that mileage, but he's not maximizing his time, which should be the true goal. Based on the chart it would be better for him to run less mileage (yes his 5k time may suffer) and instead use that time for something that adds more to himself, those around him, and the world in general. The value he adds would more than offset the value lost in the slower 5k time.