Miles per week is just something people like to cite because it seems to show some kind of investment into their fitness. It really gives little information in and of itself as to how fit someone is.
Train to run a race well, not to have some arbitrary number next to your weekly log.
it takes time
I think it comes down to why is the individual running or as I put it to those I train “ are you training race or training to train?” I’m training to train. My current running (notice I didn’t call it training) exceeds the numbers your throwing out, but I no longer race. I just enjoy getting out there. There’s no must do workouts, times to hit or required weekly miles. I don’t “need or have” to get out of the house to run. I want to get out and run. I run by time and seldom look at my pace or splits until I put them in my log at night. I’m often surprised by those results. As I head out for this morning’s run- I don’t know what pace I will be running at, but the again I don’t care.
RyecorDone wrote:
...
But no one runs just slow long slogs. It goes against human-animal nature. You always do speed workouts if you can do them without interfering with your EZ reminder or recovery runs. ...
What? I see lots of people doing just that. Most do it that way just because that is what they like to do, in some ways its easier to just jog about for a couple of hours than to plan an execute a workout where it might actually get a little, heaven forbid..tough.
Why tho wrote:
Serious question:
It seems like there a lot of people out there training 60, 70, 80 mile weeks and can't even break 7 minute pace in the 5k. Is there any benefit to running this much mileage if you can't even do any speed? Shouldn't we be telling these people to maybe max out at like 40 miles and hit some actual mile repeats or something?
It seems like a lot of these people are marathon training, but isn't your marathon potential pretty capped if you can't even run under 20 in the 5k?
You can train on mid-40 mile weeks and get down into the 16s & 15s for the 5k, at which point higher mileage might actually be beneficial. Or at least the 17s or 18s.
I get the point of running really slow/easy recovery miles when you can still drop a fast 5k, but what is the point of doing like 80 miles a week and then running a 21 minute 5k?
a lot of people running 80 mpw and can't break 20? I've been running 20+ years and haven't met a single one. Simply running that much means you are efficient enough to break 20 any day of the week if you really wanted to. Now, if they don't want to, that's a different story.
I'd go as far as to say its physically impossible to be capable of that volume and still not be able to break 20.
lol. I was thinking along the same lines. It's physically impossible. I certainly don't know anyone who runs 80 mi per week and can't break 20. I can't imagine that any able bodied male under 50 could run 80 mi per week and not easily break 20. No way. Unless they literally walk the full 80 every week. Even then sub-20 seems possible.
HITHEREYOU wrote:
RyecorDone wrote:
...
But no one runs just slow long slogs. It goes against human-animal nature. You always do speed workouts if you can do them without interfering with your EZ reminder or recovery runs. ...
What? I see lots of people doing just that. Most do it that way just because that is what they like to do, in some ways its easier to just jog about for a couple of hours than to plan an execute a workout where it might actually get a little, heaven forbid..tough.
With no races for the foreseeable future, Kipchoge is doing just that now, and Bekele kind of too. According to T-Spoon's thread yesterday:
"Eliud Kipchoge:
20-30k morning run each day at around 40% effort
Exercises at home such as step-ups, weights, and flexibility work 3X/week
Kenenisa Bekele:
20-25k forest runs to keep body ticking over and maintain good kilometers
5-10k on treadmill
20 min on cross trainer
20 min on bike"
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9954182#9954182I wish I even understood how to train for a 5k since I have only ever gone under 19 on the back half of a 10k. My stand alone 5k PR is 19:07. This is all mostly irrelevant to this thread but after 3 years of running (not much, I know), I still cannot fathom how to get under 19.
garrettb wrote:
I wish I even understood how to train for a 5k since I have only ever gone under 19 on the back half of a 10k. My stand alone 5k PR is 19:07. This is all mostly irrelevant to this thread but after 3 years of running (not much, I know), I still cannot fathom how to get under 19.
My guess, you need to run more.
Why tho wrote:
Serious question:
It seems like there a lot of people out there training 60, 70, 80 mile weeks and can't even break 7 minute pace in the 5k. Is there any benefit to running this much mileage if you can't even do any speed? Shouldn't we be telling these people to maybe max out at like 40 miles and hit some actual mile repeats or something?
It seems like a lot of these people are marathon training, but isn't your marathon potential pretty capped if you can't even run under 20 in the 5k?
You can train on mid-40 mile weeks and get down into the 16s & 15s for the 5k, at which point higher mileage might actually be beneficial. Or at least the 17s or 18s.
I get the point of running really slow/easy recovery miles when you can still drop a fast 5k, but what is the point of doing like 80 miles a week and then running a 21 minute 5k?
So there just aren't that many folks of the type you're talking about on the male side. A few more on the female side but then sub 20 5k for a lady actually sits pretty well.
I think we have a skewed perception on here of what certain 5k times are worth. 21:42 gets you in the top 10% at my local Parkrun where Parkrun as a whole is probably a better standard than the country (UK) as a whole.
So you're asking is it worthwhile training lots to be in the top 10% or so of a local run / race. I can see why folks would think it is. If you're not a young male then that's putting you even further up the chart on an age grading basis.
But back to the actual question... yes, it probably is pretty decent training for them. Until you're doing about 10 hours a week of aerobic work, then you've probably got room for more gains there. At 8:30mm, that gives you roughly 70 mpw. Potentially diminishing returns after that.
What may be of benefit (particularly if they're not improving) is to work on biomechanics. Plenty of folks who have never done track work or drills or any of that jazz, simply don't know how to co-ordinate their limbs to move *fast*.
That's not necessarily even that much to do with mile repeat style speedwork. More strides and fast last 400m building up to a fast last mile of runs just to practice the muscular co-ordination they need. Generally not needed for folks who have come from other sports.
garrettb wrote:
I wish I even understood how to train for a 5k since I have only ever gone under 19 on the back half of a 10k. My stand alone 5k PR is 19:07. This is all mostly irrelevant to this thread but after 3 years of running (not much, I know), I still cannot fathom how to get under 19.
Why not warm up for 5 km before your next 5 km race? Essentially you'd be racing on the back half of a 10 km.
Why tho wrote:
Serious question:
It seems like there a lot of people out there training 60, 70, 80 mile weeks and can't even break 7 minute pace in the 5k. Is there any benefit to running this much mileage if you can't even do any speed? Shouldn't we be telling these people to maybe max out at like 40 miles and hit some actual mile repeats or something?
It seems like a lot of these people are marathon training, but isn't your marathon potential pretty capped if you can't even run under 20 in the 5k?
You can train on mid-40 mile weeks and get down into the 16s & 15s for the 5k, at which point higher mileage might actually be beneficial. Or at least the 17s or 18s.
I get the point of running really slow/easy recovery miles when you can still drop a fast 5k, but what is the point of doing like 80 miles a week and then running a 21 minute 5k?
High milage is needed for success in distance running but this leads mediocre runners believing it to be the only factor of success. The running community is filled with people that have convinced themselves that if they only run more miles, they'll suddenly sky rocket to fast times. These people ignore all other factors like inherent total lung volume, oxygen exchange rate, foot speed, mechanical efficiency, muscle type ect. that are all extremely important and largely determined by genetics. It also gives something for them to brag about, "I may be slow but atleast I can flop about for 80mi per week! I'm totally better than that guy 15min faster than me because I show more dedication".
Yes, it is very likely that these people would see more success by running less milage and focusing on mile repeats and overall speed work. If someone's best mile is barely under 5:20, there is no way in hell they are going to have the ability to run 13 or 26 miles at 6:00mim/mile pace. Their ideal pace is too close to their maximal effort to be sustainable for that long. This is why we see most elite level marathoners with strong 1500m/5000m times; the further away their maximal aerobic effort is from their marathon pace, the easier it will be to maintain said pace. But buddy over here with his 5:20 mile will keep running more junk milage thinking it'll make a difference.
Also, some people do genuinely enjoy running and want to maximize time doing it. In the summer I bike 120km/week for no other reason than I love cycling. But those who run a lot for love often don't brag about milage.
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
Not everyone can run 15 and 16 min 5k's off 40 mpw as you are suggesting. Some people need 80+ mpw for it. Their VO2MAX is very low, and they need the mileage to become incredibly efficient and boost their threshold (both, aerobic and lactate/anaerobic) as high as possible to run fast times.
Running 40 mpw, which is ~5 hours a week for most people, does nothing if that's all they do in a week. Super talents can run 14-15 min 5k's off that, but most require more.
Just correct you. You don.t have to be a super talent to run 14-15 min at 5 k running 40 mpw.
It depends more on how you run your miles. Of course you have to be talented , but not super talented.
I never understood that either.
Quite a lot of people are obsessed with weekly mileage. Most runners should not run 50 miles per week. They are just too slow for that and yet a lot of runners do 60, 80 or even 100 mpw because it sounds good, not because it makes sense.
SalmonRice wrote:
Why tho wrote:
Serious question:
It seems like there a lot of people out there training 60, 70, 80 mile weeks and can't even break 7 minute pace in the 5k. Is there any benefit to running this much mileage if you can't even do any speed? Shouldn't we be telling these people to maybe max out at like 40 miles and hit some actual mile repeats or something?
It seems like a lot of these people are marathon training, but isn't your marathon potential pretty capped if you can't even run under 20 in the 5k?
You can train on mid-40 mile weeks and get down into the 16s & 15s for the 5k, at which point higher mileage might actually be beneficial. Or at least the 17s or 18s.
I get the point of running really slow/easy recovery miles when you can still drop a fast 5k, but what is the point of doing like 80 miles a week and then running a 21 minute 5k?
High milage is needed for success in distance running but this leads mediocre runners believing it to be the only factor of success. The running community is filled with people that have convinced themselves that if they only run more miles, they'll suddenly sky rocket to fast times. These people ignore all other factors like inherent total lung volume, oxygen exchange rate, foot speed, mechanical efficiency, muscle type ect. that are all extremely important and largely determined by genetics. It also gives something for them to brag about, "I may be slow but atleast I can flop about for 80mi per week! I'm totally better than that guy 15min faster than me because I show more dedication".
Yes, it is very likely that these people would see more success by running less milage and focusing on mile repeats and overall speed work. If someone's best mile is barely under 5:20, there is no way in hell they are going to have the ability to run 13 or 26 miles at 6:00mim/mile pace. Their ideal pace is too close to their maximal effort to be sustainable for that long. This is why we see most elite level marathoners with strong 1500m/5000m times; the further away their maximal aerobic effort is from their marathon pace, the easier it will be to maintain said pace. But buddy over here with his 5:20 mile will keep running more junk milage thinking it'll make a difference.
Also, some people do genuinely enjoy running and want to maximize time doing it. In the summer I bike 120km/week for no other reason than I love cycling. But those who run a lot for love often don't brag about milage.
I will give you credit for a very good comment here! :) There is only one thing in what you said that I have experienced is not correct. You wrote, " High mileage is needed for success in distance running... " ...that will never in my life be something that I will agree ))....but of course it also depends on what you refer to high mileage. When I think high mileage it`s about 100 miles + .
I don’t know anyone that even runs 80 mpw. I’m talking about area runners that compete in local races that I have competed against. Most are on strava and it’s rare to see anyone training greater than 60 mpw and that’s just for a short training block.
thoroughrice wrote:
garrettb wrote:
I wish I even understood how to train for a 5k since I have only ever gone under 19 on the back half of a 10k. My stand alone 5k PR is 19:07. This is all mostly irrelevant to this thread but after 3 years of running (not much, I know), I still cannot fathom how to get under 19.
My guess, you need to run more.
Maybe you need a world class coach?
- The Wizard -
I'm a 800m runner so do a lot of speed but can never be bothered to go on runs in the week. This means my average weekly mileage is less than 10 but I can still manage a 17:00 5k. I think speed work is the most important training and the plodders that run miles and miles without improvements are too afraid to push themselves
I know a few guys that run 60mpw and they can't even crack 19. Sure they're older but early 40s should not hinder you too much. I think people just don't train correctly. I'm sure if OPs 80mpw runners actually exist they are most likely running most of their miles too fast and thus can't get quality work in on sessions or just don't adapt because they can't recover. And to the 800 runner you have a point to some degree but if you want to be good at 10k and up the majority of people need to run a fair bit and plod for a lot of it. Even some african elites are running 9min +. One of my friends was one of the top rated masters road runners in the US at one point and he runs his easy runs and cooldowns ridiculously slow. Like 1.5 miles in 20 minutes slow for a cooldown. I can't even imagine seeing myself do that and this is a guy that ran the equivalent of 13:50 at high elevation.
Seriously. I don’t think I’ve ever come across someone running that sort of mileage and those sort of times. OP met one person that claimed to run 80 a week (when only running 20) and ran with it.