Does anyone else get irritated when you are beaten by someone running very low mileage?

you running lots of mileage but on turtle pace thats why u get beat

Maybe take up golf? You might be amazingly good at it? And there's lots of science behind hitting the ball just right.

Or tennis. Or maybe swimming? Or rock climbing? I don't know. Anything. You don't know until you try.

Just because you're running a lot doesn't mean you're "better" that's not how it works.

It's literally your lack of understanding that running is governed BY hard science which is why you're losing.

Just be grateful that this "low mileage runner" isn't doing higher mileage, and thus, beating your a** by a hell of a lot more.

All the high boys who lost to Cade Flatt can relate.

I mean, if they were high to begin with, perhaps they only had themselves to blame?

There's a Master guy in the town that rarely trains and races, but when he does he takes it to most everyone. Every time I see him I am reminded of that phrase that talent doesn't go away. Dude put in so much work when he was younger, he barely needs to do anything to still run fast.

I don’t….more then one way to skin a cat.

Mileage total is only one variable in play. You can run 120 miles/week and suck at distance running, and you can run 30-60 miles/week and do surprisingly well locally and regionally, sometimes nationally.

The reason is that training pace matters as well, as does the work/rest/recovery pattern. Putting in 5-7 mile/day at 4:50-5:50 pace is going to get you past a lot of runners, speed work not required -- at least up to the national level.

The best 5000m runners in the world can also run 100m 10.5 - 11s given a running start. Even at the national level you need <50 < 1:50 800m and <3:56 mile speed to be competitive, or to even hope to make a 5000 or 10000m team.

Look at worlds: fastest 5000m runner in the field won the 10000m, fastest 1500 runner in the field won the 5000m, fastest 800m runner in the field won the 1500m, and fastest 400m runner in the field won the 800m.

A stupid question like that requires ZERO replies.

I get irritated by someone who beats me but ran in hs/college and grew up as a runner. Especially if they are arrogant/ not humble about it

Either

1 work smarter not harder

2 get some talent.

Good luck with #2

First of all, yes, of course it is irritating. Every guy in this thread is too cool to deny it, but it is.

That being said, running is a pure genetics pissing contest. There is zero skill in the sport, it's just about pushing your body to perform at the highest level. And you can only compete with yourself.

Watch your sleep. That's where the real gains come from.

I used to but then a coach told me everyone is different and I realized he was right. It's more fulfilling to compete against yourself as you get older.

I didn't run from age 18 to 33, not really at all (other than a 3-month period at 24 when I trained for and ran 18:33 for a 5k). I have no idea how I could have done. The good news is as I get older, I still have some time to run and enjoy the sport. Even once I'm done with running I'll still stay active by biking (if I can afford a bike at that point).

My goals right now are finding a job and getting back into shape to truly enjoy the sport.

Technically, yes. But truthfully it’s relative based on each athlete's potential. If you have the capacity to be a 14:00 guy, for example, then you should be shaving time off under the right training plan.

I tend to subscribe to the belief that relatively high mileage is necessary to progress as a distance runner and to ultimately maximize your potential (the ultimate goal), but doing so much volume where your ability to generate quality workouts suffers is a bad idea.

Finding the quality vs. quantity balance is necessary if you want to be good at this sport.

Running undoubtedly has serious genetic ties like every other sport. Nobody can argue that. But to say that it’s all talent is entirely incorrect. Running is an incredibly adaptive sport and process that takes a decade or more if you want to reach your potential.

i remember a 100m race a bunch of pro 800m (sub 1:46 ) guys did a long time ago and i remember them not breaking 11, or barely breaking 11. that makes me question how accurate of a statement it is to say a 5k guy can split a 10.5 100m w/ a running start lol. sure, maybe one can, somewhere.

No, because I have never at any point in my life displayed any talent for running. If i need to run high mileage to hang, then that’s what I’ll do.