Is it physically impossible for many people to successfully run more than 50 mpw?

statmancrothers wrote:

Old and slow wrote:

That's just 7 miles a day. It not all that challenging, even for an old f__c5 like me.

I think the problem comes when people run 5 miles a day, then tack on a 20 miler on a Sunday and wonder why the following day 50 miles a week is tiring.

Regardless, outside of those trying to qualify the Olympic trials, what's with this rabid obsession with 100 mile weeks in the USA? Most people here in the UK and Europe run much much less miles a week and get by with decent 5k times and marathon times. I sometimes think you guys think its easier to shuffle out 15 miles a day and obsess about heart rates than actually think and plan out some decent training plan that actually trains you rather than wear you out.

My long runs rarely exceed 25% of my weekly mileage, and the most I've ever run in a day is 13 miles.

I do agree that there's way too much of an obsession with 100 mile weeks. Mileage shouldn't be the main goal of a training program.

There’s a reasonable argument for it—thats a little more than 7 miles a day, which might take slow people over an hour. But I think almost any healthy young person in the world could slog through an hour a day of jogging if they built up to it.

Not sure if this has been previously mentioned but,

The heart&lungs dont know miles, they know intensity & duration.

An elite runner logging 6:30min/mile easy runs will be logging more miles than a lesser runner like myself logging 9:00min/mile easy runs. But the aerobic stimulus is the same.

Elite: Six - 60min runs @6:30pace = 55miles

Lesser: Six - 60min runs @9:00pace = 40miles

Yes the higher miles creates greater stimulus in other departments...

Getting through your whiny post was way harder than running 50/miles a week. And I didn't start running until I was in my 40's.

bfef wrote:

Two other factors: hydration and warming up.  Apparently if you aren't  well hydrated your muscles lose flexibility, making injury more likely.  If you have a habit of running without drinking much water this could be an issue.  Also I find that as I get older it's more important to be well warmed up, even for running paces that would have been considered slow for me just a few years ago.  And when it's cold outside this is super important.  I rarely do any sort of warming up before runs when I'm solo. 

I'm fairly good with hydration and warmups and doubt that those are the main issues for me. If they were, a disproportionate number of my injuries would occur during the hottest and coldest months of the year, but they tend to be more or less evenly spread out.

The only pattern I've noticed is that more mileage = more injuries. I haven't gotten a single running injury from doing less than 30 mpw. Injuries at 30-37ish mpw do happen but are fairly rare and so far have always been resolved by cutting the mileage in half the following week. It's when you get into the mid and upper 40s that they start becoming much more frequent, serious, and long lasting.

can't tell if this is a troll, but i don't think many on LRC would think 50mpw is "high mileage"

i agree quality > quantity, but it's crazy to me that people think that they can be competitive in distances over 5k on such relatively low mileage... i think most people would have a hard time even coming close to tapping their marathon potential, e.g., on 35-40 mpw

sounds like you're not doing something right, OP. as others have suggested, focus your efforts on workouts and races

On some of my high mileage weeks, a considerable portion of my calories came in liquid form when solid food became unpalatable, but I did get those calories in one way or another.

I saw a doctor twice in the past few years, and everything came back normal. I doubt it's a health issue when everything feels great on a 30 mile week.

Much less than 1/3 healthy men ... wrote:

You have to realize poster, in the real world, outside the (150 to 250) folks who post here, there are healthy men in (175 to 225) pound range. Most healthy men are not (125 to 150) pounds. The vast majority of healthy men whom are about (175 to 225) pounds cannot run 50 plus miles a week.

Speaking from experience as a fairly big runner (6-1, 170 when in top shape) I could never manage more than about 60 miles. Off that I ran 35:40 and 1:23 half. I would start to have plantar issues, knee pain, etc. Also, I wasn't very biomechanically sound.

junk mile apologist wrote:

i agree quality > quantity, but it's crazy to me that people think that they can be competitive in distances over 5k on such relatively low mileage... i think most people would have a hard time even coming close to tapping their marathon potential, e.g., on 35-40 mpw

Fortunately, I don't run marathons and have no intention of ever running one.

The longest distance I race seriously is the 5K. I'll run a 10K on occasion but generally train through those races and don't taper for them.

The Subprime Minister wrote:

A 175 lb man is not healthy.

LOL. Ever heard of different heights?

I weigh 175 and I only run 35 mpw, but I can still run sub20 for 5k at 45 years of age. Am I unhealthy?

Much less than 1/3 healthy men ... wrote:

You have to realize poster, in the real world, outside the (150 to 250) folks who post here, there are healthy men in (175 to 225) pound range. Most healthy men are not (125 to 150) pounds. The vast majority of healthy men whom are about (175 to 225) pounds cannot run 50 plus miles a week.

Chris McCormack won Hawaiian Ironman at his racing weight of 175, untrained weight is 185.

He's running well over 50mpw plus biking/swimming.

Build up your mileage slowly, don't loose too much weight, which McCormack said set him back and resulted in injuries.

If you can run 8 mins/mile that's less than 1 hr per day of running. Or, try one day off and about 70 mins running 6 days a week, or increase your weekend long run and the daily runs are even shorter.

+1 to all of the above posts.

I can't handle 50 mpw either, and I'm willing to bet a good amount of money that I can outrun any of the posters who claim that 50 mpw is easy since they're middle aged/elderly and have run that amount with no issues.

I did a 4x600 session yesterday and averaged 1:33. How many of those "I'm in my 40s/50s/60s and 50 mpw is nothing" guys can even do one 600 at that pace?

People have different talents. Some people have good speed, others have good durability. The ones who have both end up becoming elites if they're dedicated.

high mileage isn't what it's cracked up to be wrote:

lexel wrote:

Don't run 7 day/week.

I've experimented with different running frequencies and do agree that running every day is a bad idea. I've generally found the following to work for me:

6 runs/week

"Odd weeks" : 6 runs over 6 days, 1 day off

"Even weeks": 6 runs over 5 days. 1 day of doubles, 2 days off

Nice idea 6 runs over 5 days, I will try that in summer, can imagine that that could be a small booster for the body.

To all other posters who struggle with more than 40mpw: It is your unhealthy running form, possibly muscle unbalanced etc., that prevents you from running more.

Or do you think you are born with a weak body?

Slow Bro wrote:

The Subprime Minister wrote:

A 175 lb man is not healthy.

LOL. Ever heard of different heights?

I weigh 175 and I only run 35 mpw, but I can still run sub20 for 5k at 45 years of age. Am I unhealthy?

Yeah, F this statement. Haters don’t have to believe it, but there are plenty of fast, larger runners out there. I’m 6’, 175, and I regularly run 100 miles per week. Last year I ran a 1:12 half off a month at 110+. I didn’t get injured either. Not saying I could ever be world class but hey, it’s good enough for me.

life is not fair wrote:

The selection bias here is amazing.

Very few people can run 50 mpw and stay healthy. Your body has to be fairly symmetrical, with good biomechanics, and slight of build. Only a small amount of high school runners can run this much. At the college level the field has already been narrowed to mostly people that can run this much or more.

It is human nature to imagine things that are easy for you are easy for everyone. That doesn’t make it so.

No. "Selection bias" is an excuse to those who do not want to show up everyday for a couple decades. The people who think you need some sort of great genetic makeup to achieve mediocre results or do mediocre training are simply those that are biased towards quitting.

To the point about a small % of HS runners are able to run 50mpw-- not my experience. A small % of HS runners want to see improvement/put in the time.

How many consecutive years of 20mpw did you run before trying 30mpw? How many years of 30mpw did you run before 40? etc. Show up everyday for 20 years, prioritize recovery and sleep, and then get back to us.

I have repeated this in another similar thread plagued by complainers who want to see immediate results as well. But I am the portrait of the poor natural athlete and somehow who is not super responsive to training. Joined XC in HS because I got cut from soccer, couldn't run our first race without stopping, didn't break 20 in the 5k until I was a junior or 5 in the 1600 until senior outdoor, graduated HS at 6'4" 150 w/ wide bony hips and narrow shoulders, took me years to bench a plate, etc. But I kept running at a small liberal arts college (at first on the club team, and then in my first varsity race our top women's 6k pace was better than my 8k pace). Then I kept running after college while prioritizing olympic lifting. And now at 6'5" and around 225, with 20 years of running under my belt, I am faster than I was in high school.

Nothing about my training or life circumstances are exceptional. Was I ever winning races or able to run super fast times? No way. But just like anyone else, I was able to show up everyday and hope to see improvements year to year. Now if you're 60, obviously biology is going to get in the way. But if you're 20 and reasonably in shape, there is no reason why you can't look back at 30 a better athlete if you simply put in the time and avoid bad injuries.

OP, it sounds like you could be underfueling, especially since you mentioned loss of appetite. You need to eat enough to support your training load, full stop. If you don't feel hungry, suck it up.

stan the corgi wrote:

To the OP, in all sincerity, you may just want to swim for your aerobic exercise.

I've tried swimming and cycling for cross training. They were helpful for avoiding injuries, but the chronic fatigue problem remained. It's like I can't average more than an hour of continuous aerobic work before breaking down.

Mr. Slowpoke wrote:

No. "Selection bias" is an excuse to those who do not want to show up everyday for a couple decades.

Show up everyday for 20 years, prioritize recovery and sleep, and then get back to us.

Joined XC in HS because I got cut from soccer, couldn't run our first race without stopping, didn't break 20 in the 5k until I was a junior or 5 in the 1600 until senior outdoor

with 20 years of running under my belt, I am faster than I was in high school.

What is your current 1600 time and PR? I doubt it's much faster than the 4:xx 1600 you did in high school unless you were seriously slacking back then.

Diminishing returns is a thing. You don't need anywhere near 20 years or "a couple decades" to reach your potential. Most of the gains happen in the first 2-3 years, and virtually all of it happens in the first 5-6 years. If you aren't very close to achieving your desired goal (whether it's a xx:xx 5K or yy mpw) within 6 years, it's unlikely that you'll ever be able to get there, even after 20 years.

Easy 7 mile run is a recovery run for well trained guy