High mileage runners with decent speed who really suck

High mileage is better than low mileage, that's why.

I run high mileage--80-100 mpw, about 12 weeks so far this year at 100 or more, but have only run 34:19 10k this year. however, a) I am old-39, coming back from a 15 year injury layoff, b) I have broken almost all of my pre-injury college pr's because of the high mileage, dropping almost 7 minutes in the 10k since bumping the mileage from 40 to 100, and c) I lost most of my very limited speed during the layoff and have run only a 62 400m this year.

high mileage gets a bad rap from a lot of people, including lots of coaches, yet it almost always brings major improvements. sure, you have to be careful about pushing it and getting injured, but it's easy to follow the simple rules of avoiding hard surfaces, taking easy days, and not bumping up intensity and mileage dramatically at the same time.

There are thousands of people on college teams (that 18-35 group holds these) that run 85+, can run much better than 55, and still run well over 30 for a 10k, many over 32...33...34. Someone who can run 55 for a 400 and 85 miles a week does not turn into a sub 30 10k runner instantly or ever.

i'm 20, with a HS pr of 55 flat in the 400. this summer i averaged 90 mpw with a high of 111. if i ran 30:30 i'd be very happy, for i'd have doubled my 5k pr in a single race.

I am a strong advocate of high-mileage, but I might fit what you're looking for. I ran consistently over 140/wk (really..) but my 10k PR was 32 flat, and I ran 2:27 for the marathon. On the other hand, I never in my life sniffed at a 55. I think I might have run 58 - maybe. So, though I'm not exactly an example of what you're looking for, I'm close. I wonder now, thinking about it - was what was standing in my way of the OT qualifier I dreamed of: just 3 seconds over 400 meters?! I'm definitely interested in hearing other responses. Please be honest (I know I'm at letsrun, but a boy can dream, afterall...).

jonesy. wrote:

I run high mileage--80-100 mpw,

That's not high mileage.

save time, take epo.

many wrote:

There are thousands of people on college teams (that 18-35 group holds these) that run 85+, can run much better than 55, and still run well over 30 for a 10k, many over 32...33...34.

Those guys are in the wrong event - they should be sprinters or 800/1500 runners, not 10K runners.

Make Usain Bolt run 85+ miles a week, and he still won't break 30 in the 10K or even come reasonably close to it. But I'm pretty sure that he'll be well under 55 for the 400.

I would guess there are very, very few people who can crack 31 running under 50 miles per week unless they are doing a LOT of quality.

All else being equal the high mileage guy wins everytime.

Oh, and I don't think your quarter time is going to have a huge impact on your 10k time as long as you get close to 60.

BTW, I had a 51. quarter time in college and I would've made an awful sprinter. I led off a few 4x400 relays and did everything I could just to sort of keep it close for the real sprinters to take over and start racing.

There are two types of speed.

a)Finesse speed. This type of runner is a fast sprinter because they have good neuromuscular coordination, good muscle and tendon elasticity and an excellent, balanced running form. Sometimes with this type of runner you think they are not trying hard because they look so good running at full speed. Examples: Seb Coe, Wariner, Kipketer

b)Power speed. This type of runner is a fast sprinter because they have a muscular thighs and upper body which they use to power themselves down the track. These runners are often much heavier. Examples: Tyson Gay, Michael Johnson

So it all depends. Speed is very, very important, but it is not absolute. If take someone who looks like an NFL linebacker and powers out 11/24/55 for 100/200/400, of course will not break 30 minutes for 10k, even with high mileage.

If you get a skinny little 5"5'guy who has no upper body muscle and flows his way to 13/26/55, then he has a good chance that he could be a solid distance runner if he works at it.

Look at it this way. You are a 50/3:30/12:45 guy for 400/1500/5000. You want to work on your 400 speed for a year as you feel it is one of your weaknesses. You can go about this two ways-increase your power output or train your body to better use the power it already has. If you try the former, you will be in the gym, taking protien and bulking up, and this will not help your 1500 and certainly not your 5000.

But if you go about it from the other direction-with drills, hills, increasing muscle and tendon elasticity and improving your running form, you will not only avoid bulking up but your 1500 and 5000 will possibly IMPROVE because you become more effecient and cover the track more easily with the same power output.

All run approx within a second of 20 seconds/200m

Coe:

http://sdc.lboro.ac.uk/smallest_images/seb_coe.gif

Wariner:http://karlesmontalt.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/jeremy-wariner.jpg

vs

Tyson:http://www.iaaf.org/mm/photo/competitions/competition/gay_tysonmtsac_2210_full-prt.jpg

Johnson:

http://www.ontrack4gold.com/gallery/STAR-JOHNSON_Michael_19960801_5.jpg

It depends, of course, on how we define "high mileage". Frank Shorter once noted that he didnt see any improvement when he went from 60 to 100 MPW but he saw a huge improvement when he went up to 130 MPW from 100. There might be a large dead zone wherein nothing happens such as the 60-100 MPW which Shorter talks about.

I am very suspect of the dead zone idea but I don't know enough about shorters exact training situation to make any educated comments. But I know enough people that went from 50-60 in high school to 70-90 in college and saw good improvements to question the theory.

GRUMPY wrote:

It depends, of course, on how we define "high mileage". Frank Shorter once noted that he didnt see any improvement when he went from 60 to 100 MPW but he saw a huge improvement when he went up to 130 MPW from 100. There might be a large dead zone wherein nothing happens such as the 60-100 MPW which Shorter talks about.

One word...TALENT. I run about 80 miles a week (which, has been mentioned is NOT high mileage). If Geb or Bekele only ran 20 miles a week, they'd still kill me in any and every race distance. Why? They have world class talent, and I don't.

There are two things that come to mind when a high-mileage runner "underperforms":

1. Are they getting enough iron in their diet

2. Are they murdering the hard workouts and/or not running the easy days easy enough (not putting enough emphasis on recovering, diet, sleep, down time). If so, they are likely a bit fatigued on race day/overtrained.

Blah wrote:

I am very suspect of the dead zone idea but I don't know enough about shorters exact training situation to make any educated comments. But I know enough people that went from 50-60 in high school to 70-90 in college and saw good improvements to question the theory.

GRUMPY wrote:

It depends, of course, on how we define "high mileage". Frank Shorter once noted that he didnt see any improvement when he went from 60 to 100 MPW but he saw a huge improvement when he went up to 130 MPW from 100. There might be a large dead zone wherein nothing happens such as the 60-100 MPW which Shorter talks about.

I went from 30-40 in HS to 90's in college.

and I grew 4 inches!