| |
| 26 Apr 2008 05:07:11 |
| what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting in? |
I would have guessed that many of the posters here are much more serious runners than I am and so correspondingly would be putting in quite a few miles. Last year was the first year in a long time that I even ran in any races. With my family growing up the weekends have been extremely busy with other events for my daughters ( volleyball, basketball, track, ... ( t-ball ) ). I have been running a long time also probably like the majority of posters here. Even though I wasn't racing I never went below a base mileage of 45+ miles a week. I have been doing that much for at least 25+ years been lucky I guess never experienced any major injuries etc. Over the last 2 1/2 years I have been building back up and now routinely log somewhere about 60/65+ odd miles a week. Racing times have been dropping but still a long way off from what I used to be able to do 10 years ago. ( Yeah I need some serious track based sessions ). So anyway back to the original question. What kind of mileage are people putting in? I am not aiming for any longer races or marathons ( well maybe a 1/2 in the fall ). I never had a lot of luck pushing up the mileage to 80/90+ a week to get properly ready for a marathon without feeling like I was way too close to the edge of getting hurt. So it's been a long time and though I do have 2 marathons under 3 hours I don't see myself doing another one. To me anyhow, you are going to be suffering at mile 18/20 when pushing yourself. Why bother going thru all that suffering if your preparation and training haven't put yourself in a place to come close to a ( varies by perspective I guess ) what might be a reasonable effort? As a side rant, while I realize that the bigger races and marathons have turned into mass crowd participation-athons ... this just doesn't appeal to me at all. In the old days, you did a serious build up in mileage and made sure you were putting in 3 or 4 times as many miles in a week as you were planning on racing. Am I so way off these days? I really don't think that the miles I run a week is anything unusual. I am blessed by being just across the street from a major metro park system with real dirt trails that run in both directions for much farther than I am going any given day. |
| 26 Apr 2008 15:42:28 |
| T.B.R.. |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting in? |
johnbhurley@sbcglobal.net wrote in news:ea21ac94-0fb8-4a93-a7dd- 1a0463914ab9@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > > > So anyway back to the original question. What kind of mileage are > people putting in? 60 weekly ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com** |
| 27 Apr 2008 00:47:51 |
| steve common |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting in? |
johnbhurley@sbcglobal.net wrote: >So anyway back to the original question. What kind of mileage are >people putting in? 8mpw. I do sub-3 marathons when I'm in the mood. |
| 26 Apr 2008 21:12:27 |
| Doug Freese |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting in? |
"steve common" <steven.common@wanadoo.fr > wrote in message news:rub714l23heeih1eacterj6h8jhi93k16n@4ax.com... > johnbhurley@sbcglobal.net wrote: > >>So anyway back to the original question. What kind of mileage are >>people putting in? > > 8mpw. I do sub-3 marathons when I'm in the mood. I thought you were cranking out 2:40's. -D |
| 28 Apr 2008 01:22:54 |
| steve common |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting in? |
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote: >I thought you were cranking out 2:40's. Oh if I were 15 kilos lighter, no problemo. As it is, even finishing a marathon would be a big deal: a half-M would be a major milestone already. |
| 27 Apr 2008 17:26:18 |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting |
On Apr 26, 6:47=A0pm, steve common <steven.com...@wanadoo.fr > wrote: > johnbhur...@sbcglobal.net wrote: > >So anyway back to the original question. =A0What kind of mileage are > >people putting in? > > 8mpw. I do sub-3 marathons when I'm in the mood. 8 miles a week and you can run a marathon under 3 hours? I never felt semi adequately prepared unless I was pushing past 75 miles a week. Probably missing something here or some story ... |
| 27 Apr 2008 22:35:07 |
| MANchelle |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting in? |
johnbhurley@sbcglobal.net wrote in news:1891e8fe-547c-43ad-af8a- e7f893b36fc8@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > > 8 miles a week and you can run a marathon under 3 hours? I never felt > semi adequately prepared unless I was pushing past 75 miles a week. > > Probably missing something here or some story ... > He's a troll. Ignore him. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com** |
| 28 Apr 2008 14:52:36 |
| Elflord |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting in? |
On 2008-04-26, johnbhurley@sbcglobal.net <johnbhurley@sbcglobal.net > wrote: > I would have guessed that many of the posters here are much more > serious runners than I am and so correspondingly would be putting in > quite a few miles. Was putting in 60-80mpw in 2004-2006. You're probably at the age where beating your old times is going to be a very tall order, even with a very rigorous training program. Take a look at the WAVA tables and see how fast you need to run to get a WAVA score commensurate with that accompanying your PRs (at the age at which you ran those) e.g. http://www.panix.com/~elflord/wava2.html As far as marathons are concerned, if you prefer shorter distances, by all means do those (even if it seems that everyone wants to run marathons these days). I never ran a marathon while in peak shape and as a result my mile-10k times (4:40/16:53/34:33) are quite a bit better than my marathon time (2:51). No regrets, it's what I wanted to do. Cheers, -- Elflord |
| 28 Apr 2008 09:57:17 |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting |
On Apr 28, 10:52=A0am, Elflord <ab...@aol.com > wrote: snip > > Was putting in 60-80mpw in 2004-2006. > > You're probably at the age where beating your old times is going to be a v= ery > tall order, even with a very rigorous training program. Take a look at the= > WAVA tables and see how fast you need to run to get a WAVA score commensur= ate > with that accompanying your PRs (at the age at which you ran those) e.g.ht= tp://www.panix.com/~elflord/wava2.html No thoughts about beating my old times. 10+ years ago I was down in the 18 flat range for a 5k. Just trying now to get back under 20 this year and perhaps down into low 19's eventually. But you know, there are some old guys still turning in some pretty amazing 5k times! > As far as marathons are concerned, if you prefer shorter distances, by all= > means do those (even if it seems that everyone wants to run marathons thes= e > days). I never ran a marathon while in peak shape and as a result my mile-= 10k > times (4:40/16:53/34:33) are quite a bit better than my marathon time (2:5= 1). > No regrets, it's what I wanted to do. Thanks for your response. |
| 28 Apr 2008 10:49:14 |
| rick++ |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting |
In my "marathon decades" (80s and 90s) I did 60 mpw, soemtimes more. More like 35 now. |
| 28 Apr 2008 10:50:22 |
| rick++ |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting |
In my "marathon decades" (80s and 90s) I did 60 mpw, soemtimes more. More like 35 now. |
| 28 Apr 2008 12:43:33 |
| Teresa Bippert-Plymate |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting |
johnbhurley@sbcglobal.net wrote: > So anyway back to the original question. What kind of mileage are > people putting in? > Most weeks, in the 30's. During marathon buildups, up to 55. I'd actually like to do more, just haven't found the time to. Teresa in AZ |
| 28 Apr 2008 20:53:35 |
| D Stumpus |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting in? |
> I have been running a long time also probably like the majority of > posters here. Even though I wasn't racing I never went below a base > mileage of 45+ miles a week. I have been doing that much for at least > 25+ years been lucky I guess never experienced any major injuries etc. I started with 45 mpw, then upped it to 95 mpw after 3.5 years at age 32. Then back down to 70 or so after I retired from racing. Over the last 25 years, I've averaged about 60-65 mpw. Lately, when healthy, I get up to 70 or so at age 56. Best 5k at this age is 19:15. (16:05 on a hilly course when younger). I've gotten injured when training for race goals. Usually one major injury or illness a year (major meaning over 1 month to clear up). > Over the last 2 1/2 years I have been building back up and now > routinely log somewhere about 60/65+ odd miles a week. Racing times > have been dropping but still a long way off from what I used to be > able to do 10 years ago. ( Yeah I need some serious track based > sessions ). Most serious racers I know don't lose much until after age 42-43 or so. After that, it's just age-related performance decline; that's why there's age groups. > I am not aiming for any longer races or marathons ( well maybe a 1/2 > in the fall ). I never had a lot of luck pushing up the mileage to > 80/90+ a week to get properly ready for a marathon without feeling > like I was way too close to the edge of getting hurt. So it's been a > long time and though I do have 2 marathons under 3 hours I don't see > myself doing another one. I've got about 25 marathons, all but 5 under 3 hours. > To me anyhow, you are going to be suffering at mile 18/20 when pushing > yourself. Why bother going thru all that suffering if your > preparation and training haven't put yourself in a place to come close > to a ( varies by perspective I guess ) what might be a reasonable > effort? My feelings exactly. Marathons run hard are pretty destructive, no point in doing one unless you're willing to put in the best preparation. |
| 29 Apr 2008 18:39:54 |
| steve common |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting in? |
johnbhurley@sbcglobal.net wrote: >Probably missing something here or some story ... Sorry, I was being a little facetious cos I am not running regularly at the moment. My training volume to go sub-3 was an average 80km/50 miles per week. I've only done 75 miles training a handful of times, mostly when training for ultras. Peak performance to date was in 2002, at 43yo, with a 0:2:59 1000m, 0:36:30 10k, 1:21:xx HM, 2:55:00 marathon. I think I could still beat that marathon PB if I got my finger out. |
| 30 Apr 2008 13:01:30 |
| Anthony |
| Re: what kind of mileage base are most rec running posters putting in? |
"steve common" <steven.common@wanadoo.fr > wrote in message news:4dje14p45q4vd7r1a2edel2ace8jlspc76@4ax.com... > johnbhurley@sbcglobal.net wrote: > >>Probably missing something here or some story ... > > Sorry, I was being a little facetious cos I am not running regularly at > the moment. My training volume to go sub-3 was an average 80km/50 miles > per week. I've only done 75 miles training a handful of times, mostly when > training for ultras. > > Peak performance to date was in 2002, at 43yo, with a 0:2:59 1000m, > 0:36:30 10k, 1:21:xx HM, 2:55:00 marathon. I think I could still beat that > marathon PB if I got my finger out. I've got similar mileage volume (and PB's...) to Steve. Before my best marathon I averaged a little bit more though 55-60 miles (85-95km) with maximum weeks around 100km. PB's were 36:40 for 10k and 2:56 marathon at age 43 (2005). And yeah - I reckon I *could* still improve.... ;-) Anthony. |