1234

long run mileage jump (Read 2008 times)

    If you were worried about "doing too much", why not ride a bike to near the preserve and then run around the preserve/trail?  When Sydney Maree came to the US from South Africa for the first time, he wasn't used to running on the road and that beat up his legs too much.  So he would ride a bike to a near-by golf course, about 6-mile away, and run around the golf course till his legs got stronger.

     

    That said, I wonder....since when has it become a normal thinking that a healthy 23-year-old who's been running up to 15-miles would have to ask on internet message board and get some opinion from complete strangers whether or not running 20-miles is too much or not?  By the time I was 19, I was running up and down 18~22-miles every weekend and not think anything of it. 

     

    Also, hate to say this but, for a healthy young man to be running 60~70 miles a week with a 15-mile long run, 21-minute 5k seems rather modest.  Unless you don't care about "performance" at all, perhaps you might want to rethink your overall training program???

     

    In fairness, at his age, most of us were struggling to shake off the bourbon and the anonymous girl from the night before, with no room for 20 milers. I agree his paces seem a little modest for that mileage, but quite a few of few of his miles are him walking (to work?). Would it be better for him to keep the distance, but pick up the pace for a few miles in the middle? Is it more useful to slog through a 20 miler or run 15 with 4 at HM pace?
    xor


      In fairness, at his age, most of us were struggling to shake off the bourbon and the anonymous girl from the night before,

       

      You're a peach!

       

      Zortrium


        In fairness, at his age, most of us were struggling to shake off the bourbon and the anonymous girl from the night before, with no room for 20 milers. I agree his paces seem a little modest for that mileage, but quite a few of few of his miles are him walking (to work?). Would it be better for him to keep the distance, but pick up the pace for a few miles in the middle? Is it more useful to slog through a 20 miler or run 15 with 4 at HM pace?

         My mileage is somewhat deceiving because it's been on a constant upward trend for awhile (ignoring any walking).  My first ever 70 mile week was this month, my first ever 60 mile week was last month, my first ever 50 mile week was two months before that.  Also, I wouldn't describe my LRs as slogs -- last week was pretty much what you mentioned, 15.5 with the last 3 at HM pace.

         

        Clearly I've been focusing on volume over speed; my personal experience with low volume/high intensity for a few months last year left me injured and not much faster, while my average training pace has dropped close to 40 seconds in the past 6 months doing not much but putting in the miles.  If people think I've swung too far in the other direction, I'm all ears, but judging by improvement (rather than absolute pace, which I readily admit is unimpressive for a 23 y/o male), things seem to be working.

        redhead


          Uninjured + increased volume = 2 thumbs up!!

          I'm impressed :-)  Carry on....

            In fairness, at his age, most of us were struggling to shake off the bourbon and the anonymous girl from the night before, with no room for 20 milers. I agree his paces seem a little modest for that mileage, but quite a few of few of his miles are him walking (to work?). Would it be better for him to keep the distance, but pick up the pace for a few miles in the middle? Is it more useful to slog through a 20 miler or run 15 with 4 at HM pace?

             

            Actually, I don't think they are. The walking is logged as the activity "walking" so it doesn't appear to count towards weekly totals.

             

            Sounds like we kinda have a similar situation Zoratrium, I started really picking up again late this spring, and have worked my way up towards around 60 miles a week. I know in the past I have done LR's of 14-18 and been fine (though the 18 was a little bit tiring by the end) when I did my other previous streak of training and was running about 45 mpw average. 

             

            I don't think 20 mile long runs are out of reach for someone running 70 or so miles a week, but whether or not you need them could be up for the debate. I'm not sure what your training for, but especially if your focusing on shorter stuff you might be better spent with a more modest LR of like 13-17 and then perhaps having a little more tempo stuff. Then again, different people respond to different things. 

             

            In short, yea you won't have any problem with a 20 mile LR with your base, assuming you have a reasonable pace. 

            They say golf is like life, but don't believe them. Golf is more complicated than that. "If I am still standing at the end of the race, hit me with a Board and knock me down, because that means I didn't run hard enough" If a lot of people gripped a knife and fork the way they do a golf club, they'd starve to death. "Don't fear moving slowly forward...fear standing still."

            Zortrium


              Target race at the moment is a half in October, so yeah, I don't think there's any kind of training necessity for me to do 20 milers at this point.  In this case it's more for the sightseeing than the training effect, and I imagine my motivation to do that kind of LR will decrease significantly when I get back home (do I run 12 miles through three farms?  or 15 miles through five farms?).

                Nobby - I think this is a little bit unfair. Not everyone has the same ability, or starts from the same point. I don't know anything about the OP - so your points may be justified, but equally they may not be.

                Purdey:

                 

                I guess I'd have to admit that I have double or triple or more standards.  It's like, what we say in Japanese, you need to either use "candy or whip" when you coach or teach or "educate" in general.  This is probably where things like "experiment of one" really comes to play, probably more so than what kind of training you should do--but how you deliver it.

                 

                OP might have a completely different view point in life and that's perfectly fine.  I've said this here before but I'm definitely one of those people who would get teary eyes watching an old lady completing a marathon in 6 hours.  That's an accomplishment and should be praised.  But we are not talking about a 70-year-old lady here.  We are talking about a 23-year-old who is running 70 miles a week with a 15-miler comfortably.  Call me old-fashioned or whatever (or just plain "old"! ;o)) but what really bugs me is some young runners, for whatever the reason, being satisfied with some mediocre accomplishment and not even attempting to reach out for the star with some excuses like "I don't have talent" or "I'm slow" or "I get injured if I run XXX miles" or "I get injured if I run on solf surface" or "I get injured if I run in shoes" or "I get injured if I run barefoot" or whatever.  How many times you've read some teenager asking such question here like "If I run more than 2 miles, my legs get sore...  Should I keep on running?"  Maybe not 2 miles; maybe it's 5 miles...  But, seriously, come on!!!  I'm being unfair or being too harsh because a 23-year-old kid who can run 10-miles a day can't put three consecutive 7-minute-miles and I called a spade a spade?  I'm sorry, I wouldn't give clapping and teary eyes from me for that.  I'm actually surprised I got that from you.  I thought you're a bit more hardy than that.

                Zortrium


                  what really bugs me is some young runners, for whatever the reason, being satisfied with some mediocre accomplishment and not even attempting to reach out for the star with some excuses like "I don't have talent" or "I'm slow" or "I get injured if I run XXX miles" or "I get injured if I run on solf surface" or "I get injured if I run in shoes" or "I get injured if I run barefoot" or whatever.  How many times you've read some teenager asking such question here like "If I run more than 2 miles, my legs get sore...  Should I keep on running?"  Maybe not 2 miles; maybe it's 5 miles...  But, seriously, come on!!!  I'm being unfair or being too harsh because a 23-year-old kid who can run 10-miles a day can't put three consecutive 7-minute-miles and I called a spade a spade?  I'm sorry, I wouldn't give clapping and teary eyes from me for that.  I'm actually surprised I got that from you.  I thought you're a bit more hardy than that.

                   I still don't get what your point is.  If you just think it's a question with an obvious answer, fine -- a one line answer (like mikeymike's original reply) can convey as much.  But I don't see what that has to do with disparaging my lack of speed, apparently on the basis of nothing other than my age.  You say that a 70 year old lady completing a marathon in 6 hours earns your respect.  Presumably that's because she's 70, and thus can't be expected to be running sub 3's in the first place.  Well, let's hypothetically suppose that I'm just so genetically or physically disadvantaged for whatever reason that a 21 minute 5k is the best I can do at the ripe young age of 23.  What's the difference?  One runner is old, and therefore slow, while the other is young, but still slow by nature for some other reason.

                   

                  Now, if that's not what you're saying (and I imagine it's not), then I'm still waiting for you to tell me what I'm doing wrong.  Hopefully it's not that you don't think I'm working hard enough, because I'm not running 70 miles a week because I have nothing else to do with my time.  I didn't go fishing for accolades and at no point implied that I was 'satisfied' with my current mediocre accomplishments -- that would be a pretty poor reason to spend 10 hours a week running.  And I don't see what your mention of excuses has to do with anything, unless you're claiming that I'm using inexperience as an excuse.  In which case, I ask again -- what do you recommend?  Because so far, the answer seems to be 'just stop being slow'.

                   

                  I'm working on it, and that's all anyone can ever do, regardless of whether they're a 70 year old lady running a 6 hour marathon or a 23 year old running a 21 minute 5k.

                    I'm working on it, and that's all anyone can ever do, regardless of whether they're a 70 year old lady running a 6 hour marathon or a 23 year old running a 21 minute 5k.

                     

                    I wish I was this smart when I was 23. 

                     

                      Purdey:

                       

                      I guess I'd have to admit that I have double or triple or more standards.  It's like, what we say in Japanese, you need to either use "candy or whip" when you coach or teach or "educate" in general.  This is probably where things like "experiment of one" really comes to play, probably more so than what kind of training you should do--but how you deliver it.

                       

                      OP might have a completely different view point in life and that's perfectly fine.  I've said this here before but I'm definitely one of those people who would get teary eyes watching an old lady completing a marathon in 6 hours.  That's an accomplishment and should be praised.  But we are not talking about a 70-year-old lady here.  We are talking about a 23-year-old who is running 70 miles a week with a 15-miler comfortably.  Call me old-fashioned or whatever (or just plain "old"! ;o)) but what really bugs me is some young runners, for whatever the reason, being satisfied with some mediocre accomplishment and not even attempting to reach out for the star with some excuses like "I don't have talent" or "I'm slow" or "I get injured if I run XXX miles" or "I get injured if I run on solf surface" or "I get injured if I run in shoes" or "I get injured if I run barefoot" or whatever.  How many times you've read some teenager asking such question here like "If I run more than 2 miles, my legs get sore...  Should I keep on running?"  Maybe not 2 miles; maybe it's 5 miles...  But, seriously, come on!!!  I'm being unfair or being too harsh because a 23-year-old kid who can run 10-miles a day can't put three consecutive 7-minute-miles and I called a spade a spade?  I'm sorry, I wouldn't give clapping and teary eyes from me for that.  I'm actually surprised I got that from you.  I thought you're a bit more hardy than that.

                       

                      You know what? You are right. I was feeling all soft and cuddly yesterday. I guess I would be pretty disappointed if I were putting in consistent 70 mile weeks and couldn't break 20 for a 5k. I'm going to take myself away for a good HTFU session.


                      MTA: I guess my point was that the OP is a self confessed "Ex fat kid and couch potato" - it is amazing that he is putting all of this work in to improve - and I think that some big improvements will come - but he started from a low standard.

                         My mileage is somewhat deceiving because it's been on a constant upward trend for awhile (ignoring any walking).  My first ever 70 mile week was this month, my first ever 60 mile week was last month, my first ever 50 mile week was two months before that.  Also, I wouldn't describe my LRs as slogs -- last week was pretty much what you mentioned, 15.5 with the last 3 at HM pace.

                         

                        Clearly I've been focusing on volume over speed; my personal experience with low volume/high intensity for a few months last year left me injured and not much faster, while my average training pace has dropped close to 40 seconds in the past 6 months doing not much but putting in the miles.  If people think I've swung too far in the other direction, I'm all ears, but judging by improvement (rather than absolute pace, which I readily admit is unimpressive for a 23 y/o male), things seem to be working.

                         

                        I didn't mean to call your LR's slogs, my point rather was to ask whether it was better to increase the miles or the pace of your LR. Do we get the same or better training effect by burning through the glycogen with some middle of the run up tempo running and then finishing with some additional miles?

                          You're a peach!

                           

                          Yes, gold chains and Courvoisier for all my friends....

                            Sean, I guess I'll try to explain Nobby's post.  

                             

                            Last year while I was training for my first marathon I was thinking that I run too fast in training, and Nobby pointed out that I should be better than the 24 min 5K that I have been stuck at for quite a while, and advised me to pick it up  a couple of times a week, nothing really strenuous, a few strides at the end of a few runs(getting up on your toes), a tempo run (out and back) etc.  I was able to get the 5K under 23 min  (a 90 second improvement) in about 8-10 weeks of following that advice.  Varying the pace of the run and following a periodized training allowed me to improve more than I thought was possible.  Trying something similar again this year, and will see where it gets me at the end of this year.

                             

                            Some of us get wrapped up in mileage for mileage sake, but sometimes fast part gets left out of the run lots, mostly easy, sometimes fast.  We will improve with just mileage, but not get the most out of that mileage by not really having a plan and try to peak for a goal race once or twice a year. 

                              Everybody needs to calm down.

                               

                              The OP has no athletic background and is in the very early stages of his first experiment with anything resembling mileage.  Meanwhile he wants to stretch out his long runs not because of any specific training plan but so he can enjoy the Upper High Meadow at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and look down on Silicon Valley, maybe see some herds of mule deer and catch a glimpse of a bobcat.

                               

                              All of his previous PRs, many of which consist of having raced that distance a grand total once, before he really started training, will be obliterated come fall.  He currently does his 15 mile easy training runs at about 30/mile seconds faster than his half marathon "PR."

                               

                              He just asked whether he was crazy to try some 20 milers at this point.  Hell when I was 23 I had never run longer than 10 miles in my life and I would have thought twice about trying a 20 and I had been a track runner in high school.  And now look at me...a fully growed up man who can run a sub 2:50 marathon.

                               

                              Lets let the blunt instrument of the trials of miles do its work for a bit and see where he's at.  Then, if for some reason he has the lack of sense to come back and ask an actual training question in this fetid piss pool, we can nitpick the hell out of his training.

                              Runners run.

                                Hi guys and gals,

                                 

                                This is an interesting discussion, I think, having to do with the relationship between the number of miles per week one is capable of logging, and one's maximum speed over a particular distance, in this case, 5000 meters.

                                 

                                When I ran track in high school, my fastest time in the 100 meters was (IIRC) about 12.4 seconds.  By my calculation, that's about 18 mph.

                                 

                                That was the fastest I was capable of running, and I was a lot faster than most of the other kids.  I'd guess that many of them weren't capable of running 10mph.

                                 

                                Now, to break 20 minutes in a 5k, you have to be capable of running 9.4 mph over the entire 3.1 miles.  Regardless of how many miles you can run per week, aren't there people who simply can't run that fast?

                                 

                                Does logging an ever-increasing number of miles make you faster than you were?

                                "It's hard to dance with a devil on your back, so shake him off, oh wo-oh!" - Florence Welch (Florence + The Machine) - Shake It Out

                                1234