What’s the top end mileage an athlete could run (just running, not talking triathlon) on one run a day.
I find it hard to believe most could get much over 100.
95-100 seems to be about the peak for me.
I agree. If I try more, I just get tired. On doubles I can do 120 right now but I usually stay at 80-90. I’m a casual runner though, not a pro. They can run 120+ on singles but I don’t think it would make much sense for them either. Maybe ultrarunners?
It’s hard to find the sweet spot. I’m trying to lower my 5/10k times right now to be quicker at a fall marathon. I have a hard time though to cut my mileage but my runs are shorter and I run more often (10 sessions per week maybe?).
I’ve only got up to 95 for two periods in my life and never on one run a day. When I’m focused on running I like to do at least two high quality sessions a week which are rarely longer than 7 miles. You might make up for one of them with a long run (like 20+ miles long) but the other one, plus the run or two you cut short because you get a twinge or are feeling flat – I just don’t see how you can average 14 miles a day on one run a day and still train optimally and carefully for any typical distance.
My personal one run a day limit is more like 60. 95 was split over about 10-11 runs (I was training for 10km ish X-country races and road half-marathons at the time).
well people have done 50 marathons in 50 days
so thats 180 miles per week on one run a day
im sure the upper limit of human possibility is a lot higher
What’s the top end mileage an athlete could run (just running, not talking triathlon) on one run a day.
I find it hard to believe most could get much over 100.
95-100 seems to be about the peak for me.
The problem is that most (all?) serious runners are training for a purpose. Doing 1 run per day over 10 miles and continuing this process for a length of time would not be the optimal training method for any runner.
If the goal were some sort of ultra endurance tough man challenge then you’d find guys/gals who could sustain over 50 miles per day for a month or so.
Personally, I think about 80 is reasonable on just one a day - but it stretches things. If you are hitting 100 mile weeks, 10 mile runs are like eating a ham sandwich 6 of the days, but much longer is harder to fit in the schedule as much as anything else (that is if you have job/wife/family). Get in one 20 on a weekend and you have 80 miles. Add a few doubles and you are 100 plus. If a pure runner, 100 mile weeks is a heck of a lot easier than doing solid IM training IMO.
If a pure runner, 100 mile weeks is a heck of a lot easier than doing solid IM training IMO.
I’ve done both (level: sub9 IM and 2:33 M) but I wouldn’t say it’s that easy. These really are two different things.
Listen to the Matty Reed interview on competitorradio where he praises the work ethic of pro runners he trains with.
Seems odd if you compare hours spent moving (tri is easily twice as much) but give running an honest shot and you know what he’s talking about.
You people are soft…
Definitley I appreciate the differece, because I do feel that I found my max in running. In running the body limits - in tris time limits - ultimately if given enough body and time, genetics limits.
Agreed. That body limit though hurts as it is not final but gradual. You keep riding that line. And that’s the difference.
IMHO, muscular fatigue is the ultimate running limiter and overall fatigue at tri.
So why do you consider high mileage “serious runners”? I’ve never run over maybe 60-65 miles a week. I’m no elite runner but I go sub 3hr mary, 3:15ish IM run, and 7:20 50 miler. Are you guys running 80-100 miles a week laying down 2:30 marathons or going sub 3hr IM splits?
I don’t think anyone said that. A question relating to high mileage was asked to those members of the board who considered themselves serious runners (regardless of mileage).
Are you guys running 80-100 miles a week laying down 2:30 marathons or going sub 3hr IM splits?
yes
.
Okay then, as a serious runner training for marathons and ultras I haven’t pushed beyond about 60-70 miles per week. If I spent years dedicated to running as my only sport I might try building closer to 100 just to see what that gets me but as a triathlete recovery and swim/bike training keep me around 30mpw during peak IM volume.
I heard Arthur Lydiard maxed out at 235 miles a week.
Yes, as well.
I would consider anyone not running at least 70 miles a week training for a marathon to not be a serious runner. Call me elitist or whatnot, but that’s how I feel.
Outside of incredible natural talent, I think there are very few people who could go sub-2:40 in a marathon on less than 70 a week.s Eventually you do need to start hitting higher mileage to go faster. Intense training helps for a marathon, but you have to have the strength in your legs, and you get that from lots of longer runs.
I do agree with an above statement. After a while, 10 miles feels like a pretty easy jog, once you have been doing decent mileage.
I just got the new Outside magazine this month, and they have an article about finishing your first marathon (namely NYC). It was kind of funny, they had about a 4 month program, and I counted 7 total runs over 10 miles. That too me is just not enough, you might finish, but it is going to be one hellacious day. (the interesting thing about the article is it was written by a guy who did 2:32 in his first marathon at NYC) They are supposed to do an article about finishing a triathlon in a few months, I can’t wait to see that!!!
i think its higher than that, i peaked for my first marathon at 80 mpw. i dont believe it was enough for me to run my best marathon.
(the interesting thing about the article is it was written by a guy who did 2:32 in his first marathon at NYC)!
Who’s that?
Six days a week or seven? (Or something other?)
So, you believe that anyone training for a marathon that is NOT running at least 70 miles a week is NOT a serious runner? That’s pretty shortsighted; not elitist, just kind of dumb.
Beginning with that blanket statement then revising to say “outside of incredible natural talent” kind of shoots a big giant hole in your argument.
Not a lot of people can go under 2:40 period. Regardless of talent/work ethic.