

I'm sure when u were at your prime u could knock off a sub 17 5K on 25 mpw, but not a 2:20 till u got up to 100 mpw.




That's the key in my opinion is the load the individual can handle and stay healthy. I did 2:40 in 09 on 60 per week. I went with the higher mileage philosophy afterward in hopes of going mid 230's, instead i got injured and was out most of 2010. I am back to the 60 miles per week load and hoping to break 240 in Boston. I simply can't handle the higher mileage weeks, but honestly, I don't think I would be any faster in a marathon even if I could handle 80-90. That's backwards, I know, but I think everyone has their sweet spot where PR's can be obtained. I learned the hard way that more miles don't always translate into better times and performances. I am a firm believer in quality over quantity. As I transition to multi-sport events after April, I am hopeful that I will confirm that theory.kimhoward wrote:I agree, Genetics play an important part,,I'm sure I could run faster if I put in 60 MPW instead of 30-45...but,,I might be hurt more,,,and even with 75 MPW,,,I wouldn't go sub 3Keith Willsey wrote:they only run 50-60 miles a week at most.....that won't get you under 3 hours...
Sorry Tom, this part of your statement is still not true. If given a choice take genetics over training.
Since this thread has gotten too deep and too serious let me respond to being threatened with "a few jabs." It really would be a shame if someone accidentally stepped on your toes and you had to face another 7 months without running.Bill Torrey wrote:I enjoyed reading this post. Good luck to everyone and I will be cheering you on. In David's case I might throw a few jabs. .