Weekly Mileage Poll

It seems this forum is made up of some high mileage runners. I am not even talking just about the 80-120 per week runners but even 40+ which is pretty high to the avg person and even avg. runner on other forums. Point is this forum I think comprises of mainly serious mileage runners! I for one seem to lose focus on that and need reminding that 50 60 70 80 miles in a week is a pretty heavenly good achievement.

I have been in the lower 60's past cycle this cycle going up to 64 on avg week.

I have been in the 40-54 category for my last 2 marathon cycles (42 and 52), but will probably end up around 60 for an average this time around.

Haven't done the math, but I will probably fall within the 50-54 mile range.

Ah, a Baldo poll...it's been some time. All is right with the universe again.

As long as my foot and knee cooperate, I'll be thrilled to get into the low 40's and stay there. I looked back at my log for my PR (and BQ) marathon in Philly 2009 and I averaged only in the mid-to high 30's. If I can get into the 40's and stay there without being hurt, I think that will increase my odds by leaps and bounds of getting the BQ again.

This time, it'll be really high... Mid-high 80s. Last time I think it was... 57? Then again, this time is a 50 miler. Next time (marathon) will probably be mid-70s with a peak of 100.

Looks like I'm on the low end compared to this crowd. But my numbers are pretty consistent for my last few marathons.

Avg: 37
Median: 35
Min: 27
Max: 54

42-45 miles a week when I am not hurt...been hovering in the 30's due to injury...

So far this year I've been fortunate enough to be injury free. Heavy mileage througout the year with an average per week of 90.

I'm with Glenn on mileage back when I was doing marathons. 2012 will be my first attempt in 5-6 years and I hope my body can handle closer to the 40-50 mile mark if that's what its gonna take.

Kenny B. wrote:It seems this forum is made up of some high mileage runners. I am not even talking just about the 80-120 per week runners but even 40+ which is pretty high to the avg person and even avg. runner on other forums. Point is this forum I think comprises of mainly serious mileage runners! I for one seem to lose focus on that and need reminding that 50 60 70 80 miles in a week is a pretty heavenly good achievement.

I have been in the lower 60's past cycle this cycle going up to 64 on avg week.

Kenny I would agree with you that on avg. people on our site are logging a good amount of miles.

I tell Lisa all the time that with her logging anywhere from 40 to 50 plus miles a week is huge for her and is like me running 100 mile weeks.

I know that there is a debate that pops up now and then on here on more miles or less miles and which is better. To me the bottom line is that mileage does matter for end results, if it didn't then people won't do it. Even if that mileage is 40 miles a week, like I said above 40, 50 and 60 mile weeks for some are like the 100 plus mile weeks that Dave-O, Don S, Greg C and others are doing.

I also think the reason you see people on this site doing a good amount of mileage is for another key reason and that would be "CONSISTENCE" and to me this is the most more important then the mileage one racks up during a week.

Sure one can run 60 miles one week but what good is that if then the next 3 weeks one is logging 15 or 20 miles? That would be inconsistent, so again to me the bottom line is wether it is 40 miles a week or whatever the number is the key is to be consistent.

Didn't mean to change the subject or take on this thread. Just a thought I had about it and I do think the two are inner mixed.

Schuey wrote:

Kenny B. wrote:It seems this forum is made up of some high mileage runners. I am not even talking just about the 80-120 per week runners but even 40+ which is pretty high to the avg person and even avg. runner on other forums. Point is this forum I think comprises of mainly serious mileage runners! I for one seem to lose focus on that and need reminding that 50 60 70 80 miles in a week is a pretty heavenly good achievement.

I have been in the lower 60's past cycle this cycle going up to 64 on avg week.

Kenny I would agree with you that on avg. people on our site are logging a good amount of miles.

I tell Lisa all the time that with her logging anywhere from 40 to 50 plus miles a week is huge for her and is like me running 100 mile weeks.

I know that there is a debate that pops up now and then on here on more miles or less miles and which is better. To me the bottom line is that mileage does matter for end results, if it didn't then people won't do it. Even if that mileage is 40 miles a week, like I said above 40, 50 and 60 mile weeks for some are like the 100 plus mile weeks that Dave-O, Don S, Greg C and others are doing.

I also think the reason you see people on this site doing a good amount of mileage is for another key reason and that would be "CONSISTENCE" and to me this is the most more important then the mileage one racks up during a week.

Sure one can run 60 miles one week but what good is that if then the next 3 weeks one is logging 15 or 20 miles? That would be inconsistent, so again to me the bottom line is wether it is 40 miles a week or whatever the number is the key is to be consistent.

Didn't mean to change the subject or take on this thread. Just a thought I had about it and I do think the two are inner mixed.

Good stuff!

Well said, Schuey - consistency is most definitely key and although I run "relatively" low mileage as compared to many of you, I try to keep my base mile weeks in the 45-50 mpw area average peaking in the 55-60 mpw area and then 35-40 mpw when racing shorter stuff.

Kenny B. wrote:

Schuey wrote:

Kenny B. wrote:It seems this forum is made up of some high mileage runners. I am not even talking just about the 80-120 per week runners but even 40+ which is pretty high to the avg person and even avg. runner on other forums. Point is this forum I think comprises of mainly serious mileage runners! I for one seem to lose focus on that and need reminding that 50 60 70 80 miles in a week is a pretty heavenly good achievement.

I have been in the lower 60's past cycle this cycle going up to 64 on avg week.

Kenny I would agree with you that on avg. people on our site are logging a good amount of miles.

I tell Lisa all the time that with her logging anywhere from 40 to 50 plus miles a week is huge for her and is like me running 100 mile weeks.

I know that there is a debate that pops up now and then on here on more miles or less miles and which is better. To me the bottom line is that mileage does matter for end results, if it didn't then people won't do it. Even if that mileage is 40 miles a week, like I said above 40, 50 and 60 mile weeks for some are like the 100 plus mile weeks that Dave-O, Don S, Greg C and others are doing.

I also think the reason you see people on this site doing a good amount of mileage is for another key reason and that would be "CONSISTENCE" and to me this is the most more important then the mileage one racks up during a week.

Sure one can run 60 miles one week but what good is that if then the next 3 weeks one is logging 15 or 20 miles? That would be inconsistent, so again to me the bottom line is wether it is 40 miles a week or whatever the number is the key is to be consistent.

Didn't mean to change the subject or take on this thread. Just a thought I had about it and I do think the two are inner mixed.

Good stuff!

As always...

I ran 2323 miles last year. That comes out to around 45 miles a week. 2323 is my highest yearly total and I missed at least four whole weeks because of trials/work throughout the year. I also had some low mileage weeks for recovery purposes, taper and the month of December was pretty low after running three marathons in 50 days.

This year I missed eight weeks because of a torn calf muscle. So my mileage is down.

But to answer your question, I like to think I can run 60 to 65 miles a week pretty regularly during a specific time/training period

Planning on keeping the top end weeks in the 40s this cycle, and hoping to get there consistently in the next weeks. In the recent past, I tended to peak out at 50 or just over. Not expecting to be able to do that this time, and don't really feel the need, given my relatively low goal and ongoing issue with PF.

Seth Harrison wrote:Ah, a Baldo poll...it's been some time. All is right with the universe again.

No kidding...I figured we'd be seeing a ton of them over here.

No marathon cycles here but...I average about 60 mpw year round. High weeks are close 80, very rarely go below 60. Occasional days off during the year and a week off after each season lowers the yearly average.

Oodles.

I've done 4 marathons total including my debut on Chicago 2009. I've peaked only at 63 once and my average is probably 35 when all is said and done at the end of a cycle. This year i started just logging consistent 40+ mile weeks since January. However, near the middle of April as I jumped up to 50+ something tweaked on a treadmill speed session and I began to have severe right leg issues. This was the first major injury since I started running halves and marathons. I seem to get more leg issues after climbing past 50 as I also had some major niggles before Boston 2010. I suppose since I stopped running for basically 25 years it needs to be a slow steady process to get the body used to any consistent weekly mileage above 50 at my advanced age. One other thing I think contributed was not incorporating step back weeks in addition to the recovery days i was doing. I guess each of us has our own unique limits and adaptations?

fostever wrote:I've done 4 marathons total including my debut on Chicago 2009. I've peaked only at 63 once and my average is probably 35 when all is said and done at the end of a cycle. This year i started just logging consistent 40+ mile weeks since January. However, near the middle of April as I jumped up to 50+ something tweaked on a treadmill speed session and I began to have severe right leg issues. This was the first major injury since I started running halves and marathons. I seem to get more leg issues after climbing past 50 as I also had some major niggles before Boston 2010. I suppose since I stopped running for basically 25 years it needs to be a slow steady process to get the body used to any consistent weekly mileage above 50 at my advanced age. One other thing I think contributed was not incorporating step back weeks in addition to the recovery days i was doing. I guess each of us has our own unique limits and adaptations?

Perhaps, just perhaps, it wasn't the mileage... but rather the intensity...

I answered 40-54, because I was right in the middle of that band for my latter marathon, peaking at 62. I'd rather do more, but it's all a matter of not getting injured. After losing seven weeks in March/April last year and then having over six months averaging three (yes 3) miles per week, between August and February, I'm finding it very hard to get the mileage up. Even after six uninjured months, I'm still only averaging about 20.

Longest week or average week? I am very low mileage compared to the rest of this board. For my first marathon, I topped out at 50 miles. I probably won't come close to that this time around. I'm currently running high 20s/low 30s with the marathon training plan to kick in in 2 more weeks.

I'm a slacker - just cracking 30+ mpw these days, and it ain't going much higher anytime soon.

I answered 55 - 69 because that's how I achieved my PR last Boston. I'm currently running 45 - 55 now with the Beaver Island marathon coming up Labor Day weekend. Not taking it as seriously and needed a bit of a break from the grind. So for Boston 2012 I will be back up above 60/wk