140 miles per week.

Great old thread. Bump.

I've always said that if I had it to do over again, I'd run two hours per day, probably in two runs per day in any combination and one run on Sunday. Instead of running for "miles," run for time and by feel. Listen to your body is ALWAYS the best advice. Over time, your body will get fitter and you will be running plenty of these miles fast and progression-style.

I would not start out with 120, 130, or 140 per week as the goal... just two hours of running while your body adapts. This is how Mark Nenow essentially did it. However, and I don't care that guys like Bill Rodgers used to eat pizza, potato chips, and drink beer, you need to pay attention to your diet and rest. Running at this level produces a very high level of reactive oxygen species damage, and while the body compensates physiologically and the untoward affects are unnoticed during the folly of youth, the damage could come back to haunt you.

It's not unheard of for former elite athletes to develop cancer, heart disease, or chronic fatigue syndrome at an earlier age than normal. I doubt there is a scientific study validating this and how could there be, but just food for thought... Running is about allostatic stress load and ADAPTATION. Make sure you pay attention to adaptation to ward off injury, fatigue, staleness, and the potential aftermath some 30 years later.

bum bum

Sagarin wrote:

It's not unheard of for former elite athletes to develop cancer, heart disease, or chronic fatigue syndrome at an earlier age than normal.

have you any anecdotal evidence?

tonto wrote:

Sagarin wrote:

It's not unheard of for former elite athletes to develop cancer, heart disease, or chronic fatigue syndrome at an earlier age than normal.

have you any anecdotal evidence?

other than Salazar's well-known problems...

Sagarin wrote:

I've always said that if I had it to do over again, I'd run two hours per day, probably in two runs per day in any combination and one run on Sunday. Instead of running for "miles," run for time and by feel. Listen to your body is ALWAYS the best advice. Over time, your body will get fitter and you will be running plenty of these miles fast and progression-style.

So the Sunday run would be an hour also? 13 hours/week total?

Necro bump from somebody?

tonto: You could claim that something like cancer in Serena Burla or that ultra guy who thought he "only" had pneumonia and instead had cancer was because of something related to their running, but there's no good study to prove it. There are more studies to show that using a cell phone will give you cancer and that, unlike running, using a cell phone really has no healthy benefit. Yet almost everyone uses a cell phone. So since when do people actually act like they care?

godol: Are you joking? Are you trolling? Two hours per day. One run Sunday. That means two hours on Sunday. It's a long run. C'mon, man.

I'm convinced that electricity is the cause of most cancers. Something about the distrubance of the electromagnetic fields causes the cells to mutate. Science cant stop cancer because w/o electricity we're all back to living in the 1850's.

Samer Theory.

http://www.expeditersonline.com/forum/general-expediter-forum/20398-samer-theory.html

Shoebacca wrote:

godol: Are you joking? Are you trolling? Two hours per day. One run Sunday. That means two hours on Sunday. It's a long run. C'mon, man.

Haven't read this entire thread but I am guessing this is intended as marathon base training. Curious what Sagarin (or others) would recommended for < 5000. The simplicity of the 2 hour/day program is very appealing with doubles six days/week plus the long run. 14 hours may be a tad too much volume for a miler though.

If you look back at the earlier parts of the thread, you'll see that Nike Free Me was a miler. It's well worth it if you haven't already.

Swingline wrote:

I'm convinced that electricity is the cause of most cancers. Something about the distrubance of the electromagnetic fields causes the cells to mutate. Science cant stop cancer because w/o electricity we're all back to living in the 1850's.

I'm curious how you became convinced of that because there's next to no evidence supporting it.

HRE wrote:

If you look back at the earlier parts of the thread, you'll see that Nike Free Me was a miler. It's well worth it if you haven't already.

HRE:

Thanks, I will. By the way, just picked up a first edition "Run to the Top" straight out of Auckland. Although I am yet a novice runner, I am still young and want to reach my full potential. What I know of Lydiard so far resonates with me; hoping his 1962 thoughts do too.

Came across this thread through this thread

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3965743&page=1

Was just reading up on some of the stuff that malmo preaches.

So I guess 140mi a week might not be the best thing but is 8 minute pace really not optimal for easy days? I talk to a lot of fellow runners and they're shocked when I talk about 8 min/mile easy days.

I finally saw improvement this season after 4 years of no progress. 8 seconds faster in the 1500, 3 seconds in the 800 and a minute in the 5k.

I use to do my PM hour runs at 6:20 to 6:40 pace and my AM runs around 7min. Now just about all of it is around 8 minute pace. Never any faster than 7:30.

For me it depends on how many (if any) workouts I am doing through the 140mpw. If there's a tempo/fartlek, etc... in my weekly training at least twice in a short span of days, I'll make sure to really go easy over the easy runs in close proximity to these workouts. Probably around 7:00-7:30 pace. Any slower, I feel like my running just takes up too much time at that mileage.

What would be considered high milage for a high schooler? And how do i apply this phylosophy to high school training

This is a heckuva thread, thanks for digging it up. I don't know which post your are refering to, but Malmo is not a crazy old guy, he's right on the money. If it's the quote on the first page, Malmo is dead on, progressive runs enable you to raise the intensity as you feel better during a given run, and add tempo pace training where others are simply logging miles. Any number of threads on the Kenyan method have described this progressive training as vital. Slower running may have its purpose specific to recovery, but progressive runs are the key ingredient to making you faster and mentally tougher from day to day training.

I haven't gotten as high as 140, but I had a 12 week period avg. 100 w/ a high of 113, and my easy days became EASY. I just ran by feel. I would be working out twice a week, and runs the days after workouts would be SLOW, one time i think i averaged 8:13 pace. During this training block, every race except for one has been a PR, although I've been doing longer distances so that isn't a totally honest statistic. I'm now moving back to track season and wondering how I should adjust. I'm thinking that I'm going to bump up to 120-130 for december/january, and maybe drop down a little for track? i want to focus on the mile.

Nike Free Me's training reads just like i want mine to read. the fact that his 800-mile times dropped off of high mileage runs counter to what a lot of college coaches preach today, and i have been mimicking his training as much as I can while still working a full-time job.

One of the better threads in terms of personal experiences with training. Consistent improvement in volume = better running.