High Volume Mileage vs. Long Run

Runningart2004 wrote:

What Is A Tempo Run? What most people refer to as tempo runs might be different than what Malmo refers to as a tempo run.

By strict definition, "tempo" refers to rhythm or rate and comes from "tempus," meaning "time." So most people envision a tempo run as falling within strictly scripted parameters, perhaps at a certain pace (like "one hour race pace") or heart rate (like 87% of maximum). But malmo is referring to a more spontaneous rhythm that your body will naturally slot into once you're warmed up and when the running is easy. Lydiard always called this a "high steady state" of effort, or "effortless effort." This is the kind of thing you could touch on nearly every day if you didn't plan in advance on doing it, as long as you're recovering fine. It's still pretty easy effort-wise, even though it's at the fast end of easy.

You shouldn't run 25-40 minutes at "one hour race pace" all the time, but you can do it twice a week with no problem if you recover between efforts, or you can touch on that same feeling for 5-15 minutes at the end of an "easy" run more often than twice a week. Notice the word "feeling" as opposed to "pace" there. When you put a stopwatch on a tempo run so that pace is the goal, it should be approached as a real workout - a hard day - but you can feel really good at that same pace on some easy runs and not only get away with running that pace for a short time, but benefit from it.

Of course, the "high steady state" pace itself will be different from day to day depending on weather alone, not to mention other recent running you've done or how well you've hydrated or allergies or jet lag or whatever; hence, the importance of knowing that "tempo effort" just as well as you know when you're thirsty. You also have to be in tune with your own recovery abilities. This will prevent you from being prodigal with your effort when you feel really good.

Getting in tune with the feel of a true "high steady state" is one of the signs you're arriving as a runner.

As far as those long runs go, you ought to be running what for you is "high mileage" before relying on the long run as a staple. If you're already accustomed to a routine of regular high mileage, the long run with a slight increase in pace during the last half is one of the best tools in the shed. But you do have to be doing the other things right first. Relying on the long run as your lone Ace in the hole means you'll have to hope to catch another Ace on the board.

MikeM wrote:

Malmo,

I have a question. I am wondering what you found to be a good transition from base training to more tempo type stuff and track work. I downloaded some training you had posted a couple of years ago and noticed a lot of strides and progressions in pace and intensity. I guess I am wondering what worked for you since I am having a bit of trouble with this point.

Also, did you really believe in a 'true' base phase or not? Something like purely running a bunch of mileage and not worrying about pace and such...just to get in a ton of mileage. I appreciate your help. If you don't want to write over the message board you can also write

mgm153@yahoo.com

. I realize that there are a lot of critical people on here.

Mike

It all depends on what you think "true base" means to you. Tempo runs to me ARE base. If you look at my logs you will hardly ever see the word "tempo" but I'm willing to bet I've run as many (or more) tempo runs per year as anyone who has ever posted on the website. Tempo runs can be as short as 2-3 miles. Most of them in the 4-6 mile range. While I've had many 8-10 and sometimes even more. I've always done them "on-the-fly" or "to-the-barn." Generally, they are progressively paced and always with completely internal focus on the sensation of running and the feedback it gives you - the metronomic cadence, feel, coordination, as yes, the simple feeling of the wind on your face.

Succinctly put, you should feel like you are floating. If not, let off the gas a little.

""Tempo pace is hard, but not so hard that you couldn't do it 4 or 5 times a week if you wanted to. When you are finished with a tempo run you should feel invigorated, not exhausted. When fit, tempo pace is about halfway between marathon pace and half-marathon pace. When in doubt, always lean towards marathon pace.""

If anyone ever does a letsrun glossary, this would be a sure entry.

Malmo, others,

Simple question, if you were running 40mpw, what is the best way to structure the week?

a) 5 runs, 8 miles each

b) 7 runs (5,5,5,6,6,6,7)

c) 5 runs (15,6,6,6,7)

CT wrote:

It's interesting to me that the "Lydiard guys" (HRE, Nobby, Kim Stevenson) seem to feel that the long run is the most important thing to be sure you do. They seem to stress doing the 20 miler no matter what is done during the week. Maybe it just depend on what works for each person?

The "Lydiard guys" (HRE, Nobby, Kim Stevenson) are taking care of the other six days of the week, as well. There's no incongruency here.

seiad wrote:

Malmo, what type of schedule would you recommend for an average runner putting in 70 miles per week? I am trying to formulate a plan for a fall marathon where I hope to break 2:50. Ran 2:55 last December on 65 MPW. Thanks.

I wouldn't be much good for helping out there. I also believe that training is a heck of a lot more complicated that can be set in a blueprint on a message board. In my mind, the "porch test" is what constitutes proper coaching advice.

You might want to check out Pfitzinger, who buy the way, never trained the way he coaches, but has made concessions scaled down to those who want to run 70mpw and run a marathon.

malmo, what is the "porch test"?

Pfitzinger's book "Advanced Marathoning" is good if you are a 60-70mpw runner looking to train for the marathon. He has an outlined 16 week or so plan with long runs, moderate long runs, "tempo efforts" and some V02max workouts. The tempo/threshold range varies and you could be doing anything from 3 by 2 miles at 15k race pace, to 6-8 mile tempo runs at between marathon and half marathon race pace. His guide for long runs is to do them so that most of your miles are logged at at least 80% of marathon race pace velocity, and that you close your long runs within 10% of marathon race pace veloctiy...(90% of marathon speed).

I think that for 70mpw week runners training for the marathon it is more important to get in some 18-23 mile long runs than if you are a 120mpw guy. The constant high mileage of 120mpw trains your body to store more glycogen, just like any long run over about 100min at a decent clip would. Long runs as "workouts" are not all created equal and they should change in some degree almost every time you do one for your marathon build up. One weekend you might only do an 18 miler at a steady pace. Another weekend you might do a 22 miler, starting out the first 12 miles steady and then increasing to marathon race pace for the last 10-8. Maybe another weekend you throw a fartlek in there.

Thanks for the replies. I guess I was just wondering Malmo that for lower mileage runners (60-70) range, you would limit the length of the long run like the Hanson Brothers Joe Blow schedules or would you favor having some 20+ mile runs throw in? 70 MPW is about all I can handle with work, travel, and family commitments...

http://runningtimes.com/rt/articles/print.asp?id=4447

zubrek wrote:

malmo, what is the "porch test"?

A proper coaching arrangement is one where you sit on the front porch after a run with a cold beer (or iced tea) in hand to discuss plans.

treadmill wrote: Pfitzinger's book "Advanced Marathoning" is good if you are a 60-70mpw runner looking to train for the marathon.

It is no doubt popular and many have had success with it.

The Hansons' marathon plan seems to me closer to malmo's thinking in a few areas including long run length and tempo pace. It's a quick enough read.

In my experience so far running moderate (50's to 80's, increasing each year) mileage, when I've tried to incorporate many runs of 18M and up and tempos at "hour race pace", my total volume and other runs would be compromised - and/or I'd get injured. Moderation on the LR length, tempo pace, and lots of doubles works a lot better for me than some of the more conventional, contemporary approaches.

Gotcha. Thanks. So, just like using your body as continuous feedback while running, who ever your coach/advisor/soundingboard is would provide that continous feedback on what (if anything) needs to be adjusted over the coming days or weeks, and not just going down a script of workouts to do.

pendejo wrote:

treadmill wrote: Pfitzinger's book "Advanced Marathoning" is good if you are a 60-70mpw runner looking to train for the marathon.

It is no doubt popular and many have had success with it.

The Hansons' marathon plan seems to me closer to malmo's thinking in a few areas including long run length and tempo pace. It's a quick enough read.

In my experience so far running moderate (50's to 80's, increasing each year) mileage, when I've tried to incorporate many runs of 18M and up and tempos at "hour race pace", my total volume and other runs would be compromised - and/or I'd get injured. Moderation on the LR length, tempo pace, and lots of doubles works a lot better for me than some of the more conventional, contemporary approaches.

Thanks pendejo. Other than bumping the long run to 18 miles, are there any other modifidations you make to the Hanson Plan? How many days a week do you double? Do you take a rest day each week? Sorry for all the questions.

what's the "porch test"?

malmo wrote:

The human body is ancient technology. It gives you continual feedback. A HRM just gives you a number -- that tells you exactly nothing.

That's like saying a watch just gives you numbers and tells you exactly nothing. Only that's wrong. The numbers actually MEAN something. It's not "nothing" at all and neither is the number on an HRM if you take the time to understand it.

I'm all for going low tech and listening to your body. I tried and rejected HRMs years ago for myself. But please, lets not go off the deep end in the other direction either ok?

I appreciate it. I have a similar view on base phase with hard distance runs and strides/shorter intervals on some days to keep the pop in my legs. I have been following a similar approach, but have noticed as the miles have gone up my ability to run faster is something I can't seem to do for longer than 30-35 minutes. Maybe just too fast. I was thinking of holding off track work until I could sustain this hard effort for 50 minutes or so because I really feel I have a bit to go on my aerobic development. Would this be a good idea or did you continue your harder efforts while also adding in track work?

Mike

seiad wrote: Other than bumping the long run to 18 miles, are there any other modifidations you make to the Hanson Plan? How many days a week do you double? Do you take a rest day each week?

I look at it as adapting some key notions rather than starting from the plan as written and tailoring it from there. For me last fall, that meant:

- long run 15-16 miles most weeks, with an 18 and a 23 just because

- weekly MP runs of ascending length, pretty much per their schedule

- "speed" and "strength" workouts: more to the spirit than the letter of the law here, but weekly, and shorter faster stuff up front, more tempo-y stuff later

- remaining days: as much easy mileage as my body, mind, and personal life allowed

- doubles usually 4-6 days a week, both easy days and workout days

- a day off altogether only if preempted by life stuff or pending/actual injury - maybe one or two a month

No incongruency at all. Kim and I have often said that you can salvage a mediocre training system by adding a weekly run of two hours or so. But any training system that sacrafices the rest of the week, heck, even half of the week, to get one particular run in is not a good system.

If there is anything that comes close to being the "secret" of successful running, it's consistency. Even Lydiard always said that you're better off doing a moderate amount of running each day than having one or two days when you do massive amounts of running and then do little or nothing.

Hall ran a full 26 miles at a moderate pace — a practice recommended by Jeff Galloway, who has coached thousands of marathoners. "It gave me a lot more confidence that miles 20-26 aren't something to be scared of, just respected," Yeah I guess thats not credit. He highlights two runs in that article. 23 and 26 milers are the two that article mentions. 4 times he did the 23 and 5 times he ran for 2:15 plus. I guess thats not long, right?