Malmo what's the best way to structure a 100 and 110 mile weeks?

Exactly. I would add that the morning run is far and away the easiest thing to add to the schedule. Simply wake up 30-40 minutes earlier than usual, the family is still asleep. Get into your duds like a fireman - out the door you go. Start slow, no stretching necessary.

And to the poster who asked about the minimal level for adding a second run - I would say if you are running 4-5 miles daily, adding a morning run of even 2-3 miles will have immediate, tangible benefits.

The morning run should be stimulating, it works out the kinks, gets the blood moving. Probably boosts metabolism. If you don't feel BETTER after it, something is amiss.

I should add one more thing for those who feel they don't have enough time to train -- the inverse of Parkinson's Law is also true.

malmo,

i know its not easy but if I was to start doubles I would need a good divorce lawyer, do you know one just in case, anyways for me I am recreational runner (35 min 10k) running on average 60 miles / week, ya I would like to get faster and have tried running 80 miles / week for a quite a while but never saw any race time improvements, I find it difficult to believe someone of my ability needs to run 100 or so miles a week to improve when I know runners doing 50-60 miles / week and running sub 30 min 10k

runner39 wrote:

malmo,

i know its not easy but if I was to start doubles I would need a good divorce lawyer, do you know one just in case, anyways for me I am recreational runner (35 min 10k) running on average 60 miles / week, ya I would like to get faster and have tried running 80 miles / week for a quite a while but never saw any race time improvements, I find it difficult to believe someone of my ability needs to run 100 or so miles a week to improve when I know runners doing 50-60 miles / week and running sub 30 min 10k

Of course you'd improve if you trained more. So would the sub-30 10k guys who are only doing 50-60 a week.

It's morally OK to choose marriage over running, of course. But don't fool yourself that you're maxing out at 35 min. 10k.

My advice is generally not directed at recreational runners, however you may certainly consume and apply those same principles to your own training. Whatever your passion, whether it be running, or golf or tennis or fishing, you can take it as serious or as "recreational" as you choose.

Here's an example of the recreational benefits. Due to some health issues, I've had to cut way back on the running over the last 2 years. Instead, I walk 45-75 minutes 3-4 mornings a week and get in a second session in the afternoon or over lunch that is generally 30-40 minutes of more intense aerobic exercise, running when I can handle it. I feel much better when I workout 2x daily and it is way easier to keep the weight off. The walk is like feeding the soul machine, I come back invigorated and ready to start the day. The days I don't walk, I feel like I've missed something.

Malmo,

any chance you could analyze my typical training week:

M - 12 miles

T - 9 miles

W - tempo workout (i.e. 2 x 15min w/ 2 min rest), 11 miles total

T - 9 miles

F - 9 miles

S - long intervals (i.e. 6 x 1k w/ 2:30 min rest), 10 miles total

S - 8 miles

around 65-70 miles in singles, what do you think

malmo wrote:

I should add one more thing for those who feel they don't have enough time to train -- the inverse of Parkinson's Law is also true.

Parkinson's law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parkinson's Law as commonly referenced states that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." A more succinct phrasing also commonly used is "work expands to fill the time available." It was first articulated by Cyril Northcote Parkinson, appearing as the first sentence of a humorous essay published in The Economist in 1955, later reprinted together with other essays in the book Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress (London, John Murray, 1958). He derived the dictum from his extensive experience in the British Civil Service.

malmo wrote:

Huh? Terrence's situation was uncommon, and completely unique.

If you look at that US Junior list you'll note that every single one of them had brilliant freshman years in college EXCEPT Terrance, and all of them except Green were much better HS runners than Terrance was.

Terrence's best running was as a high school junior. That was changed forever within a few months by making the decision to get serious. All of yo can make that decision as well.

28:09.6+ Gerry Lindgren (WaSt)........6/27/65 (4:01, 8:40, 13:44)

28:15.5 Galen Rupp (OR) (4:01, 8:03(3k), 13:37)

28:32.7 Rudy Chapa (InHS)............4/24/76 (4:05, 8:51

28:28.8+ Garry Bjorklund (Mn).........6/27/70 (4:05

28:49.6+ Doug Brown (Tn)..............6/18/71 (8:57)

28:54.30 Louis Luchini (Stan).........5/ 5/00 (9:04)

28:55.0 Eric Hulst (CaHS)............3/28/76 (4:09, 8:44

28:57.1 Harry Green (Tx).............4/24/86

28:57.79 Terrence Mahon (Or).........12/ 9/89 (9:13.9)

Green was 7th NCAA 10k as a Freshman

It's terrific that guys can ramp up the mileage and improve so dramatically, but it's such rapid improvement that I question the wisdom in it. Did Mahon ever get any faster than that? Seems to me like that ended up being his lifetime PR, or at least the fastest he ever ran at Oregon. Did he get injured or just move on to greener pastures?

Sagarin wrote:

It's terrific that guys can ramp up the mileage and improve so dramatically, but it's such rapid improvement that I question the wisdom in it. Did Mahon ever get any faster than that? Seems to me like that ended up being his lifetime PR, or at least the fastest he ever ran at Oregon. Did he get injured or just move on to greener pastures?

It seems to me that you're neither wise nor do you care very much for the facts.

Terrence Mahon

3000m 8:05.92 1998

5000m 13:44.27 1998

10000m 28:31.1 1996

marathon 2:13:02 1997

A very small example:

In the past I would run doubles just about everyday running 80-120 miles a week. I've run singles since taking time off in November and starting back up in December. My plan was just to change it up and see what happens. My normal run is 11 miles. I've noticed more aches and pains now (strange) than before and of course a few extra pounds. On the brightside I do seem to be running faster this winter than in the past. I haven't raced since November though. We'll see in the next 2-3 months how this experiment turns out.

Alan

T-Lover wrote:

Sagarin wrote:

It's terrific that guys can ramp up the mileage and improve so dramatically, but it's such rapid improvement that I question the wisdom in it. Did Mahon ever get any faster than that? Seems to me like that ended up being his lifetime PR, or at least the fastest he ever ran at Oregon. Did he get injured or just move on to greener pastures?

It seems to me that you're neither wise nor do you care very much for the facts.

Terrence Mahon

3000m 8:05.92 1998

5000m 13:44.27 1998

10000m 28:31.1 1996

marathon 2:13:02 1997

Ok, oh sage one, I did firstly qualify the statement with "or at least the fastest he ever ran at Oregon," despite that quick improvement, which is, in fact, TRUE. Secondly, there were seriously diminishing returns after that five months improvement. And I repeat, did the guy get injured or burn out or decide to move on to greener pastures? It doesn't change my point one iota. For every Terrence Mahon, there are many more that try the ramp it up quickly approach and end up in the distance runners graveyard. I, myself am living proof. I tried the apporach being advocated here, and I got into tremendous shape, yes, and I got injured, for good. Runners have the tendency to want to train hard as it is, and I'm afraid the takeaway here for many runners is going to be to ramp up the mileage quickly, a good bit of it at a continuisly fast pace seeking such improvement. And, ultimately, 90% of them will do it incorrectly and fail. I have seen it over and over. But, there are always the lucky ones who are able to survive the workload, and they are the ones who not only get noticed, but emulated as well.

Thanks for participating in this thread, Malmo, I learned a helluva lot.

malmo,

when doubling do you think it is easier to do a split of 10/5 or a split of 8/7? it is a bit easier mentally for me to do 10/5 but i'm not so sure if it is easier physically. thanks.

Malmo, here's a question for an aging 51 year old...

I was a good high school runner who didn't work very hard and ran 4:23 9:23 mile 2 mile in hs in 1973. I stopped running my senior year only to pick it up last year when my son went out for xcountry. In a year and a half, at the age of 51, I have become one of the better senior runners running at a 33:30-34 10k pace. I am hoping to run a 16 minute 5k and 33:30 10k this spring. The really weird thing is I have done this on 20-30 miles per week with 2-3 spin classes that I felt were cross-training to reduce injuries. I upped my mileage to the mid 30s in January and now moved to the mid 40s running 5 days a week. I have no issues running 13-17 miles on hills on the local mountain at paces of 6-6:15 a mile when it is flat and 8-9 min pace up hills. So, I am reading your posts which are geared more towards HS and college runners talking about 100 mile weeks, and I am wondering where I should really end up on the mileage wheel. Up to now, I have been trying to reduce the amount of days I run and mileage because of injury fears.

My basic weekly training is 1)a track workout with 4 miles of intervals and 4 miles of warmup and down, 2) a 6 mile tempo run on a flat winding trail at sub 6 minute pace, 3) 10 hill repeats of 400 yds (8 miles including warmup and down), and 4)one long run, which has now become 2 long runs of 10-15 miles, occasionally 17 miles

so, where would you end up in mileage (upping it maybe 10 miles/week a month)and how many doubles would you incorporate to do this? I know this was kinda long, but I appreciate the help. thanks,

sjc wrote:

malmo,

when doubling do you think it is easier to do a split of 10/5 or a split of 8/7? it is a bit easier mentally for me to do 10/5 but i'm not so sure if it is easier physically. thanks.

This question has been covered (by Malmo) in this thread.

So Malmo,

If I were gunning for around a 100 miles a week would this be a good plan? 10/4 of doubles 6 days a week and 16 for a long run. or would you recommend a second longer run throughout the week? Thanks for all of the replies.

bpilch wrote:

Malmo, here's a question for an aging 51 year old...

I think you are putting way too much emphasis in a long run. At 51, and with a direct line of communication to your own body, you should be able to figure this out better than I can.

lizard king wrote:

So Malmo,

If I were gunning for around a 100 miles a week would this be a good plan? 10/4 of doubles 6 days a week and 16 for a long run. or would you recommend a second longer run throughout the week? Thanks for all of the replies.

That sounds like a plan.

I think this should be re-emphasized. While I agree that just about every runner in the thick of a competitive schedule should be doing doubles, just how many and of what proportions varies. I too find more success doing just a few doubles a week with longer singles. Doubles every day (same total weekly mileage) just feels worse to me.

So I think saying EVERY runner should "double as much as possible" is wrong.