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

Thanks to everyone for sharing your ideas.

This spring 1999 issue of the British Miler's Club News has the following articles as pertaining to this thread:

Dave Moorcroft - analysis of a champion

Horses for Courses

Running with Steve (Ovett)

All of the training included shows running twice a day, a difference being that Moorcroft ran few repetitions, with long rests, and Ovett ran many more repetitions but with short rests.

Examples of these are Moorcroft 4 x 1000 with seven minute rests very fast on the track; vs Ovett's 5x 4 minute weekly session with 30 second rests on a hilly course on the grass done consistently for ten years. Moorcroft ran his distance runs at six minute pace, and Ovett ran his considerably faster.

http://britishmilersclub.com/bmcnews/1999spring.pdf

Hey malmo do you know anything about Scott Simmons training ideas? He emphasizes kind of a reverse peak idea meaning start low coming into the season(say 65 mpw) then build up during the season and maybe finish running 105mpw and then only back off to like 90 for the big race. He doesnt beleive in peaking. Just wondering what you think of this philosophy and if this is kind of how you ran? Maybe not starting low but not really trying to peak.

Malmo, I need some help in running by feel. I understand the basis, but not how to put it into practice. If I feel bad do I the same mileage, or do I cut it short? How do I structure the mileage while running by feel? I mean I can plan to run 100 mpw or 99 mpw, but at what point to I run less than planned? I hope you understand my question, as it is the only part of your advice on training I am having trouble with.

Thanks.

HRE wrote:

Tom,

Are you still doing many, or any doubles?

Rich

Sorry, I was going to double today but the pretty snow changed to cold rain and I had a warm breakfast, did the taxes and waited for the sun.

Tomorrow is a long run with the young men who will leave me (I hope) by the time we get to the Newton Hills. They will be feeling spritely, I will be feeling old. So I will run how I feel.

So it goes.

Tom

Tom,

Smart move. I drowned in the lake sized puddle of slush that formed at the bottom of our driveway.

Rich

It was impossible to keep my feet dry warming up/cooling down at New Englands' at BU today. I hate damp socks more than almost anything.

Just to set the record straight, I ran under Wetmore and he loosely suggested doubles, as in he threw it out there as a good idea, but like you said, didn't push it because of class schedules. I definitely ran a handful of doubles during higher mileage periods. In retrospect, I wish I had done more.

malmo wrote:

That's the surest way of killing yourself i can think of. THe best way to find out was to experience it for yourself. Good for you.

Even Wetmore, a self-described Lydiard disciple has said he'd prefer his runners do doubles, but claimed they do (mostly) singles because of "class schedules."

Craig,

Quite a season you have had so far, congratulations. Are you going to try to hold it into May?

Updog wrote:

Malmo, I need some help in running by feel. I understand the basis, but not how to put it into practice. If I feel bad do I the same mileage, or do I cut it short? How do I structure the mileage while running by feel? I mean I can plan to run 100 mpw or 99 mpw, but at what point to I run less than planned? I hope you understand my question, as it is the only part of your advice on training I am having trouble with.

Thanks.

I'd like to hear an opinion on this too. "Listen to your body" seems to be at odds with "run more, if you're tired it will eventually pass".

Also, "listen to your body" doesn't seem to work when it comes to middle distance workouts. My body won't ever "want" to do 400's at mile race pace, regardless of the amount of rest, number of reps, etc but at some point they need to be done if you want to race well.

I think that listening to your body means knowing the difference between the normal pain/tiredness of a workout and pain that could be an injury/tiredness that could be sickness/burnout.

In general any sharp pains should be warning signs as well as severe fatigue or dizzyness or aching joints. Quads sore after a hill workout-normal. Achilles sore and inflamed after a hill workout-do something about it.

[q "Listen to your body" seems to be at odds with "run more, if you're tired it will eventually pass".

Listening to your body doesn't mean that you should do what it tells you. You have to listen to your mind too.

Between the two is thinking, which, being an athlete does not exclude you.

For example, yesterday with the young men, I keep up with them until the first hill and kept them in sight for 5 miles. I kept running as hard as I could, just short of racing psyche, until I could not sustain that "tension" —a kind of fixed feeling a effort and stress. That came at ten miles. The last four slipped into a shuffle and thinking of the pancakes.

I could have pushed the pace into the crazy, racing psyche, but no one was watching and pushing would have killed my appetite for the pancakes.

This morning my body said not to go on a morning run. I listened. But I will not listen tomorrow morning.

I think,

Tom

ps. Malmo thinks too.

Thanks, FTIR. . . whoever you are. Long term goal is US Juniors. . . so a late June peak. I'm lucky to have such a great coach in Pete.

[quote]Derderian wrote:

[q "Listen to your body" seems to be at odds with "run more, if you're tired it will eventually pass".

Listening to your body doesn't mean that you should do what it tells you. You have to listen to your mind too.

Between the two is thinking, which, being an athlete does not exclude you.

Tom,

Two great lines in a row. You should write a book or a magazine column or something.

I have a friend on the team now and often ask him what some of the big guys do and a lot of them do run doubles because it does help! I know that kenyon and Pannone for sure run twice a day, not necessarily every day but they do double. I think kenyon is running upwards of 110mpw and I think pannone does over 100. Look at what they did this weekend at big 12's. The results speak for themselves.

There have been some references to Lydiard on here in terms of his emphasis on singles, but, even with the sundry and various interpretations of his work, I don't think he ever discouraged doubling. Every time I talked to him, it was quite the contrary. I think he merely believes you will get more bang for your buck per given phsysiological adaptation to a specific dose of training if you do it in a single run versus splitting it into two. But, ultimately, as I understand his work, he was merely advocating singles up to a certain amount of TIME PER WEEK, NOT MILEAGE (it may have added up to 85 miles per week if one was just starting the program and running a much slower average speed or upwards of 100 miles per week if one was very fit and many years along, averaging 6:00 pace or faster). Once the athlete was able to attain that level without detriment, then doubles were always encouraged, as many as possible. And that's the key -- attaining a certain level of adaptation. Doubles may work better for some -- there's no question that MORE running ine general will make one a fitter athlete. Josh McDougal seems to be fine with his mega-mileage per week in singles. Would he be better off if he mixed it up and strove for higher quality than he already does? It would be hard to argue that, given his results.

runner39 wrote:

don't get me wrong I am a believer of doubles but surely there is point where one should be doing only singles then when they want to increase the volume add in doubles

the question is at what volume is singles better than doubles and doubles better than singles, obviously an individual thing but any ideas to a ball park figure, I know malmo advocates doubles from any volume but if someone is running 8 miles / day would it not be of more benefit to run a single 8 miles as to two runs of 4 miles

my belief is get to a volume where you can handle singles and then when want more volume add doubles, any thoughts

Liquori recommends 70 as a rough threshold.

GTF wrote:

Liquori recommends 70 as a rough threshold.

Again, like Pfitzinger, that's not the way he trained. Liquori ran doubles even when he was in high school.

Just because he ran doubles in high school (at <70 mpw) does not automatically mean it was the best way for him to train.

Yes it does.