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

Right, every high schooler trained perfectly and could not possibly have trained any better/smarter than he did. Pass the koolaid, please.

GTF wrote:

Right, every high schooler trained perfectly and could not possibly have trained any better/smarter than he did. Pass the koolaid, please.

Hmmmm...extrapolating from the specific training of one of only four guys to break 4:00 in high school and one of the youngest guys to make a U.S. Olympic team at 1500 (prima facie evidence that his high school training was pretty darn sound, wouldn't you agree?) to the generic "every high schooler"...yep, no leap of logic there!

The "leap of logic" was in saying that, while he achieved notable accomplishments, Liquori could not have possibly trained any better/smarter. That is not to say that he trained poorly, though maybe if he had followed a different type of progression he might have had more of an impact internationally. To me the insistence that Liquori trained a certain way in high school or even later on does not mean that Liquori could not have found a better way later in his career (or even after it) based on observation (from the Florida TC crew, etc.) and personal reflection. This lack of thoughtful reflection is a part of why prodigal distance athletes continue to burn-out or peak before their physical primes in significant proportions.

GTF wrote:

This is why prodigal distance athletes continue to burn-out or peak before their physical primes.

Prodigal 1: recklessly extravagant 2: characterized by wasteful expenditure : LAVISH.

Living in the Past - PLEASE do not post in this thread. Every post of yours either bashes a past elite runner or you shit on how people train or trained.

The best way to address a post of mine that you disagree with is to refute it with facts or better logic.

You're using hyperbole here, so please calm down and try to use some facts. (When someone corrects me on the facts, I usually thank them.)

Good point, I reached for the wrong term. I should have used "phenomenal youth" instead.

GTF wrote:

Good point, I reached for the wrong term. I should have used "phenomenal youth" instead.

Prodigy was the word you were looking for.

malmo, what do you think of Josh McDougal's training? Last I heard, he was basically doing a 17 mile run every day, sometimes with a workout built in.

Malmo , Why only doubles? I know many of the great Kenyan XC teams used triples to amazing success. I say if you have the time do triples. What do you think?

triple man wrote:

Malmo , Why only doubles? I know many of the great Kenyan XC teams used triples to amazing success. I say if you have the time do triples. What do you think?

That's not true. They do mostly doubles. Some of them have done triples for a few weeks in camp, but that's it.

Geez, first the optimal amount of doubles and now triples? How about if we nail down the singles part first and make sure we can do it without getting injured or burned out first?

Sagarin wrote:

Geez, first the optimal amount of doubles and now triples? How about if we nail down the singles part first and make sure we can do it without getting injured or burned out first?

You've got it wrong. Singles is the way to injury and burn out.

So you think a guy should run two runs of five miles every day and maybe three of six miles on the weekend instead of one ten miler everyday and a two-hour run on Sunday?

By the way, I got injured doing roughly 100 miles per week in about ten or eleven runs. The only difference from what I was doing before when I had never been injured? I starting adding doubles. Now, maybe I ran everything too hard, fine. BUT, running singles at least up to that point would have forced me to slow down. That's a lot less pounding on my legs and more time in any given day to recover.

Sagarin wrote:

By the way, I got injured doing roughly 100 miles per week in about ten or eleven runs. The only difference from what I was doing before when I had never been injured? I starting adding doubles. Now, maybe I ran everything too hard, fine. BUT, running singles at least up to that point would have forced me to slow down. That's a lot less pounding on my legs and more time in any given day to recover.

Why would you be forced to slow down? Aerobic training is the same regardless of the distance you are running.

Sagarin wrote:

So you think a guy should run two runs of five miles every day and maybe three of six miles on the weekend instead of one ten miler everyday and a two-hour run on Sunday?

Absolutely. Two hour runs for a 70mpw runner are way too much.

Anyone here ever tried tripling? How did it go? what did you do, 5, 5and 5 or what? I dont think I would enjoy running three times aday when I can just run long once or semi long twice a day.

Search "the high mileage story" or something like that. I think the OP was trolling but there were legit guys posting who were running triples and quadruples for 180+ mile weeks. However, they had slowish PR's. Intensity is what makes you fast, volume is what gives you endurance, and combining the two is what any ideal preperation for 800m-marathon is all about.

(Yes, even the marathon requires speed, is it really a coincidence that the marathon record holder has a sub 50 second 400m pr?)

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

(Yes, even the marathon requires speed, is it really a coincidence that the marathon record holder has a sub 50 second 400m pr?)

Neither Geb, nor Tergat, nor Khannouchi, nor any other marathon world record holder has ever broken 50 for the 400m.