You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum
RE: Thanks Tinman
Are you talking to me or to Jack Daniels, PhD?
I don't recall ever saying that people should just run 30 miles per week and expect to reach their potential.
I tell high school coaches often that they need to not focus on intervals until their kids are running 50 miles per week. Actually, if I could be assured that the kids wouldn't hammer every single run like a lot of collegiate kids do, I would say that running 60-70 miles per week without much fast, sustained interval work is better for them than running 40-50 with lots of intervals. I like the idea of juniors and seniors running 60 miles per week with lots of aerobic and anaerobic threshold training and sprints, uphill and on the flats, instead of lactic acid reps such as repeat 400s.
For collegiate runners, they better realize that if they aren't hitting at least 65 miles per week, they are not going to come close to what is possible. In my opinion, 70-80 miles per week should be a goal for people seeking to run well, and more than that for people who are wanting to hit the elite levels in college and beyond.
The training plan needs to include more than just putting in mega-mileage slow. Figure that 75 miles with fast aerobic, sprints, and a small amount of max vo2 for a junior and senior in college is better than 100 miles slow with 400m reps in high volume.
No matter how you do it, you gotta reach some high volume, include some fast aerobic running (AT to LT), and sprints plus Max VO2 for mature runners. So simple, yet so many people want to train like runners did in the 50s, but without the high volume of the 60s and 70s. Doesn't work.
Moderate volume training, say 70 miles per week with the mix previously mentioned, done for several weeks, is a lot better training than 100 miles per week done with no regard to balance.
Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post.