Is 100km per week better than 100mpw?

I mean obviously if the option is training consistently at 100KM a week or getting injured and burned out at 100MPW you have to listen to your body's limits, but if you're able to handle the 100MPW the extra 38MPW will take you very, very far. Saying 100KM is more effective than 100MPW is just dumb.

The best approach is to make sure the quality is there in your week and then increase volume to as high as your body will handle, regardless of where that line is. For some people it's 30mpw, for others it's 130mpw.

Tim Nokes (of Lore of Running fame) says that 100k is sufficient for all levels. My notes are sloppy & old but they indicated 100k as follows:

Mon 8-10k easy

Tue- 15k@ 1/2 MP

We’d- 8-10k easy

Thu-10x 1k @ 5k pace

Fri- 8-10k easy

Sat-15-20 Relaxed Pace

or races of 5-15 k

Sun- 30-35@ 120% MP

M,W,F Strides 5-7x :20 seconds after run.

vladimir wrote:

Tim Nokes (of Lore of Running fame) says that 100k is sufficient for all levels. My notes are sloppy & old but they indicated 100k as follows:

Mon 8-10k easy

Tue- 15k@ 1/2 MP

We’d- 8-10k easy

Thu-10x 1k @ 5k pace

Fri- 8-10k easy

Sat-15-20 Relaxed Pace

or races of 5-15 k

Sun- 30-35@ 120% MP

M,W,F Strides 5-7x :20 seconds after run.

yeah running 9 miles at hm pace and doing 10x1k at 5k pace are workouts you can do every week. Not.

there are a few elite milers who do run 100km. Not sure if there are any sub 13/27 guys who arent doing periods of around 140+km...

I was just giving an example of the type of training suggested by an individual that probably knows more about training than this entire message board combined. Running close to your race pace at a shorter distance isn’t that difficult. If your a 90 minute 1/2 marathon runner running at just shy of 7:00 pace for 70% of the distance is nothing fantastic. It would be like asking a 5:00 miler to run 1200 in 3:30. Not all of that difficult. As to the repeat 1000’s it would be akin to asking the same 5:00 miler - who should be running about 16:50- 5k to run 1000’s in 3:45 or for those non-metric 800’s in 2:50. Once again a substantial workout, but not earth shattering. If you want to excel in races- you will have to put in the work.

vladimir wrote:

I was just giving an example of the type of training suggested by an individual that probably knows more about training than this entire message board combined. Running close to your race pace at a shorter distance isn’t that difficult. If your a 90 minute 1/2 marathon runner running at just shy of 7:00 pace for 70% of the distance is nothing fantastic. It would be like asking a 5:00 miler to run 1200 in 3:30. Not all of that difficult. As to the repeat 1000’s it would be akin to asking the same 5:00 miler - who should be running about 16:50- 5k to run 1000’s in 3:45 or for those non-metric 800’s in 2:50. Once again a substantial workout, but not earth shattering. If you want to excel in races- you will have to put in the work.

So you have never done distance running workouts in your life? Seriously go do this for one week and let us know how you do. And then let us know how weeks 2+3 go after you do these barely doable workouts. Go make a letsrun thread and ask what people think you 5k time will be after doing 10x1k. 10k of HM would be rough do to every week. Same thing with 6-8*1000 @5k pace. Coaches dont tend to only give 30 mons of straight HM pace work or do 6*1000 cause they are scared of hard work. It is because more doesnt work for long.

You can do occasional hero workouts. You cant do them 2x/week

ImpaIa31 wrote:

birdbeard wrote:

lol wut

That guy's marathoners fall apart after 30k. Don't listen to him.

This right here. 100 km if you are racing local 5k and trail races or trying to break 3hr in the marathon. You are not running sub 2:30 or 2:20 or faster off of 62 mpw. You have to train to be able to run well at the 2 hr mark and that requires a lot of 2 hour runs. Otherwise, the above post is what occurs. If you already have years of 100+ mpw then maybe you can get away with training for a sub 2:30/20 off of 50-60 during the build up to the race; I have seen that before.

I’ve done quite a few workouts in my day, not very much on the speed side, but mostly just long distance runs. A little above average results, but that’s not the issue here. As runners we need to find what works for each of us. Distance running is an art not a science. Science tells you that H2O is water anywhere in the world. Art is when runner A does a series of workouts and achieved a time of X. When another individual does the same workouts they have different results. My past success was based upon running slowly with lots of distance- frequent races and almost no running related injuries.

vladimir wrote:

I’ve done quite a few workouts in my day, not very much on the speed side, but mostly just long distance runs. A little above average results, but that’s not the issue here. As runners we need to find what works for each of us. Distance running is an art not a science. Science tells you that H2O is water anywhere in the world. Art is when runner A does a series of workouts and achieved a time of X. When another individual does the same workouts they have different results. My past success was based upon running slowly with lots of distance- frequent races and almost no running related injuries.

Feel free to post a training week where you have done anything as hard as 15k at HM pace or 10x1k in the same week. Given they are easy, you must have done this 20+ times over the last year right?

people dont run 6-7x1000 instead if 10 because they are wimps. they run 6 because they cant do 10. Again go to track today and run 1000 and you will learn why people do 6 @ 5k pace and slow down to 8k/10k pace when doing more. you can look at 1000s of elite athletes to see this pattern...

is km superior wrote:

Less stress. Faster pace. 10k in the am, 10k in the pm.

What say you lrc experts? Do we go metric?

Based on that empirical study (see Fig.1), a sweet spot for volume is for

5k: 80 miles/week

10K: 100 miles/week

hm: 120 miles/week

marathon: 120+ miles/week

As orientation. Volume matters.

Regarding the above post I agree if the athletes are elite (ie runs only- no job). But not doable for most with a job/life. My coach was even more into distances. His was as follows:

5k -100 miles

10k - 125 miles

Marathon - 175 miles

Speed work was almost nonexistent, but pace work was about 5% of weekly total.

How many of you can afford the time needed to run 100 miles each after college?

vladimir wrote:

Regarding the above post I agree if the athletes are elite (ie runs only- no job). But not doable for most with a job/life. My coach was even more into distances. His was as follows:

5k -100 miles

10k - 125 miles

Marathon - 175 miles

Speed work was almost nonexistent, but pace work was about 5% of weekly total.

Your trainer was on the safe side :) (20% more)

That volume is important is clear and backed within a lot of papers.

Very interesting in this paper is the finding that there is a sweet spot! Doing more volume than necessary is counter productive (see 5k results Fig 1c, the race velocity becomes slower above 80 miles/week).

There seems to be an optimal volume for each race distance.