140 miles per week.

I averaged 120+ per week for a three year period when I was not working full time. There is a big difference between 120 and 140, and I did approach 140 on occasion, but could not maintain it.

My schedule was the following:

Sun - AM - 22-25 miles, PM - rest

Mon - AM - 6 miles, PM - 9 miles

Tue - AM - 6 miles, PM - 9 miles

Wed - AM - 17 miles, PM - 4 miles

Thu - AM - 6 miles, PM - 9 miles

Fri - AM - 6 miles, PM - 9 miles

Sat - AM - 13 miles, PM - 4 miles

MUSICRUNNER wrote:

High mileage is the ticket, but again it individuAl based...100 may work for 1, while 120 for the other...I was a low mileage guy(50-60), but I have been doing highmiles(average just under 100 for close to 30 weeks) and the difference is huge...

What "difference"? Mileage difference... how you feel every day... your race times...? Can you be more specific about what you mean?

The differences are: faster recovery, more leg strength, drop in times both workouts and races, decrease in weight and body fat, and overall confidence.

It is amazing that(now) a 10-12 miler is a an easy run...when that used to be a long run!!!

I am getting ready to start the indoor season, so in 3 months, I will able to speak more specifically about differnces in track times. My goals races are 3000 meters and under..

Thank you!

140 is so mental. When i committed to it this summer it was easy. But it is hard working full time in the dark to pull it off. But you've got me fired up.

all you have to give is everything.....

Not hard. Did it when working full-time and not much difference between this and 120. The difference is like running 1 hr. in the morning and night instead of a 40 min. in the morning and 1 hr. in the evening. Also a 22 miler and not a 19 miler on Sunday.

This is how I would do it.

M- AM: 9 PM: 9 = 18

T- AM: 7 PM: workout- 35 WU (5) 12x800m w/1 min. rest (6) 3 mile CD = 21

W= AM: 9 PM: 9 = 18

TH- AM: 9 PM: 9 = 18

FR- AM: 3 up 10 mi tempo 3 down PM: 7 easy = 23

ST- AM: 9 PM: 9 = 18

SN- 24 aerobic

Good luck!

I kinda like Malmo's credentials on this topic, a bit more than Wejo's.

Because Wejo's PR is 28:10 or because Malmo's is 28:53?

Don't blindly follow what Malmo says based solely on his times. There are other posters, not including me, that have accomplished his times or faster who can give you different advice. Everyone has their own sweet spot pace they start out in. Take a little bit of advice from all the elites and form your own opinion.

-Soup

In the 7 months before his 8:21 Steeple AR in 1978, Malmo averaged 90 miles per week with just 3 weeks over 130.

Soup,

Probably because malmo is a 2:12 marathoner and Wejo is a 2:18 guy and the posters are potential marathoners.

Just thought you'd like the full understanding.

OK, here's a random question.

After a 4 year hiatus from running, in 2004 I decided to make a go of it again. I started off struggling through an 8:00 mile. By Sep, I had gotten down to a 16:25 5k and a 27:50 5 mile. I averaged 45 miles a week that first year back.

Year 2, which has been 2005, I have averaged 55 miles a week so far and have built up to where I can comfortably handle 70+ miles a week now. My PRs have dropped as I have run 26:40 for Cross on the same course I ran over 28:00 on last year. My bet, if I were to run a 5k now, would be that I have gotten down to 15:30s/40s form.

For the next 6 weeks, leading up to my first real indoor race, I plan on getting in 80-85 a week. Will I see any benefit from this in the 7th week when I race or will I just be tired? I'm also doing 2 workouts a week right now... a tempo or tempo-intervals and things like miles, 1200s, 1000s at 5k or 3k race pace. I'm shooting to run fast in indoors.

How high should I bring up my mileage this summer going into cross? I want to hit in the 90s, but I work 12 hour days, so doing doubles is kind of out except for Sat and the occasional weekday.

What do you all think about my progression of mileage and the benefits I will see by continuing to up it?

during these huge mileage weeks are there any off days applied in training?

Don't worry about me Soup, I'm a washed up has been, who's best running days are far in my past. Come to think of it, those best days really weren't that great.

Just my opinion on valuing Malmo's opinion over Wejo's. No disrespect to you or Wejo.

Why? Malmo may have a slower 10K PR, but he was way more consistent and relative to the athlete's of his day was a lot better runner. Didn't he have at least 1 AR?

Anyway, merely my opinion.

Two American and one world record!

ok hre you did the miles ect but what did u run in races?

thats alot of time and effort.hope it was worth it.

Also just a point but a teacher seems to be a good job to do as a runner with the summer off.

POST PRs... you +100 mpw people. plz I need these.

As far as I can tell, Malmo and Wejo were/are great runners who probably agree on a lot more training philosophies than they disagree on. You'd probably learn a lot from both of them.

Congrats to the guy who just did 140. Racing fast may be the ultimate goal, but 140 is quite an achievement in and of itself (at least to civilians like me) - let us know how it goes on the track.

Coldest Weather you ever ran.. wrote:

Don't worry about me Soup, I'm a washed up has been, who's best running days are far in my past. Come to think of it, those best days really weren't that great.

Just my opinion on valuing Malmo's opinion over Wejo's. No disrespect to you or Wejo.

Why? Malmo may have a slower 10K PR, but he was way more consistent and relative to the athlete's of his day was a lot better runner. Didn't he have at least 1 AR?

Anyway, merely my opinion.

I agree with Soup. Marathon Pr's are perhaps the worst reflection of training knowledge among any racing distance because so much can go wrong in a marathon. In a mile, a 5K, a 10K, if you're fit, you'll race very well. In a marathon, there are world champions, Olympic gold medalists, who can run slower than the women's WR. That NEVER happens on the track. Antonio Pinto, Gezahenge Abera, Joshua Chelanga, Assefa Mezgebu; all these guys were major stars on the track and/or road and I can remember at least one occasion for each of them where they absolutely bombed, running between 2:17-2:25 in a marathon, some while in great shape. Same for Tergat in Athens; he ran 2:14. That would not have met the US OT standard in 2000, which was 2:14:00.

Crazy stuff happens in a marathon. Give Wejo some credit; he ran 4:58.8 pace for 20 at Chicago 2001 and then ran 2:18:10 jogging it in and clearly not running his maximum after pacing Paula.

denishdynamite wrote:

In the 7 months before his 8:21 Steeple AR in 1978, Malmo averaged 90 miles per week with just 3 weeks over 130.

Malmo's AR was 8:22 in 1977 which he and his coach both attribute to the huge base during cross country season.

We need for threads like this. Lately letsrun has been a haven for bored wannabe good runners. Guys like me need to hear post about like minded people who just shut up and get the job done. Who in the hell cares about some chump wanting to get his PHD? Most of you guys need to up the miles and get your heads examined.Also getting laid once or twice in your lifetime would have prevented all this.