Todd Williams uncut-training question

The long run has two purposes:

1. Gradually build endurance so that you can handle longer daily runs (ie: high school runner running 7 miles a day with a 10 mile long run progresses to 10 miles a day and a 12-14 mile long run)

2. Increase fuel effeciency and muscular endurance for the marathon.

So if you've pretty much established your weekly mileage range you don't need to get out and slug at 16, 18, 20 mile run every week of the year.

Going back you'll notice after the conditioning phase Lydiard didn't put too much emphasis on long runs either. Take 10 weeks or so to build up the miles, but not easy, nice effort hard aerobic miles, longer runs (ie: Lydiard's "3 longish runs a week"), after that you don't need to worry about a long run...unless you are preparing for a marathon.

Alan

Malmo, was hoping you would answer my question but maybe will later, my calculations for the long run in regards to Sell and Salazar are 15% of weekly mileage, although Salazar wasn't training for the marathon at the time of the training log mentioned, so 60 miles/week might look like this:

M-8

T-9

W-8

T-9

F-8

S-8

S-10

Malmo do you agree?

That looks fine to me, runner39. Or take a day off and spread that mileage over the six days if you want.

I'm not saying not do long runs, what I've been saying, and I've been very clear on this: do not put disproportional mileage into one day - especially if you are a low mileage runner. If you want to put in 14-16 miles once a month (presuming you are a 60mpweeker) that's OK too. In fact, I'll even encourage that.

Malmo,

I am trying to get some opinions on optimum mileage per week, I know its difficult to tell someone how many miles to ru per week but here'e my scenerio, basically a 36 min 10k runner, have been for 3+ years, when I first ran 36 min 3 years ago was running 50-60 / week, so I thought increasing the mileage would take me to sub 34 min 10k (where I could be some what competitive in local road raees) in a couple of years, so ran 70-80 for 2 years and saw very little race time improvement, so I am basically at the same level I was 3+ years ago, I know guys that run 60 miles/ week and run 32-33 min 10k's so why would I want to run more mileage than them, surely 60 miles/week should get me to 34 min 10k level

Malmo,

I meant to add, I could see running 80-100 miles /week if I were sub 31 min 10k runner but at my level and even my goal level (34 min 10k) I don't the real benefit in running that amount of mileage, by the way I am a 40 year old masters runner

what are your workouts like? also the same over the last couple of years?

12krunner wrote:

what are your workouts like? also the same over the last couple of years?

virtually the same workout times over the last 3+ years, I realized that this is the real reason for lack of race times improvement but I am beginning to think maybe the increased mileage was not allowing me to recover for workouts, I do not run my easy runs too fast, that's why I ask Malmo about long runs because when I was doing 70-80 /week my long run was 14-16 then lately I am back at 60/week and long run is 13-14, just wondering if that long a run is necessary for someone of my ability training for 5k/10k road races

Benefit is relative. You never know what x training will do until you do it. Maybe you'll go from 34 to a 32 10k...maybe you'll stay at 34, you just don't know until you try.

Alan

cmurph wrote:

i was around then wrote:

In 95 Todd was running great and prepared to run as fast as he could at world cross and sea ray. Of course it worked, running 9th at WXC and 27:31 in Tennessee. Todd told me what he ran that workout in, as I recall it was 4:08, 3:30 1:58, 56 or thereabouts.

Did you mean 3:00 for the 1200? I think he says how fast he ran the workout in the uncut video on flocasts. 3:30 obviously is way too slow

yeah, i meant 303, not 330

Malmo,

Do you advise the Hansons at all? I notice that a lot of your comments sound like Kevin Hanson. Or I should say that Kevin sounds a lot like you. Especially your down playing the importance of the long run. That is not a criticism as I believe in what the Hansons are doing. Just curious.

12krunner wrote:

from todd himself. he does things a little against convential wisdom  

 

Really?

Malmo, 12krunner, please respond

While I certainly agree that the long run is overrated, and I think not necessary for people focusing on events shorter than the marathon (even there, it's overrated.) However, a long run of 8 in a 102 mile week (averaging almost 15/day) is really not much. He would almost need to be doubling that every day to hit his mileage. Even a longest run of 10-12 in a 100+ week seems rather light. Anyhow, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, just that it's interesting, and that Todd is certainly bucking the conventional wisdom of American runners.

Sounds Familiar wrote:

Malmo,

Do you advise the Hansons at all? I notice that a lot of your comments sound like Kevin Hanson. Or I should say that Kevin sounds a lot like you. Especially your down playing the importance of the long run. That is not a criticism as I believe in what the Hansons are doing. Just curious.

There's nothing original about what I've said. Nor is it rare in practice among competitive athletes/programs.

malmo wrote:

Sounds Familiar wrote:

Malmo,

Do you advise the Hansons at all? I notice that a lot of your comments sound like Kevin Hanson. Or I should say that Kevin sounds a lot like you. Especially your down playing the importance of the long run. That is not a criticism as I believe in what the Hansons are doing. Just curious.

There's nothing original about what I've said. Nor is it rare in practice among competitive athletes/programs.

Obviously by the responses, it was unique to many of us common folk.

runner39 wrote:

when I first ran 36 min 3 years ago was running 50-60 / week ... surely 60 miles/week should get me to 34 min 10k level

Stick with the 50-60 a week and regularly hammer your runs and your sessions. For example running a fast 6 mile and later a fast 4 mile will do more for you then slugging along a slow 10 mile as long as you're consistent at least 50-60 a week. As you get faster than you'll be able handle a few more miles with intensity but keep it in the same range.

It's the intensity that will help you to improve.

I have known T-Will for 22 years and used to run against him (never beat him!) so this training log comes as no surprise to me. I have seen this kind of thing from Todd before.

One thing that stands out for me is that very little (maybe none!) of the training was done at 42:22 pace (which is 4:31 per 1600). Nor was any of it done at 27:31 10k pace, nor the pace you would expect to do in a 12k WCCC type race.

The intervals were done much faster, like 64 per 400 at the slowest. The LT runs are done at what rec runners would think are too fast, but 4:45 is very reasonable for a guy who runs 5k at 4:16 per 1600.

SO the intervals were done around 60-64 a lap for 800-1600 reps, the LT runs at 4:45-5:00 and the base runs were done around 5:40-50 a mile.

Now that I think about it more the 10 x 1k was done at exactly 10k pace.

Anyway, my point was that I often see posters decrying that you must do a lot of race-specific training pace-wise and I always think, "Why?"

You want to train your VO2max, or your LT, or your slightly slower stamina (10 mile, half-mar, mar) ... so that doesn't mean you train at EXACLTY race pace.

seeing this training was great, but it looks like todd has gotten a little behind in updating the logs. too bad, wated to see the stuff leading up to world cross and the 15k. maybe people can make some noise and he'll get back into it.

Sounds Familiar wrote:

Malmo,

Do you advise the Hansons at all? I notice that a lot of your comments sound like Kevin Hanson. Or I should say that Kevin sounds a lot like you. Especially your down playing the importance of the long run. That is not a criticism as I believe in what the Hansons are doing. Just curious.

malmo wrote:

There's nothing original about what I've said. Nor is it rare in practice among competitive athletes/programs.

Unique to many of us wrote:

Obviously by the responses, it was unique to many of us common folk.

Stop reading RW, Higdon, Daniels, Pfitzinger, etc., etc. They're all trying to appeal to those who want to do as little as possible to be ready to perform just to make a buck.