Raising mileage from 100 to 140?

Mr Cripple wrote:

4 minute drills are the way to go. I used to be so fast, I would do them in 3:45.

AlSal ran 27:25 on 100-105/week

What is a 4 minute drill?

Wouldn't that make it a 3:45 drill?

i heard/read exactly the same.

Speed Kills, what's an example of Renato's hill sprints?

140 a week, eh?

Ritz has been quoted as saying prior to his two big races this season in Europe he was running 80-90 mile per week. More recently he upped it to 90-100. The biggest change in his training has been more "quality," ie faster power running (he says he's been doing lots of hill-sprints, drills, and anerobic threshold training)

Last year, during Alan Webb's breakthrough season, he was running 70-75 per week max (and he always does lots of quality and power/faster-paced running).

Which begs the question: Why is it that our best runners are the laziest and use quality-running as an excuse to avoid REAL mileage?? I think you should call these guys and let them what a REALLY hard-working runner does. At least John Kellog will be proud of you.

If you can't break 14:45 off of 120 miles a week, I bet your returns/improvements off of 140 will be rapidly diminishing (if they occur at all). Maybe you can take a page out of Ritz' book and do more quality running.

When did you start your bump into the consistent 100-120s? When making a big bump, you'll often see the results 1-2yrs out. Big results. PR history?

mix it up. increase your mileage if you like. just don't neglect the other details in your training. the stupid mileage versus speed debate is ridiculous. you need a nice balance of both to maximize your potential. a year or two of high, healthy mileage will give you the strength to do the faster, longer workouts that'll allow you to race at a higher level. good luck.

I respect your ideas but "Which begs the question: Why is it that our best runners are the laziest and use quality-running as an excuse to avoid REAL mileage?? I think you should call these guys and let them what a REALLY hard-working runner does. At least John Kellog will be proud of you." is a little idiotic to say. People are different. Somethings work for some and not others. I am glad I do not surround myself with negative people like you in real life. Sounds like you have an axe to grind. I have only raced one 5k in the past year and then started increasing mileage. We can all learn more and apply it to ourselves and our training and racing. Maybe one day I will see you in battle. Until then good day!

Highschool 5k pr was in 16:20's in xc off of 20 miles per week. Ran in the high 4:20s, broke 2 min in the 800. Went to higher mileage stuff in college ended up running low 15's in the first track 5k I did my frosh year. I'm enjoying the journey so far.

HaHa The 3:45 part was a joke.

A 4 minute drill is just intervals where you run for 4 minutes and try to go a little farther each time. If you run them in a group, you want to run fast enough to beat who you should, but not too fast on the first ones that you can't keep getting a little farther. They work great for cross where you can do them on the course.

The idea is just an LT workout where you get about 3 minutes at LT on each interval. No different than 1200's for high schoolers or a little farther for college and elites.

Nothing wrong with going up to 140 for base, but historically 100 with the proper workouts seem to have the best success.

there's only one way to answer this question for sure.

OK, I apologize for the sarcasm. But you asked a question, and I think you figured out MY answer (for what it is worth): going from 120 to 140 (lets face it, you already said you are at 120 some weeks) would help you much, and I think that you'd be better off increasing the quality of some of your runs rather than just piling on more mileage. It also sounds like many others on here feel the same way, but whatever floats your boat. If you can handle no problem (aren't getting injured or stale, or it is not keeping you from running fast when you want to), then why not. But most people it would effect in a negative way as much as a positive way.

And what exactly are your PR's and age are you. I saw something about college, and low 15's.

So you are a sophmore in college? Don't you have a coach? Your PR is what 15:20's......15:15? 15:05?

You ran a 4:20ish mile off of "20 miles a week" ??? Um, I REALLY am not trying to be negative, but if such low mileage got you that mile time(which is quite good), and 100+ miles per week gets you 15:15 in the 5k, I would say something is wrong. And that "something wrong" might be lack of faster running. More miles won't solve that, but it sounds like you really want to do it, so go for it!

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

OK, I apologize for the sarcasm. But you asked a question, and I think you figured out MY answer (for what it is worth): going from 120 to 140 (lets face it, you already said you are at 120 some weeks) would NOT help you much...

I left out the word " NOT" in one sentence, which I added in above.

Running an extra twenty miles for the sake of it is not conducive to faster running and may certainly be counterproductive. Progressively higher mileage, as you have done, whereby you can still hit your LT and VO2 intensities (controlled high mileage, as it were) should be much more helpful. As others have said, don't be a training log warrior.

i sure hope that you are not saying the 30 second improvemnets for kennedy and these 18:00 runners are equal. to drop 30 seconds from a 13:28 is a lot harder than from 18:00. there are thousands of people who go from 18:00 to 17:30, but you dont see the 13:28 to 12:58 drop all that often. you can get away from the miles.

I know a guy that ran 13:57 off of 140 miles a week. There was a lot more quality in his workouts and ran a lot of miles. I personally think it will help you out. Im running 120 mile a week right now and Im a 14:30 5k runner so whats up now?

There is no linear relationship between your 5k time and the number of miles you run in a week.

I went from high-17 shape off 20 mpw to 18:45 off 40 mpw to mid-21s off 70 mpw.

Moscow wrote:

There is no linear relationship between your 5k time and the number of miles you run in a week.

I went from high-17 shape off 20 mpw to 18:45 off 40 mpw to mid-21s off 70 mpw.

Er? I think you will need to clarify that a bit! ????

There does seem a good relationship there. If you now ran zero miles a week (or at most 3.1 miles for the 5K race) your experience might suggest you could run 15 for 5K!!!

You should hold your mileage at a level in which you can maintain - Per say, if you decide to go out and run 140 miles a week, you might do that for 1-2 weeks and feel fine. Eventually though, and I bet within 1 month, you will be so dog tired, you will not be able to maintain it at all. Why not jump to 110-115 and try that for awhile instead of thinking big numbers. It takes our bodies years to adapt. Myself as a poor example here. Back in 1996 82 miles was the highest mileage week I ever ran. I never could get back to that level without feeling dead for a few weeks after. In 2000, I was able to hit 82 again, yet bounce back and hit high 70's for weeks upon weeks afterward. It soon become a staple to hit 80 mile weeks and view that as normal. What used to be tougher mileage, 50-60 miles a week, is now considered an off week for me. Just realize to do quality/mileage at the same time takes time for your body to adapt and reduce injury/burnout risk.

Nick

My friend is going through this whole big bump process so let me offer some insight:

Something had gone wrong twice a year ever since I knew him. He was in great shape in Fall 2002 but then came down with a piriformis injury. He got over it, was in great shape Spring 03, but then came down with a foot injury (wrong shoes). He and I trained together for a while and he got into fantastic shape over the summer of 2003, and had a great fall racing season, but was left to his own devices and ended up running 10 hill workouts/runs in 14 days = achilles injury. He was down from Nov. until Feb, when he saw an ART therapist and fixed him up. Within about four weeks he as back up to 80mi high weeks, and ended up having a good but limited season. Good 5000m racing, and a lifetime PR in the 1500m.

So then the plan is to run 5000 miles this year and shooting for a very good 5k time. So, from June until Sept, all he did was run, because that's all he could do. Everything was 100-130 mpw, and over the summer was at altitude. That fall he started adding the occasional LT workout and told me that nothing was making him tired. He hit 140 and 150 on a few weeks, with an average of 125 for most of the time. He had a good fall racing season, but, as you said was very tired at first but got to the point where he was more or less tireless.

His only real problem since then was the apartment he was staying in. He was getting sick in Dec. and thought that he was falling ill to repeated mileage, but, he found a sign on the backside of the building where he was staying that read "Warning: Materials used in the contruction of this building have been known to cause birth defects." He missed a week getting healthy, got the hell out of that building, and is back in tireless shape again. Hopefully, all will work out and he will have some massive PRs in the summer.

BTW -- all of this running has been/is in flats, mostly the H Street and Moscow Limber Up.