140 Miles per week

COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:

No way buddy! And I know what I talk about coaching Kenyans and chatting with a lot of the very best like Kiprop, Kamworor,Cheptengai (Uganda,silver 10000m WC) and so on. Most of them stay at an weekly average around 80-100 miles . 140 mile weeks is for people who have the time and just want to run a lot at a relatively slow pace, not to reach their very best race results.

You do realize that when you post things like this you lose any credibility you might have had? It is hard enough reading all of your self promoting posts every day I couldn't imagine being one of these kenyons receiving your spammy emails.

Optimal training volume/intensity is different for everyone imo. Just like optimal weight or stride length or cadence. There can be an average that applies to the majority possibly, but everyone is different.

Non professional who spent a couple years after college chasing it.

Ran 140 to 150 probably 10 times total. My first 140 week was in at 5500 altitude too (I was coming from sea level).

More impressive is that I averaged 130 mpw for 6 months.

140 mpw is tough but doable (mainly because it does get boring).

140 mpw with a real job is a different beast, but doable.

TLW wrote:

Non professional who spent a couple years after college chasing it.

Ran 140 to 150 probably 10 times total. My first 140 week was in at 5500 altitude too (I was coming from sea level).

More impressive is that I averaged 130 mpw for 6 months.

140 mpw is tough but doable (mainly because it does get boring).

140 mpw with a real job is a different beast, but doable.

How did that help your times? I am just a hobby jogger but had a 3 week period of 90-101-93 working 40-50 hours. Wasn't that bad actually. Felt good. But no workouts just running miles without a watch. Probably 7:45 average .. I did go from a 19 5k to a 36 10k in about 4 months w easy miles and 4 tempos.

HRE wrote:

a lot more people used to do that sort of volume than do it now.

Today people have GPS watches that actually measure how much they run. You can easily subtract 20+% from what people without GPS watches claim they run and what they actually run.

I became very strong off that mileage but raced better on 100 to 110 mpw mainly because I was able to push the daily runs more at that mileage and honestly because it was more enjoyable and not as boring.

After a certain mileage point, for me 120, it started to feel like all you did was run and the enjoyment was reduced a bit.

Note - I did all my training solo.

runners are liars wrote:

HRE wrote:

a lot more people used to do that sort of volume than do it now.

Today people have GPS watches that actually measure how much they run. You can easily subtract 20+% from what people without GPS watches claim they run and what they actually run.

You can subtract 20% or so but that doesn't mean you're correct even if you think you are. And if you take away 20% from 160-200 you're still around or above 140. But sure, just because you don't believe it happenedmeans it never did.

Check Newton's York teams. Plenty of guys running 100+ back in the day. Far from ridiculous it was common place.

Runrincerepeat wrote:

Optimal training volume/intensity is different for everyone imo. Just like optimal weight or stride length or cadence. There can be an average that applies to the majority possibly, but everyone is different.

Your making a false equivalency. Mileage is a stress that causes a certain adaptation. Weight/nutrition and cadence are not.

For every runner racing more than 3000m, safely adapting to a higher mileage will make them a better runner. Do you disagree?

Higher mileage is a stress. You train to adapt to stresses. If you got injured increasing your mileage, you did not train properly. It was not the mileage that got you, but your approach to it- your progression.

The idea that you have to pick speed or endurance, or that high weekly mileage comes at the expense of speed is not true. Good training covers it all.

I will always agree that for most more miles the better. My point is for some guys 90miles may be better for them than 110 and for some guys 110 is better than 90.

Runrincerepeat wrote:

I will always agree that for most more miles the better. My point is for some guys 90miles may be better for them than 110 and for some guys 110 is better than 90.

What makes you say that? There is one good answer, and that is they risk more injury/fatigue at higher mileages, but as I said, if you train right, progress correctly, then the risk of injury at 110 and 90 is the same.

Go have a look at Renato Canova'sp posts, his guys (and Kamworor, cheptegai, kipchoge...etc) ran up to 230 km a week.

Mathematically, no. The risk of running 110 mi a week will always be greater than 90. I don't know why you're making the argument: seems like a moot point. If you progress correctly you will always have a better chance of running a higher mileage safely.The training principle of individuality suggests that 90 miles a week will be better than 110 for some people and vice versa. Someone might have more slow twitch fibers and require more easy and threshold running to develop them, thus higher mileage

Twinn wrote:

Runrincerepeat wrote:

I will always agree that for most more miles the better. My point is for some guys 90miles may be better for them than 110 and for some guys 110 is better than 90.

What makes you say that? There is one good answer, and that is they risk more injury/fatigue at higher mileages, but as I said, if you train right, progress correctly, then the risk of injury at 110 and 90 is the same.

My dad used to, he's definitely a proponent of slow mileage. Doubles as far as I know every day, 2.28 marathon.

The great Ed ran 3 hours around the cemetery every day. If he ran at 9 min/mile pace that would be exactly 140 miles per week.

I'm averaging 120 for the year and have touched 140+ a few times. I work full time as well and have been racing a fair amount along the way. If you look at 140 miles in one seven day stretch it does seem fairly intimidating, but once you do it one time you realize it's just a bit more running than you're used to if you're already touching 100+ regularly.

For me the hardest part is just running "easy" but extending the mileage to be 18-20 total for that day. I usually do something like 10-12 in the morning, then 4-6 in the evening. Adding in those few miles on the days that are still your recovery days from the workouts you're doing is the hardest part in my opinion.

I will also say that if you're just running easy mileage it's a lot easier to get in the volume compared to workout out. When I've hit 140+ it has been part of a normal training block structured as:

Monday - 12.2 in AM / 6 in PM

Tuesday - 3 x 8min with 3min jog between at 5:01, 4:55, 4:54/mi pace + 2 x 4min at 4:52, 4:47/mi pace. / 6.2 in PM

Wednesday - 21 in AM at 6:40/mi / 4 in 8:07/mi pace in PM

Thursday - 14.25 in AM / 4.55 in PM

Friday - 8 in AM (supposed to workout but didn't) / 8 in PM

Saturday - 9 in AM / 10 in PM

Sunday - 19.75 with 8 warm up, 7 uptempo, 4.75 cool down / 5 with hill sprints in PM.

Total: 142

5/10

you had some believable parts but overall it was a bit much

How's your racing going these days? I remember following your training on the weekly thread. Were you shooting for marathon OT at some point?

THere's always a few nutters who do this - my main Strava club includes a guy who run commutes 17.5 miles a day at 8.30-9 minute pace, 6 days a week for 210 miles a week. I don't know if he ever races and don't know him personally. I don't know anyone who routinely breaks 110 and isn't (a) a very dedicated dropped out hippie ultra runner or (b) a pro.