Malmo what's the best way to structure a 100 and 110 mile weeks?

somehow I doubt that Geb can't (or couldn't at his peak) break 50 for 400 if he can split a 200 in 25.4 after running 9800 meters. He's fast, and there's no denying that.

Snopes wrote:

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

(Yes, even the marathon requires speed, is it really a coincidence that the marathon record holder has a sub 50 second 400m pr?)

Neither Geb, nor Tergat, nor Khannouchi, nor any other marathon world record holder has ever broken 50 for the 400m.

Are you questioning Geb's speed?

Here he is winning the 3k and 1500m indoor world championships. He was also an indoor 2000m wr holder

And his manager Jos Hermans says that he has 49.9 400m speed.

And Tergat ran 7:36 and 12:49

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

Are you questioning Geb's speed?

Here he is winning the 3k and 1500m indoor world championships. He was also an indoor 2000m wr holder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1NMq-3pacA

That 1500 was impressive as hell. 56 at 400, 1:25 at 600, 1:54 at 800, 2:23 at 1000, 2:52 at 1200, then a final 300 in 41!

My God, I'm be happy with that 600 time.

827 wrote:

somehow I doubt that Geb can't (or couldn't at his peak) break 50 for 400 if he can split a 200 in 25.4 after running 9800 meters. He's fast, and there's no denying that.

It's all very well saying that Haile or whoever could run sub 50 for 400, but when would they actually do such a run?

A lot of fast finishers can't run fast in a 400. It's all a question of muscle tension. Some runners need a huge warm up before they can run a fast 400, and that is one of the reasons why they can finish so fast, the nervous impulse and muscle tension build slowly, they can't just turn it on and off like a switch.

Yes, not a bad idea! I posted this earlier in this thread:

I've always done my shorter run of the day at an easy, backed-off intensity and focused on having strong, aerobic efforts for the longer run of the day. Malmo (or anyone else), do you usually do your shorter run of the day at the same intensity as the longer one, or do you back off? I know lydiard advocates easy jogging in the morning as a supplement to the 100mpw of strong aerobic runs he prescribes for building base.

wellnow wrote:

827 wrote:

somehow I doubt that Geb can't (or couldn't at his peak) break 50 for 400 if he can split a 200 in 25.4 after running 9800 meters. He's fast, and there's no denying that.

It's all very well saying that Haile or whoever could run sub 50 for 400, but when would they actually do such a run?

A lot of fast finishers can't run fast in a 400. It's all a question of muscle tension. Some runners need a huge warm up before they can run a fast 400, and that is one of the reasons why they can finish so fast, the nervous impulse and muscle tension build slowly, they can't just turn it on and off like a switch.

Well put. I'm kinda the same way... only I'd have to be on HGH or something to run sub 50 in a 400

Malmo, you mentioned earlier in this thread that doing a 2 hour run is way too much for someone at low (i.e. 70mpw) mileage level. If the most ive ever done is 70, and I'm going to be at 80-90 mpw this summer for the first time (dont worry I wont count mileage), what's the longest run (ballpark) in terms of time I should be concerned that I'm reaching such a measure that is "too much" relative to my total mileage level? Thanks for your help, very good thread

I do most of my running at like 7 min pace (and slower for the early morning run in which I started doing 2-3 miles), im slow relative to those on this board but i want to make most of ability.

I'm one of those guys planning something like this:

Mon 6

Tues 4/8

Wed 4/8

Thurs 4/10

Fri 4/8

Sat 4/6

Sun 14

Total - 80mpw

a 16 miler would be like a 2hr run so Malmo, according to what you're saying above, this would be too much for me?

1976 wrote:

I've always done my shorter run of the day at an easy, backed-off intensity and focused on having strong, aerobic efforts for the longer run of the day. Malmo (or anyone else), do you usually do your shorter run of the day at the same intensity as the longer one, or do you back off? I know lydiard advocates easy jogging in the morning as a supplement to the 100mpw of strong aerobic runs he prescribes for building base.

This is a good question

JK suggests "butt dragging" pace for the easier run like Japanese supposedly do?

There probably isn't an answer to this other than do what your body feels. After reading through these posts, I think Malmo is saying to try to keep things simple and listen to the body i.e. just let the pace come to you

I ran triples 2x in my 'career': once in HS to compensate for an extended illness commencing just after xc season - in order to have a decent sr yr track season.

The other time was in college during xc season to compensate for a 3 or so month lay off - hoping to not embarass myself towards the end of the season.

HS was an intense focus for 2 1/2 months - ran am then during 'PE' class (the teacher was understanding of my situation so accomodated, then 'normal' workouts with the track team.

College was much the same with more mileage in the AM with team-mates ... usually 5-10 miles more than likely 7-8. then at noon with sometimes interval work. Afternoon with team. Team workouts were normally quite intense. I can't even remember if I ran too many races until the end of the season (pretty competitive team).

I actually wouldn't recommend it, generally, but for me, given the circumstances, I would do it again. One thing that happened was that I thought I was in good shape to peak for the last three or four races of the season. I was good for 3 of the 4. Product of short very intense time frame? ... I'm guessin so. Contribute to some ensuing injuries? guessin so on that note too.

Very frenetic. Settled down to 'normal' doubles routine and got back on track to regain a bit more sanity, predictability and control over training and racing elements.

I ran triples for a bit a couple years ago. Mostly because I had the time available. I would run 4-6 miles to work, run an 8-10 miles workout at lunch (1-2 mile easy, 6 miles progression from 5:40 down to 5:00, then 1-2 mile easy), then another 4-6 miles home after work. Didn't do that all the time, maybe a couple times a week for a month. Averaged 120 miles a week for about a month, and 100+ miles a week for at least 10 straight weeks. Result?: Marathon PR on a cold windy Chicago morning in 2006. If I had to it again I would just stay with doubles and add more high end speed work (ie: mile repeats and some "real" track work).

Alan

Great thread!

Do you "doubles" people do double showers and laundry, too?

I take it you are single and have no children?

Oh my, you poor dear: 4 socks, two shorts and two shirts per day.

If laundry is a consideration, perhaps you could do zero runs a day and save yourself the burden?

Listen Snarko, that wasn't half or a quarter of my point. The efficacy of Doubles is an unproven quantity and debatable and you know it. Why complicate your life and your family's--if you have one or want to keep a healthy one, with this unnecessary burden on them, and you? Records? Medals? The Lottery?

Some well-tempered guru you are:/

The efficacy of doubles has been proven every year for over 50 years, and will continue to be proven in the future by tens of thousands of runners. The best runners at every level run doubles, and none of them has ever whined about "extra" laundry.

malmo, is there any preference to which run should be the 'workout', first or second? I can afford 4-5 miles afternoon and that's it, which leaves the mornings for my main run (5-10 miles). The afternoon run is easy and this seems to be tolerable for my aging bod.

Any decent recreational runner let alone a competitive athlete should have proper equipment.

For runners that means a few dozen socks, T-shirts and shorts.

I think you would be fine killing 2 of each per day for close to a week without doing laundry.

Not to mention 2-3 pairs of shoes to rotate.