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

Malmo, would you do these at the end of a workout or at the end of an easy run?

Hill repeats would be your workout. An easy warmup, hill repeats, and easy warmdown.

Joe Vigil and his proteges squeezed more blood out of turnips then anyone I know with the 110 mile week. Consult his training methods too by searching the Adams St. threads here.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1657603&page=0

Hey Malmo,

I was wondering how to discern between the inevitable fatigue that comes with doing high mileage for the first time, and the fatigue that puts you at risk of overtraining/burnout. I'm running 100 mpw (past summer high was around 75) and feel strong and fitter than ever, but most of my runs are at a pretty brisk pace because I feel good. I'm tired, but I think that's unavoidable when tackling high mileage for the first time.

I'm more than willing to push through a few weeks and hopefully, like Terrence Mahon, emerge fitter and faster than ever. But I want to make sure not to be stale when the important races come. What's your advice? down week? I get plenty of sleep, eat well, foam roller, etc.

malmo wrote:

Hill sprints are the ideal kind of training, ofr a couple of reasons.

1) Cardiovascularly, they are speed training without the force impact.

2) Impact of running increases by the square of velocity. Going uphill decreases the speed, thereby decreasing the force impact. Also footplant of each stride is a bit higher in elevation than the last ( a 5 ft stride on 5% grade the footstrike is 4" higher than the last), also decreasing the force impact. Turnover remains the same.

Running increases bone density. Sprinting increases it even more. The problem with sprinting is that you also expose yourself to the higher impacts that can lead to tissue or bone injury. By running hills you dramatically reduce that risk.

Turnover is not the same on a hill malmo, it is much lower.

J.O. wrote:

Turnover is not the same on a hill malmo, it is much lower.

Turnover is lower on a hill only if you are doing it wrong.

help please! wrote:

Hey Malmo,

I was wondering how to discern between the inevitable fatigue that comes with doing high mileage for the first time, and the fatigue that puts you at risk of overtraining/burnout. I'm running 100 mpw (past summer high was around 75) and feel strong and fitter than ever, but most of my runs are at a pretty brisk pace because I feel good. I'm tired, but I think that's unavoidable when tackling high mileage for the first time.

I'm more than willing to push through a few weeks and hopefully, like Terrence Mahon, emerge fitter and faster than ever. But I want to make sure not to be stale when the important races come. What's your advice? down week? I get plenty of sleep, eat well, foam roller, etc.

If you find yourself dreading running, not sleeping, or have the symptoms of depression, you're probably overtraining and should back off for a bit.

If it's just dead legs sometimes, that comes with the territory.

I found a bit of success with a simple approach. I over complicated things for years, ran too hard too often and never absorbed 50 percent of the work I did. The other 50 was probably offering diminished returns due to the fact I simply ignored the basics.

m- 10 miles and 1 mile running 100m on 100m off

t - am 5 miles @ very low intesnity

pm workout - usually 6-8 miles volume at threshold.

w- am 15 miles

t- 10 miles VERY easy and 1 mile running 100m on 100m off

f- am 5 miles @ very low intensity

pm 10 mile @ marathon pace

s - 10 mile @ very low intensity and 100m on 100m off

s- 20 miles ( 530-6 min mile)

All in all the runs m/w/t/sa are low intensity focussed on facilitating the work on the other days. The intensity on the other days is also very important too hard = lower returns. Control is the focus

malmo wrote:

J.O. wrote:

Turnover is not the same on a hill malmo, it is much lower.

Turnover is lower on a hill only if you are doing it wrong.

What? Both stride rate and stride length are about 10% less doing 30 second hill reps. So, unless you have found a magical way to run as fast uphill as you do on the flat.....

No magic Jon. Stride frequency does not change when running hills.

Basic biomechanics George. Stride frequency is greatly influenced by ground contact time, and this is longer when you run hills compared to the same effort on the flat. Longer ground contact slows your stride rate and vice versa.

Dude, the more you post the deeper you dig. This is not "basic biomechanics" When you run hills your stride rate remains the same and your stride length decreases.

malmo wrote:

Dude, the more you post the deeper you dig. This is not "basic biomechanics" When you run hills your stride rate remains the same and your stride length decreases.

Almost right. You must be some kind of mindreader malmo. I was just thinking about this thread recently. What I wanted to say was that if you run 200 meters uphill in 40 seconds, your stride rate and stride length are the same as running that pace on the flat. Stride rate is related to ground contact time which is longer when you run slower, hence both lower stride rate and shorter stride.

I know you are right most of the time, more so than almost every poster here, but not all the time.

Malmo,

This past cross country season I averaged 65ish miles a peaked at a little over 70. This winter I am looking to take a jump, and increase my mileage substantially, peaking at 100. I have 10 weeks before the beginning of outdoor track. How would you recommend I build to this goal of 100?

I would really appreciate your response. I'm a big fan.

PS. Do you know who Ron Stonitsch is? He is currently my coach!

Best,

J

j5bean wrote:

Malmo,

This past cross country season I averaged 65ish miles a peaked at a little over 70. This winter I am looking to take a jump, and increase my mileage substantially, peaking at 100. I have 10 weeks before the beginning of outdoor track. How would you recommend I build to this goal of 100?

I would really appreciate your response. I'm a big fan.

PS. Do you know who Ron Stonitsch is? He is currently my coach!

Best,

J

Thanks for your question because it bumped this whole thread and I had never seen it. I read the whole thing. It's great. I would suggest you do the same. Your question gets answered multiple times in these 17 pages. And you will probably find answers to questions you didn't know you had.

j5bean wrote:

Malmo,

This past cross country season I averaged 65ish miles a peaked at a little over 70. This winter I am looking to take a jump, and increase my mileage substantially, peaking at 100. I have 10 weeks before the beginning of outdoor track. How would you recommend I build to this goal of 100?

I would really appreciate your response. I'm a big fan.

PS. Do you know who Ron Stonitsch is? He is currently my coach!

Best,

J

The reason why I didn't respond was that the answers to your question are in this thread, and more importantly inside of you when you start your journey. I will say this, dont be fixated on a n arbitrary number or an arbitrary timeline.

To answer your question, if course I know who Ron Stonitsch is. As a kid growing up on the east coast while he was in college, I was well familiar with his exploits. Perhaps the only way I would have ever heard of CW Post was because of his pictures in running magazines and his name in the results.

You're in good hands.

Malmo,

I wanted to thank you. I never thought to before. I read this thread junior year of high school training before my senior year. I did doubles 5 days per week and ran or 60 or 70 or 80 miles or whatever I felt.

I improved from barely under 4:30 in the mile to well under 4:10 as an 18 year old.

Since, I've gone to college and completed my coaches training mostly long singles, and have stagnated.

You are right. I still have a few more years so I will adjust now. Thank you.