Most Mileage You've Ever Done in a Week

Please try re-reading my post without being in defense mode. I never said that mileage CAUSES the flu virus. I ASKED if your immune system may have been compromised by the mega miles. It is not exactly a question that has not been given some study.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/103/2/693.full

"Periods of intensified training (overreaching) lasting 1 wk or more may result in longer lasting immune dysfunction. Although elite athletes are not clinically immune deficient, it is possible that the combined effects of small changes in several immune parameters may compromise resistance to common minor illnesses, such as upper respiratory tract infection. "

The quoted section sounds similar to the section of training that you posted. Obviously you came into contact with the Flu Virus at some time during that window. The question is whether your immune system would have been able to fight the virus more effectively if you had been training at a lower volume.

It is just a question, not an attack on you or your methods.

Merry Festivus to all!

Astro wrote:

At least most of the people I know that were doing 100 plus mile weeks weren't doing all of them at 5:40-6 minute pace, especially the level I was at, which was national class, but far from world class. I could handle that pace for 60-80 miles a week, but my body couldn't handle it when I got over that, at least not at that time in my life. I didn't get injured, but I just raced slower. Maybe it was more the life of a college student and not getting enough sleep and doing the things I should have been doing. Nobody ever knows for sure what caused them to run worse. I kept a very detailed log and did learn a lot from that.

Easy mileage should be done at roughly 65-75% of vVO2 Max which should feel like an easy conversational pace to you. Faster than that and you are getting into steady state and lower AT range paces. Slower than that and you start teaching your body bad biomechanical habits. Go hard on your hard days and easy on your easy days. Stress & Recover (mess up just one side and it other doesn't work). Far too many people I know either run their easy stuff to fast or work too hard on their hard workouts. That is one of the main problems of a high school or college team/club where the ability and fitness levels vary widely. Too many people running at someone else's pace rather than the pace they should be running at.

On mileage: capacity has to be built slowly over time, it can't be too done quickly and be sustainable. You need to work on the 4 tenets of training (Consistency, Capacity, Frequency, Mixture) all in unison with each other, and not at the expense one for another.

Frank Shorter is a good example: over time he built up where he could handle 140-150 miles per week, on 13 runs and with 2 quality workouts and a long run each week and do it week after week after week. He was maxing on all 4 tenets at the same time and the result was he won a Gold and Silver medal in the Olympics and had one of the greatest (if not the greatest) career of any US runner ever.

71 - 45 before and 48 after, not that smart

164

i love how this thread has just devolved into a malmo braggodocious session.

ARs this...course record that....breaking out the training logs.

sheesh...

its official wrote:

I'm the lowest one on this thread... 40 miles. never did achieve much, obviously.

False. In Cross the most we did was 30-35. But we did it all at about a 5 pace give or take. The coaches theory run less but run harder. So we did lots of Fartleks and tempo runs

103.5

Malmo, yes as a master. I had fun that year, had a streak of like 37 or 38 weeks over 100 miles a week.

For the those talking about getting sick whatever, this period of time I was probably the healthiest I'd been and had the least bit of little nagging aches and pains that I seem to typically get otherwise.

125 this week by the way. Keep rolling gentlemen.

Out-of-Wedlock-Danny wrote:

i love how this thread has just devolved into a malmo braggodocious session.

ARs this...course record that....breaking out the training logs.

sheesh...

Silly boy, malmo was responding to questions. If the facts tweak your nose, you offend easily. I see nothing wrong w/'breaking out the training logs'. If anything, adds depth, meaning and color to the thread.

Personal 'most mileage week': 156, during the week following Christmas '73 as a college senior.

118, got hurt a few weeks later. DNF'd the big race.

Out-of-Wedlock-Danny wrote:

i love how this thread has just devolved into a malmo braggodocious session.

ARs this...course record that....breaking out the training logs.

sheesh...

Someones feelwings wahz huht?

56

Who's defensive? You made a silly statement, I responded.

Yes I've read some of these studies. Here's part of the abstract that you left out.

"Although elite athletes are not clinically immune deficient, .... However, this may be a small price to pay as the anti-inflammatory effects of exercise mediated through cytokines and/or downregulation of toll-like receptor expression are likely mediators of many of the long-term health benefits of regular exercise."

.... and this

"However, a recent study (7) failed to confirm these findings in a large cohort of marathon runners: no relation was found between training volume during 6 mo before a marathon race and the postrace incidence of self-reported URTI episodes, and there was no difference in infection incidence in the 3 wk after the race compared with before."

The big problem with most of these 'studies' is that once you skip the abstract and read the actual paper things look really goofy. I remember one such URTI study on "20 highly trained marathoners" upon reading the subject profiles, turned out "20 highly trained marathoners who logged up to 30 miles a week preparing for their marathons. At that point the study became useless.

The fact is, catching colds/flus are a function of being a living human being. The average person gets ill 2-3 times a year. Runners, low mileage runners, and high mileages runners are no different. The fact that sometimes you get sick is during a block of high mileage is just as coincidental as getting sick during a block of low mileage.

I love it, everyone jumps on malmo just because everyone knows who he is. If some random dude wrote the exact same post not one person would have commented. Take a breather people, if he wanted to brag about something he'd certainly do it different.

160

I always find malmo's posts interesting, sometimes funny and often educational.

My biggest monthly mileage stretch was 474, 543, 519, 500 and 475 (all in a row) of interval workouts given to me by Coach Mihaly Igloi.

I ran better marathons when I ran monthly mileage of 226, 227, 328, 265, 295, 228 and 347 as I felt and raced for speedwork.

Incidentally, monthly mileage of 183, 219. 244, 146, 237, 253 and 194 got me 5th place in the Boston Marathon.

It was a different era!

malmo wrote:

But, noooooooooo, only anonymous nitwits on an internet message board are suggesting that blocks of high mileage causes the flu.

Malmo, why you hatin and droppin bricks here? Malmo, only one idiot here was suggesting that high mileage causes the flu. It is well known (and in Daniels Running Formula and heck.. is common sense) that any increase in training stress temporarily decreases immune system function, which makes one more susceptible injury or illness. This is not to scare anyone from doing 170mpw. 140-170mpw is, and the key word is EVENTUALLY, something we could benefit from.

mdw wrote:

Malmo, yes as a master. I had fun that year, had a streak of like 37 or 38 weeks over 100 miles a week.

For the those talking about getting sick whatever, this period of time I was probably the healthiest I'd been and had the least bit of little nagging aches and pains that I seem to typically get otherwise.

125 this week by the way. Keep rolling gentlemen.

That is just killer. I envy you.

turkey man wrote:

Running high mileage does not make you more susceptible to illness. But if you are not used to it (over training), it will lead to a drop in immune function.

yes. generally right. im not pointing it out to discourage anyone from high mileage and dreams. it's just common sense that you're more likely (in the short-term) to:

1. get sick (ONLY if overtraining. someone like Malmo is NOT overtraining if he had been doing 120-140 before a jump to 170)

2. get injured (if your body is not used to it.) again: this is not to discourage anyone from high mileage. high mileage works. but it must be introduced at the right times. e.g. MALMO, if you take a 16 year old who has never done more than 40mpw and have him do 170mpw, there is an increased risk of injuries you f*dumb*sses!