What is the Science Behind Running Every Day?

Daily runs = consistency plus better aerobic conditioning. Days off if undue fatigue or an injury is felt. My reply here.

This might not be scientific but here is my two cents. You need to stress yourself and you need to recover. If your daily stress is greater than your daily recovery ability you will eventually need to take a day off. If you are running 10 miles a day and breaking down instead of taking one day off per week reduce your daily mileage to 8.5. The 8.5 miles will get you the same mileage at the end of the week and you are much less likely to get injured. Same sort of thinking applies to a hard workout. If any single workout is so hard you need to take a day off it would probably be better to spread that workout over two workouts and keep going. I am 51 and I imagine my legs are like a glass window. If I heave a huge rock thru the window, it's gonna break into a million pieces and I am done. If I toss a tiny pebble at the window I can fix the chip and keep going.

Radical Individualism wrote:

There is no science behind running every day if by that you mean valid, controlled studies showing it to be superior to any other approach.

No. But science does not consist only of valid, controlled studies. Observation is also part of science. If you find that well upwards of 90% of the winners and high places at races are running 6-7 days a week and that people running three days a week or less win or place highly in fewer than 5% of races it is scientific to conclude there is solid evidence for running 6-7 days a week.

Hey, good to read this. I have suspected that, while some physios, and Drs. have enough knowledge to help with injuries, etc, they do not always have explanations regarding running (especially that) as well as other things.

Say, a medical Dr. or a PT (physio) recommends a runner stop his sport of choice due to an OA (osteoarthritis condition) The runner continues to run, maybe at a reduced quantity etc. and reports to his GP or PT his knee, ankle, or whatever feels a lot better FOR runnin' on it. Dr. is unable to explain but appears happy, "This is interesting"

As for daily runs vs days off from runs maybe it's a matter of individual differences which a great many coaches, other runners don't see.

My $.02 for this thread.

otter wrote:

I have noticed a tremendous difference in runners that had run a lot in their 20's and 30's that are now master runners than those that did little in their 20's and just picked up the sport in their 30's. The latter example is not quite as worn down as the experienced runners are.

Here's the kicker, or the rub. For those like yours truly here who have run all their lives so it seems vs those who were once former swimmers, rugby players or plain brand new to any sport.

As a coach how many veteran masters runners have you are still racing competitively and still placing well - in their age group, not necessarily in overall placings?

What I call 'young legs' which are loaded for bear if the motivation is there as opposed to those who indeed are still running on worn out legs and maybe aren't as motivated - which is understandable!

The essence of the science is that you can recover from easy runs in far less than 48 hours. There's no need to push yourself to the far right end of the supercompensation curve.

Lagat, the best longevity of any elite ever, runs 6x week. But then, he's Bernard, and we are not.

HRE wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Kip Keino ran 3 to 4 times a week, he did however run 3 times/day on the days he did run.

Not according to the profile in Fred Wilt's book which has the 6-8 mile runs on "other" days. But even if Wilt's wrong and you're right, where did you get that information, by the way, you're still looking at 9-12 runs in a week.

Read it many years ago, was an interview he did. Don't recall the publication.

HRE wrote:

Radical Individualism wrote:

There is no science behind running every day if by that you mean valid, controlled studies showing it to be superior to any other approach.

No. But science does not consist only of valid, controlled studies. Observation is also part of science. If you find that well upwards of 90% of the winners and high places at races are running 6-7 days a week and that people running three days a week or less win or place highly in fewer than 5% of races it is scientific to conclude there is solid evidence for running 6-7 days a week.

Applying a scientific mindset is a slippery slope here for the same reasons Canova stated in a different thread, in different context. His point (in I think it was some doping thread?) was that it is not sound logic to apply results from studies that use comparative hobbyjoggers as the test subjects to elite athletes - in his use of the word "elite" he referred to the top 50 or 100 performers in history. No study like the hypothetical discussed on this thread has had or will ever have access to that caliber of athlete, at least not in running. Thus observation like HRE's example is probably the only way to infer the usefulness of training frequency. As malmo has said many times, the reason to run doubles is because elites do it. Training 10-14 times per week has been used to produce the huge majority of elite marks, at least in distance and mid-d races.

Eee wrote:

reader of the forums 2.0 wrote:

It doesn't remain true because it wasn't true to begin with.

It remains true because it was true to begin with. Congratulations on showing is your ignorance of the sport.

Don't know if you are that dumb or just trolling.

Your original post in reply to HRE included both an incorrect statement and then a statement that, though correct, was not relevant to the original question.

You said 'actually Yes'. This is wrong because it is in response to the question 'has anyone ran every other day and been great'. You second sentence in unrelated to the original question. "running well" does not mean "running great".

Now shut up, the adults are having a conversation.

Everyone is missing half of the PT's point.

If you go from 7 days of strength to 6, it won't slow you much.

If you go from YEARS or ZERO strength work up to SOME, it might make a bigger difference than you think.

But there's a better way: add a little bit of strength training every day. Bodyweight, dumbell, kettlebell - whatever you can fit easily into your routine. Find the tiniest volume that creates an improvement. Build a 'strength base' the way you do with your running.

Daily micro-strength sessions took me from being the third faster 40-something in my club up to a World Masters' medal in 2 years. 30sec faster over 5000m, 2sec over 400. I didn't change the running training. And I recovered faster from the runs and could handle more mileage.

To quote Dan John, if a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing every day.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the high place finishers may be those that are physiologically able to handle the stress of running every day. The other 99.9% may be better off with less running.

If a world-class marathoner clocks upwards of 140 miles/week, it is because he can, and he can because he is world-class. The average Joe usually can't and probably shouldn't.

Finally, if you are training for a marathon, volume is the king, but it you want to run a fast mile, running every day is probably a very bad idea.

HRE wrote:No. But science does not consist only of valid, controlled studies. Observation is also part of science. If you find that well upwards of 90% of the winners and high places at races are running 6-7 days a week and that people running three days a week or less win or place highly in fewer than 5% of races it is scientific to conclude there is solid evidence for running 6-7 days a week.

I understand the PT's question as being whether there is "science" showing that running 7 days a week leads to better competitive results than running 6 days a week, 5 days a week, etc.

I don't think "science" can answer that, either experimentally or observationally. There is too much individual variation between runners to give a meaningful answer. Assuming the same total mileage and workouts, whether a runner would ultimately be more competitive with no complete rest days, 1/7 rest days, 1/10 rest days, 1/14 rest days, etc. depends on too many individual variables to give a "scientific" answer, in the sense that there is a repeatable, general answer to the question that would be true as to any given runner.

I agree that observationally, in distance running the greater total volume and intensity that you can run without injury and still recover, the better you will do competitively. As another poster said, however, you could never get enough elite runners to agree to participate in a valid, controlled experiment of that proposition.

Middle distance guy wrote:

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the high place finishers may be those that are physiologically able to handle the stress of running every day. The other 99.9% may be better off with less running.

If a world-class marathoner clocks upwards of 140 miles/week, it is because he can, and he can because he is world-class. The average Joe usually can't and probably shouldn't.

Finally, if you are training for a marathon, volume is the king, but it you want to run a fast mile, running every day is probably a very bad idea.

Generally speaking, more running equals better running (observationally speaking)..........to a point. A lot depends on the distance one is training for, biomechanical factors, and individual tolerance. I typically ran six days a week, sometimes seven if I wasn't hung over from the night before. Sometimes seven even if I was. Five days/week was twice daily, averaged 70 to 90 miles/week. I ran the 800, 1500M and mile. Sometimes the 400M. There was a guy on the team that could only do 35 miles a week, broke down (injuries, undue fatigue) if he did more. He was a 1:46 and change 800M runner. There are no rigorous peer reviewed scientific studies that I'm aware of, concluding that running every day is physiologically or biomechanically more desirable than taking a day off, or two, or three. The type of study design required pretty much precludes it, in particular the need to recruit an evenly matched group of competitive runners, one to act as the experimental group and one as control. Then modifying the training to see the results. But you can't control all the variables involved, so the results might not be valid. Bottom line is one has to do what works best for them, and base it on their event, their tolerance for hard work and discomfort and how injury prone they are. That's why a good coach, one that you listen to is paramount.

Geezer B wrote:

just the opposite wrote:

If you held mileage and intensity constant, it would be easier on your body to run every day, not harder.

Do you think I´m stupid or lazy? I´ve tried and it´s f*cking impossible. I also have a very physical job, not some office rat shit.

"Office rat shit" classic can't stop laughing. Thanks for the humor.

Agree - Monday's are my off day.

Boston wrote:

Monday's are my off day.

Monday's what?

In 1986 I moved to London and joined Haringey AC, so I could join a great squad that often included Seb Coe on Sunday mornings. I had been doing the usual college-age stuff of training too hard, too often.

The coach, John Hovell, asked me, collared Seb, and said "Seb, tell young here what's the most important session you do every week". Seb said "the rest day".

He either started taking a rest day when he started working with John in 1984, or at least started pretending to when asked, because John was quite a fire-and-brimstone guy.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

HRE wrote:

Not according to the profile in Fred Wilt's book which has the 6-8 mile runs on "other" days. But even if Wilt's wrong and you're right, where did you get that information, by the way, you're still looking at 9-12 runs in a week.

Read it many years ago, was an interview he did. Don't recall the publication.

Well, in addition to Wilt's profile there's this for Keino from an Aussie website which also shows more than three days a week:

Training of Kip Keino:

Track Training:

Sunday AM 3 miles at 5:40 pace. PM 4 miles at 5:40 pace.

Monday AM 3 miles at 5:40 pace. PM 12 x 400m, run in 55-58 sec, 200m jog rest.

Tuesday AM 3 miles at 5:40 pace. PM 3.5 miles at 5:20 pace.

Wednesday AM 3 miles at 5:40 pace.PM 15 x 400m, 55-58 sec, 200m jog.

Thursday AM 3 miles at 5:40 pace. Pm Hill session

Friday 6 x 800m in 2:00 with 2:00 rec.

Saturday 11 miles at 5:40 pace.

Sunday Day off

There may have been a stretch of time when Keino was only running on three days each week but it seems from what we can tracked down that it wasn't the norm if it happened at all or at least not what he usually admitted to. It does occasionally happen that someone will do something atypical and someone else will see them do it and think it's what they normally do.

There are accounts of Ron Clarke running three times a day. He tried that experimentally for about a month and gave it up but it so happened he was doing it at a time when Sports Illustrated sent a writer to do a story about him. The writer included the routine in the article and that was the training routine that people associated with Clarke. even Fred Wilt has it in How They Train.

A lot of the discussion here has gone from the original question of whether anyone has "run great" on three days a week to whether running 7 days a week is better than having an off day. Even someone as mathematically challenged as I am knows that there's a lot of difference between running 6 days a week and running 3. Yes, there definitely have been, and still are, many people who run "great" on six days a week, Nick Willis and Tim Ritchie come to mind right away. There probably are more who run great on 7 but if you want a day off each week you're not writing off your chances.

Missed part of Keino's profile. Here's the rest:

Cross Country Training:

Monday

AM 40 minutes easy

10 x 400m in 62 with 2 min rec.

Tuesday

AM 40 minutes easy

6 x 800m in 2:10 with a 4 min rec.

Wednesday

AM 40 minutes easy

20 x 200m in 29 sec.

Thursday

AM 40 minutes easy

10 x 100m at 95% speed

Friday

AM 40 minutes easy

4 x 70m sprint with 330m stride to next sprint.

Saturday

9 miles at easy pace for recovery.