Running Times Article - "How Much Mileage"

Moore did a 9-day cycle with a long run (25~35 miles), short intervals and long intervals. Rest of 9-day cycle are easy days. He would however do 3 miles in AM and 4 miles in PM and actually piling up 7-miles-a-day. Of course, his was a great example of how little weekly mileage means at all. He had key workouts with whatever he needed to recover in between. I just received this information from Kenny Moore himself a few weeks ago.

I don't know too much, but it sounds like he might be underestimating his mileage here. "The mornings were 1:45-3:00"... if this was a few mornings per week, I guess he had no trouble to hit 100 mpw. Now even if he averaged 95, I guess I'd rather do an extra 10-20 mpw than wear 2 sets of sweats and 3 rainsuits. He sounds like a guy that experimented and found what worked best for him. But if we use his 85-95 as an example, why shouldn't we use this 5 layers of clothes as well?

jaguar1 wrote:

If the benefit of higher mileage is improved 'economy', how do you measure 'economy'?

Economy is using less oxygen to sustain the same speed. IE: Runner A and Runner B both have a Vo2max of 80ml/min and a LT of 80%. Runner A runs 5:00 pace with a Vo2 of 50ml/min, while runner B runs 5:00 pace with a Vo2 of 60ml/min. Runner A is more economical. Runner B will tire quicker at 5:00 pace because he is using more oxygen.

So. During 6 months of training measure your submax Vo2 at a given speed and your Vo2max every month or two. The % of vo2max that you are running at this speed should drop throughout your training.

Alan

Nobby that description of Moore's training was in Joe Henderson's circa 1995 book, " Road Runners and their Training". The only difference was the PM workouts on easy

days were listed as 3 milers.

I'd like to know if he would change anything with the benefit

of hindsight.

Hold Up wrote:

But if there were no finish line at the end of that "set distance or time" would your body intuitively know when or where to stop?

The issue with runs to exhaustion is the variance. Do that one day and you can run for X time; run in a few days later and you will run 20% farther. Too much slop in the test. They should be banned from sport science studies.

I once reviewed a paper for a journal (my boss was supposed to do it but gave it to me). The study involved cycling and there was a ride to exhaustion. I ripped that bitch apart. It still got published however. (There was nothing wrong with the methodology, just that aspect is not real world to me.)

stipe wrote:

Now even if he averaged 95, I guess I'd rather do an extra 10-20 mpw than wear 2 sets of sweats and 3 rainsuits. He sounds like a guy that experimented and found what worked best for him. But if we use his 85-95 as an example, why shouldn't we use this 5 layers of clothes as well?

I would rather run an extra 10-20 as well. As I said, I am a big advocate of higher mileage, even as I am still building my way up there. I just think it is senseless to ignore that there are guys who have done less. There is no magic about 100mpw.

luv2run wrote:

I once reviewed a paper for a journal (my boss was supposed to do it but gave it to me). The study involved cycling and there was a ride to exhaustion. I ripped that bitch apart. It still got published however. (There was nothing wrong with the methodology, just that aspect is not real world to me.)

Man, how I love it when journal articles I've submitted come back with caustic comments from some referee with an axe to grind. Methodologically sound, but a referee decides to "rip that bitch apart". I guess the next time the peer review process shows its ugly side I can just ascribe it to a lazy ass passing the job off to an amateur.

Obviously you can still hit a point of dimishing returns. In fact, all runners would see a negative curve (worsening economy) with too much mileage. Is that 100+ miles per week? 80? 220? Beats me. But at some point additional running impairs economy. Otherwise the runner who logs the most mileage would win every race. It doesn't work that way ... that's the point of the discussion. It's also why Dean K isn't particularly fast. Is 70 mpw a sweet spot for many runners, where economy and speed can be developed w/o too much risk of injury (or onset of severe running nerdness)...I'd bet it's pretty close.

Hold Up wrote:

But if there were no finish line at the end of that "set distance or time" would your body intuitively know when or where to stop?

luv2run wrote:

The issue with runs to exhaustion is the variance. Do that one day and you can run for X time; run in a few days later and you will run 20% farther. Too much slop in the test. They should be banned from sport science studies.

I once reviewed a paper for a journal (my boss was supposed to do it but gave it to me). The study involved cycling and there was a ride to exhaustion. I ripped that bitch apart. It still got published however. (There was nothing wrong with the methodology, just that aspect is not real world to me.)

Well, wouldn't the same hold true for time- or distance-limited studies, that the subjects could run up to 20% faster or slower 3 days later or earlier?

I'd wadger that fibre-type content plays a role.

mobile9 wrote:

I'd wadger that fibre-type content plays a role.

i wodger that.

Bob:

You're right; except it doesn't list (Joe's book) the final two days of easy runs on his 9-day cycle.

In fact, Moore said that the PM 4-mile was up a gentle slope, touch the Unity store for good luck and down the slope. He said that at the end of the slope, he was almost close to a full sprint so he "did a bit more speed work as it otherwise might have appeared." On the hindside, he said he would have love to experiment water vest to strengthen other part of the legs without pounding; he said he "could have run under four" (his PR was 4:03).

He (Kenny Moore) would be speaking at Bloomsday in Spokane next month so anybody who lives near-by, I'd recommend go see him. Fascinating individual; a very nice guy.

bump