Most Mileage You've Ever Done in a Week

Campbells Salty Sodium wrote:

MALMO: increased training stress = increased likelihood of unplanned setback do you believe that at all?

No. Not from experience.

I've been injured running lower mileage many more times than when running higher mileage. I've been sick running lower mileage, and no mileage at all, many more times than when in higher training blocks.

What exactly aren't you understanding about this?

Campbells Salty Sodium wrote:

yeah, nothing else works with you. ive tried to reason with you, but you show no mercy. you take pride in being arrogant as f*ck

Soupman, you're on tilt. Leave the table and get some rest.

malmo wrote:

Soupman, you're on tilt. Leave the table and get some rest.

Edit: You're at risk of an unplanned setback, the flu, or pancreatic cancer. ;-)

Not saying that high volume/intensity training is bad per se, nor was the one time you ran 170 some miles and you caught the flu the result of the mileage. So let's get that straight.

Just making the point that scientific and empirical evidence, much of it deduced long after your racing career was over, suggest that prolonged bouts of moderately intense exercise can in the short-term and sometimes long-term (i.e., overtraining syndrome, which is well documented and real), can result in suppressed immunity.

The key is to acknowledge that and work around it.

Mix in recovery efforts (easy-hard, or some derivation, does seem to work).

Rehydrate and refuel during and after exercise, especially if the session was more than 90 minutes.

Here's another abstract from a respected journal (Journal of Applied Physiology) and a link to the full article:

Immune function in sport and exercise

Michael Gleeson

School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom

Regular moderate exercise is associated with a reduced incidence of infection compared with a completely sedentary state. However, prolonged bouts of strenuous exercise cause a temporary depression of various aspects of immune function (e.g., neutrophil respiratory burst, lymphocyte proliferation, monocyte antigen presentation) that usually lasts ∼3–24 h after exercise, depending on the intensity and duration of the exercise bout. Postexercise immune function dysfunction is most pronounced when the exercise is continuous, prolonged (>1.5 h), of moderate to high intensity (55–75% maximum O2 uptake), and performed without food intake. 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. 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.

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

Curiously enough, I've almost never had an injury and I'm rarely sick. Well at the end of this season, I did a huge taper to 30 miles, ran like crap, and suddenly I'm sick and injured. Go figure.

I once ran 180 and I ended up getting my balls caught in a sewing machine.

Okay, you keep posting the same link to an abstract, and there's nothing new about it. Certainly nothing 'empirical' about it. "possible" ... "may be" ... "I wish" ... are not empirical terms.

I'm going to repeat myself only once more - the 1001st time -- I have been sick or injured far more times when running low milege (or no mileage in the case of sickness) than when running blocks of high milegae. My frequency of illness, about 2-3 times a year, was about the same as the sedentary population.

Am I clear?

Sad story. Coached twin brothers many years ago. They both did 130+ miles the first week of August, then backed off till high school season where they averaged 70 per week. One was 2nd in state, the other 6th. They graduated and went into the Army. Got mixed up with drugs and they never tried to run again. I think I failed them somehow.

So, I guess you speak for the entire running community?

malmo wrote:

Campbells Salty Sodium wrote:

MALMO: increased training stress = increased likelihood of unplanned setback do you believe that at all?

No. Not from experience.

I've been injured running lower mileage many more times than when running higher mileage. I've been sick running lower mileage, and no mileage at all, many more times than when in higher training blocks.

What exactly aren't you understanding about this?

Mark Sanchez wrote:

So, I guess you speak for the entire running community?

I didn't say that.

If you're late to the party:

Malmo- I ran a 177 mile week, then missed a couple days next week with the flu.

Posters- So you got sick from the mileage, eh?

Malmo- Nope, I got sick because I had the flu. Getting sick happens to most people 2-3 times a year, regardless of mileage.

Posters- Nuh uh, it was the mileage. Everyone knows that.

Malmo- My experience differs. What you said is dumb.

Posters- Oh, so you're saying if a 15 year old boy ran 170 miles next week, he'd be fine?

Malmo- No.

Posters- So you admit high mileage makes you sick?

Malmo- No, can any of you read?

Posters- You're arrogant!

Malmo- You're ignorant.

Posters- But running a lot MAKES YOU SICK.

Malmo- Not in my experience, or in the experience of all my super fast friends.

Posters- You're arrogant and mean!

Malmo- I'm also right.

Posters- But why don't you conform to our preconceived notions?

Malmo- Becuase they're wrong. I got sick 2-3 times a year, regardless of mileage. I got injured more at low mileage than high mileage, too.

Posters- Ok, you're clearly senile. You're saying that you speak for the whole running community, and every 15 year old boy with a pair of spikes should be running 175 miles a week, all at tempo pace?

Malmo- *hides face in palm of hands*

Exeunt omnes

I would say that not always does increased training volume mean increased training stress. If someone is doing 80 miles a week with a lot of the running quality sessions in the form of repeats or Vo2 max work then their training stress is very high. If the same person dropped a lot of the quality Vo2 Max work and focused on Lydiard type threshold running and had a volume of 120 miles for the week they would likely feel less stress than when running 80 miles with a lot of Vo2 work.

At the same time Lydiard says that when someone repeatedly lowers their blood pH and does not allow it to return back to normal that is when they are at risk for injury, etc. They can only lower the blood pH by repeated anaerobic sessions. This is much in line with Malmo saying that one does not compromise their immune system with the high volume training or make themselves more prone to an unplanned setback.

My highest mileage week was 148. With about 12 or so weeks ranging from 110-148. Best training I have ever done and I reaped more reward from it than any other training routine I have done.

Thank you.

Seriously the level of willful stupidity on this board is frightening sometimes.

malmo wrote:

I'm pretty sure his official manifest didn't show those trips. That's quite illegal. But then again, the entire trucking industry is (or used to be) illegal.

You are absolutely correct on the first two counts. Could be right on the third, but I don't know.

I brought up the illegality of it, and was amazed how he could rationalize it away. Ranting about how stupid some of the laws were. (At the same time, he could barely keep his eyes open due to exhaustion)

I mentioned the executives at Enron probably felt similarly that those "stupid" accounting laws shouldn't apply to them either.

Not a very productive conversation.

why would running low mileage lead to more injuries?

ramaco wrote:

why would running low mileage lead to more injuries?

Perhaps it was lower mileage, but had much more intensity/hard workouts. Whereas the higher mileage consisted of mostly easy/low stress runs.

It's often the speed/intensity that leads to problems

If the intensity went up then it's not an apples to apples to comparison and the statement is very uninformative. If anything it sounds like he didn't know how to transition from heavy mileage to more quality work properly.

jeez, I got to the end of this thread and forgot what it was even about...anyway FWIW, my peak was in the low 140s. If I had it to do over again I would have ran more 110s and 120s. I feel like @ ~ 180 lbs. that 140ish mileage was too much for me.

84