soferm wrote:
Malmo: what are your PR's?
malmo wrote:
Three ARs: 3000m steeplechase, 12k and half-marathon.
Three near misses at ARs: 3000m SC, 15k (two weeks after that 177 mile week) and 10 mile.
Give us numbers. Don't make us look up past steeple and half ARs. I understand that you don't need numbers to refute the implicit "Who the hell are you to be talking about running like you know what you're doing" but this level of indirection doesn't help anyone.
wqqqqqqq wrote:
Give us numbers. Don't make us look up past steeple and half ARs. I understand that you don't need numbers to refute the implicit "Who the hell are you to be talking about running like you know what you're doing" but this level of indirection doesn't help anyone.
Wow, everyone is hyper-agressive today. I don't know is it's the lunar eclipse or anticipation of Santa coming or what? Gimme's don't always get what they want. I ran 3:40.2 for 1500 and 2:12:23 for the marathon and a bunch of ARs and AR near-misses in between, and I scored 1.1 million on Pacman. What difference does it make?
212
Gotta agree with Malmo on this one.
Whenever you OVER stress your body (without adequate revovery) you increase the chances of injury.
The simple increase in stress IS NOT what causes the illness.
Taking a young kid and trippling his mileage was never part of Malmo's point. Like Malmo, I run with less injury when my volume is high, 100+ and I'm sound. Below 80 mpw and all kinds of stuff acts up..... weird?
Generally, people who train at super high levels also get more sleep, have better diets, often have better doctors (if you get my drift). So, they can recover from volume and/or intensity.
The poor logic from all of you knuckleheads amazes me.
Joshua Tree wrote:
Below 80 mpw and all kinds of stuff acts up..... weird?
why?
ramaco wrote:why?
Because when you are running 100+ your body is in a state of pretty constant motion. Nothing has a chance to get stiff and tight. Your tendons are strong and stimulated, muscles continuously flushed with blood.
The body is made to move, not to sit. It works best when working.
Try it some time.
[quote]Joshua Tree wrote:
Thanks for the post Mr. Joshua Tree. I appreciate your thoughtful answer.
In all fairness, there is not much "poor logic" in my original question. Maybe you are not referring to me as one of the "knuckleheads", but my question appears to have started the sheet storm. For that I must atone.
Per your own point, "Whenever you OVER stress your body (without adequate revovery) you increase the chances of injury. The simple increase in stress IS NOT what causes the illness."
Both of those points make sense to me. The big question is 'when do you get to that "Over Stress" point'?. For many of of us, unfortunately, we find that out after the fact. You may not know that your big week OVER stressed you until too late.
When I posed my original question and the follow up, I did not have any information on the level of rest and recovery that Mr. Malmo was getting, nor did I know how the 177 and 178 fit in with his normal mileage. The OP's original question was asking for "Most Mileage", which would invite many answers that could be outliers from the norm. When Malmo brought up the the fact that he happened to get sick during a top week, I was curious about the relationship between the two. He has made it clear that based on his experience, and the experience of other top runners, that he has seen no relationship. That is fine with me.
I understand fully that running doesn't cause viruses, that you don't catch a cold by breathing cold air, and that you don't get pregnant by sitting on a dirty toilet seat.
I was not looking to start a crusade AGAINT high miles. Lord knows I didn't want to get the Campbell's Soup Guy so fired up so close to the Holidays!!
Thanks again for your input. Hopefully the thread can get back on target.
Toward that end... My highest week was 92.
A couple of thoughts,
First, that summary was hilarious after reading this entire thread while drinking morning coffee.
Second, while Malmo sometimes comes off as a prick he is almost always right (at least about training). High mileage does not cause illness. Probably about the most accurate statement you cold make in this regard is that a period of over training could theoretically lead to an increased instance of illness, though there are so many variables involved it would be almost impossible to verify for sure. Personally when I was over trained I didn't get sick, I just ran like crap and wondered why like an idiot.
In my experience (5 years of D1 running, a basket full of all american awards and three years of frustrating post collegiate running with some very successful international athletes, since I know it will be questioned)I have often observed the odd phenomenon of getting injured at low levels of effort personally and in others. Not sure why this happens, but it definitely does.
And finally, since it was the original question, 105 by my actual logs, second highest was 103, only two times my logs reflected over 100. I will however say that my logs were usually about 10-15 miles below what I actually ran due to counting everything at 7 minute pace as a national class athlete. I logged a lot of 90-95 weeks that were probably 100-105, and those two 100 weeks were probably 110-115. Nothing exceptional, par for the course with most athletes I trained with, some ran more, I know some run much more (like Malmo), some ran less.
Lets learn a lesson, this is the redeeming part of letsrun. You asked a question, got an answer, and came back to calm down the knuckleheads who hijacked your question. Have a great Christmas!
To keep the thread on track: 112, this past summer. I was working at a running camp for high school kids, and did their main run with them in the morning at about 8:00 pace, then did a normal, longer run at a harder effort by myself or with another counselor that afternoon during our free period.
Apparently you didnt' read a third link, just above, from a review by Michael Gleeson published in the Journal of Applied Physiology. This isn't Runner's World. (and I included the same link the on my 2nd response just to make sure that you had perchance looked it)http://jap.physiology.org/content/103/2/693.fullWith all due respect I'll take the information from Gleeson's review, with dozens of scientific papers supporting it, over your anecdotal evidence. Hope that this is clear.
malmo wrote:
runski2010 wrote: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.
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.
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?
I have a sub-26:40 10000m pr but the most I ever did was high 80's. Never ran more than 1 hour continuous. Big mileage isn't necessarry.
runski wrote:
Apparently you didnt' read a third link, just above, from a review by Michael Gleeson published in the Journal of Applied Physiology. This isn't Runner's World. (and I included the same link the on my 2nd response just to make sure that you had perchance looked it)
http://jap.physiology.org/content/103/2/693.fullWith all due respect I'll take the information from Gleeson's review, with dozens of scientific papers supporting it, over your anecdotal evidence. Hope that this is clear.
Yes, I did read that. Gleason's abstract cites conflicting studies, regardless of there relevance to this thread, just as a good scientist should.
For example, it has been reported that the regular performance of ~2 h of moderate exercise per day is associated with a 29% reduction in risk of picking up upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) compared with a sedentary lifestyle (25).
In contrast, it has been reported that there is a 100–500% increase in risk of picking up an infection in the weeks following a competitive ultra-endurance running event (30, 35, 36). 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
Salah Hissou wrote:
Big mileage isn't necessarry.
If I could run sub 28 for 10K on 17 miles a week and half a pack of Marlboro Reds a day, I would tend to agree with you. For those of us not so blessed, big miles make up the difference.
Merry Christmas.
Male, almost 50 years old...I got up to 90 once in high school between XC & track season. Seven straight days 10-14 easy-ish miles.
Lets learn a lesson wrote:
When I posed my original question and the follow up, I did not have any information on the level of rest and recovery that Mr. Malmo was getting, nor did I know how the 177 and 178 fit in with his normal mileage.
Two part question. 1) 25 miles a day at 5:45 pace (avg) works out to 2:23 minutes a day. That means that I was getting approximately 21:37 hours of rest/recovery a day.
2) 177/178 were my high mileage weeks. What is 'normal' (not in a Clintonian sense) is debatable. Normal would be anywhere from 90-140mpw per week, depending on circumstance. You use high mileage as a tool. Heck I even use it as a toy ;-). You don't allow yourself to be the slave of high mileage (or any other levels of effort). I don't know why this concept is so difficult for so many to understand? It's so simple, but to people who can only see in black and white it's so difficult.
113...though i've hit about the 105-110 range at least a dozen times
Hit 199 once before just to see what I could run.
Malmo, how many mpw do you run now?
Apparently I'm just a Nancy.
93 Monday-Sunday
96 over a 7 day period
This will change over the coming spring.
alskdfm wrote:
Malmo, how many mpw do you run now?
0.
I walk now.
80mpw is still moving.