Malmo what's the best way to structure a 100 and 110 mile weeks?

Sagarin wrote:

It's terrific that guys can ramp up the mileage and improve so dramatically, but it's such rapid improvement that I question the wisdom in it.

Secondly, there were seriously diminishing returns after that five months improvement. And I repeat, did the guy get injured or burn out or decide to move on to greener pastures? It doesn't change my point one iota. For every Terrence Mahon, there are many more that try the ramp it up quickly approach and end up in the distance runners graveyard.

Diminishing returns are still returns. If you believe that there are many more who crash and burn for every Mahon who doesn't, it's doesn't jibe with my experience of over 35 years and the hundreds of athletes that I've known. That fact that you failed is irrelevant.

If only I had a dollar for every stubborn athlete that claimed increasing mileage (by default a low impact activity) would cause burnout or injury, yet turn around and do the same damn stupid things I've seen over and over again: 1) disproportionate long runs, 3) too hard and too few tempo runs, 3) trying to "keep up" in interval sessions.

May I suggest that you are an example of what you call "the 90% who do it incorrectly and fail?" Time and time again, I read kids describing their training schedules that have only one possible conclusion -- injury and disappointment. When I look at their schedules the first thing I say, "I'd be injured doing what you're doing too." The fact that there's even a thread that asks "best way to structure 100 to 110 mile weeks" is proof enough that there is still a lot of junk being poured in the minds of runners. What is intuative to every successful runner I've ever known is perhaps confusing to a lot of people today. I don't know why. This stuff ain't rocket science.

thinairunr wrote:

malmo, off topic a tad, if you know... what are Ron Tabb & Dave Gordon up to these days?

Last I heard Gordon was in Washington (state). Tabb is in the Portland area, owner of 3 pubs and getting ready to open up two more this spring.

I should add that Tabb has also been coaching at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Oregon.

Nothing here that I didn't already say. Yes, I was in fact one of those that "did it incorrectly," which is why I'm so adamant about this point. I never suggested otherwise. On the other hand, the only difference between what I had been doing previously (70-80 miles per week) and what I started doing that ultimately got me injured (100 miles+ with some doubling) was bumping up my mileage. Intensity was the same, and it sure as hell shouldn't have been. Now, maybe that's the point you're trying to get across, but I guarantee there are plenty of kids reading this thinking, "Gee, so all I need to do is start adding doubles and get the mileage way up there, much of it at a continuous faster pace, and I can experience the same dramatic improvement in five months." And they WILL do it incorrectly.

It's funny, I didn't start running until my senior year of high school and I had no real base to speak of the summer before senior year, and yet, three of the guys that I beat in the 3200 at state (I finished 2nd) went on to run 13:48 5k, 28:23 10k, and 28:38 10k. Many of them went on to high mileage juggernaut Adams St. But, the prevailing wisdom at the time was that for every Pat Porter, there were ten guys on that roster who crashed and burned. Many of the programs of the time were known as churn and burn factories. I think there are far more athletes who can't handle the higher workload who do in fact get injured or burn out. Now, perhaps many athletes will take your advice verbatim. The vast majority won't. They'll start increasing the mileage, keeping the intensity the same or increasing it as they start to see some results, and they will crash.

I think that maybe crashing is part of the learning process for those types. What kind of crashes are we talking about here? Stress fracture? Burn-out?

How about plantar fasciitis and IT-band inflammation, both of which can take so many months to heal that a youngster gets depressed and takes up drugs and hangs out with gang members.

Perennial injuries, career-ending injuries, burnout, yes. All of the above. Look, I'm not even disagreeing with Malmo or others on here. I don't think we're saying two different things. I think most of us would agree that the biggest hindrance to success back in the 90s was not enough mileage. And doubling is probably the safest way to start getting in the mileage, although, for many athletes who simply cannot refuse to hammer most of their runs, increasing mileage by increasing the length of single runs is probably the way to do it. It forces them to slow down.

I know I don't have the credibility of having been a world class athlete, though I certainly had a ton of potential, if it had been honed properly. I also don't NEED to be right and I don't think most runners are going to listen to what I have to say anyway. All I can do is draw on my experiences as an athlete, a coach, and an observer who also had many accomplished running friends, most of whom didn't achieve to their potential. Frankly, the guys who have suffered dramatic injuries, or sever bouts of anemia through college, or chronic fatigue syndrome are probably much better sources of info. anyway then the ones who won the genetic lottery of being able to sustain high, hard training loads, with little adversity. This board is merely about sharing opinions, and I am of the firm opinion that one can increase mileage or intensity, but NOT both, not without consequences or not without a good deal of time for ADAPTATION. And for a guy to go from relative obscurity to a sub-29:00 10k in five months, I'm guessing that he was doing quite a bit of both. I know Harry Green did. And, nobody has yet answered my question. What happened to Mahon at Oregon? I mean, here's a guy that found the magic elixir in a mere five months right? Five months is nothing in terms of an entire career. Why did he never end up running faster at Oregon? Did he drop out of school?

Hey Malmo,

This is Phil Passen- a fellow Penn Stater. We have chatted before.

Question...so are you a strong believer in Van Aaken in the terms that he states a runner should get in the maximum amount of his mileage in a "playful" manner that is much slower than what he is capable of running in an actual competetion?

After taking almost 2 years off with some running because I got married, I have recently started doing heavy mileage again and am up to 55-60/week. My new training, however, is mostly long runs of 12+ miles at an almost pedestrian pace (9:00/mile compared to the old days when I would run 7:15ish). One day a week, I will throw in a 10 mile run with alternating bursts of anywhere from 200m to 1 mile @ 6:00 or better so it averages 5 miles at close to sub 6 min pace).

Basically, if I try to gradually bump up to 75-80 miles/week in doubles, can I do most of these at the 9:00 min pace and still improve?

Thanks for your response...

- Phil Passen

Penn State 1992

I've tried 90 to 100 in singles for 3 month stretches a couple of times and got hurt both times and always felt flat for workouts. I've had better success running 1hr 35mins per day Mon - Fri breaking it up into 2 runs per day. I usually tried to do 1 hour in the morning and 35 min in the afternoon. If I was tired in the morning and cut it short then the afternoon run had to be longer. If I had a workout scheduled in the afternoon, I would cut back the morning run. On Saturday I did about an hour or a track session and a long run on Sunday of about 14 to 18. This usually always ended up at about 100 per week. I wasn't too concerned with the distances during the 1:35. If I felt good on a day, I covered more ground and if I had a bad day (lack of sleep, a hard day prior) I would naturally back off. Also, I focused on time instead of distance. So, if I ran 97 miles one week and 103 miles another, I didn't care too much.

There is nothing playful about 15-25 miles per day at 5:30 to 6 minute pace. Sac up and run at a decent clip.

Since no one has answered your question about Mahon, I'll tell you what little I know.

After his freshman year he transfered to Villanova where he was a Big East and IC4A Champion as well as many times All-American. After college he ran with the Enclave and that's the time he set his lifetime PRs. I believe he was US 20k champion at one point. I think he placed in the top 10 in both the 10k and the marathon in the 1996 Olympic Trials.

Hey all - awesome thread. I have a question about workouts (not just for malmo, anyone can jump in).

Hard workouts have their place in training, but I'm wondering how hard is too hard. In the fall I'll do workouts at 5k race pace, usually totaling 3 miles. Something like 12x400, 6x800, 5x1000, maybe 3x1600 toward the end of the season. In the spring it will be workouts at mile race pace - 12x200, 8x300, 6x400, 4x600, maybe 3x800 at peak fitness.

But these feel hard, even when I'm truly hitting race pace and basing these workouts off of recent performances. In trainers, alone, unrested, and without adrenaline, race pace feels tough.

Everyone seems to advocate race pace workouts...I'm wondering if even that is too hard. I finish these and I'm not bending over gasping for air, but I'm close, like one or two reps away. Does that sound like the appropriate effort level? What does "training by feel" say about race pace workouts?

malmo wrote:

[quote]Sagarin wrote:. . .the same damn stupid things I've seen over and over again: 1) disproportionate long runs, 3) too hard and too few tempo runs, 3) trying to "keep up" in interval sessions.

Can I get an amen? I said, can I get an AMEN?! Those are, by far and away, the Big Three of stupid mistakes by runners. And I made them all on numerous occasions.

I also agree regarding Parkinson's Law and malmo's comment about people working or going to school and training. The only caveat I have is when a spouse and ESPECIALLY kids enter the picture. And even then, it's not so much a change in the possibility of continuing the training at a high level as it is the desireability.

To paraphrase a quote I heard many years ago, "There is the same number of hours in your day as in the days of DaVinci, Edison, Jefferson, Franklin, Steve Scott, Ryan Hall, Alan Webb, El G and everyone else. What you do with them is entirely up to you."

Had Some Myself wrote:

Since no one has answered your question about Mahon, I'll tell you what little I know.

After his freshman year he transfered to Villanova where he was a Big East and IC4A Champion as well as many times All-American.

Terrence ran at Oregon during his Sophomore year.

And did you improve in races more with the doubles or what youi cant just leave us hanging bro!!

I saw some quick improvement with the singles but it stalled pretty quickly and then I got hurt, so the little improvement wasn't worth it.

The doubles allowed me to progress and build a better base. My 10k times only improved slightly, but they were more consistent. I also move up to the marathon during the doubles training. As many know the marathon is about consistent training and getting to the line injury free. I was able to do that on a schedule with doubles instead of singles.

If any of the runners I coach is reading this: Malmo speaks the truth.

Doubles...oh, you've heard me say that already?

And you already run twice a day?

OK.

Good.

Tom

What an inspiring thread. Thanks Malmo for everything that you have shared on here. I think the idea of intuitive training is ironically something that is extremely hard for many of us to grasp. Maybe it has to do with the fact that running is measured in terms of times? In order to race fast, we feel we need to put ourselves through sessions which will closely simulate what we need to do to race the way we want to. So often and certainly in my own situation, we can tend to overestimate our ability and hence train too hard. This is a way of thinking that is extremely difficult to get past.

Training intuitively makes so much sense though, allowing your body to work for you through progressive fitness gains, not forcing anything. My question is regarding 800m training and how the increasing mileage and intensity approach can benefit 800m racing. At times in the past when I have run higher mileage, it has done wonders for my fitness… however my speed inevitably seems to suffer. I’m wondering if the solution would be in following a Lydiard type of approach as with Peter Snell, following up a base building period of progressive mileage and tempo running with hill circuits, time trials, and the other phases of his periodized training approach to reep the maximum benefits for an 800m runner.

Any insights on this would be gratefully appreciated, and thanks again for everything you’ve contributed.

Cheers,

Half Miler

Tom,

Are you still doing many, or any doubles?

Rich