Are workouts worth it if you run under 60 miles per week

Parsec

ob·tuse

adjective

1.annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

This is you, deliberately obtuse.

SummerSlogger wrote:

Parsec

ob·tuse

adjective

1.annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

This is you, deliberately obtuse.

SummerSlogger wrote:

Parsec

ob·tuse

adjective

1.annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

This is you, deliberately obtuse.

He has just shared some of the best information I've seen on the boards in some time. He strikes me as incredibly sharp and perceptive, feels like we must live in different universes,

LM wrote:

[quote]SummerSlogger wrote:

Parsec

ob·tuse

adjective

1.annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

This is you, deliberately obtuse.

SummerSlogger wrote:

He has just shared some of the best information I've seen on the boards in some time. He strikes me as incredibly sharp and perceptive, feels like we must live in different universes,

+1

Allen1959 wrote:

Very good and thoughtful responses here.

I'll add that a lot of runners compete at multiple distances. Maybe adding mileage instead of taking time for 800m repeats would be better for a 40 mpw marathoner, but including workouts makes sense for a recreational competitor like me who races distances from the mile to the marathon.

I'll also add that living a balanced life, with many hobbies and interests besides running, 40-50 mpw (with long runs AND workouts) was doable and enjoyable. "Good enough" for 16-flat 5K, 2:40 marathon in my 20s; 5:38 mile, 3:07 marathon at 58 ... hardly stellar, but fun and competitive at the local level.

I am seeing this now. I am at 55 mpw and handling it without any issues but I also have a busy life and am planning for a wedding next summer, while writing a novel and trying to get a better paying-job (I WFH so I have more time to job-hunt online).

This is the most I've run in my entire life (918 miles since 2/6) and there are days where I'm tired and not motivated but I just have to stay strong mentally. July will go by and August will too. Even in HS I'd only run about 400 miles my junior and senior years and freshman and sophomore years I didn't do more than 200 each summer.

I am doing this.

55 MPW

6-7 days (Friday off sometimes, to be safe; otherwise, the Friday run is 4 miles EZ)

1 workout (tempo and/or intervals, say 5-6x1600m at either tempo pace, race pace, or other different speeds)

1 long run (either steady-state or EZ + Fast Finish X amount of miles at the end)

The rest are EZ, comfortable running, but faster than recovery pace. But not too fast where I'm in the gray zone of not being fast enough for speedwork but not getting the benefits of EZ running either.

any coach's here? wrote:

What's the best way to structure a week for the marathon then? Let's say you're doing 1 tempo and 1 LR as Two Fiddy recommends (hypothetical 55mi week) - does the below seem reasonable to balance volume/quality?

M - 6 easy

T - 6 easy

W- 10 tempo

Th - 6 easy

F - 6 easy

Sat - 15 long run

Sun - 6 easy

MIT (Marathoner in Training) program is very similar. The 6-15-6 you show is similar to what they have us do to get a Hansons-like effect on running on tired legs.

I've often done this:

Monday-7 EZ

Tuesday-8 EZ

Wednesday-8 workout/tempo/hills/whatever

Thursday-7 EZ

Friday-4 EZ or OFF

Saturday-12-20 long run (sometimes with FF)

Sunday-6 EZ (but still faster than recovery; as you get faster you recover better from your long run)

jecht, I just read through this entire thread as I missed it before. You've also pulled some other interesting ones out of nowhere. How and why are you doing this, though?

You seem to have a good thing going with your running. Just keep going. Be patient. Trust the process. There are no short cuts. I think you know all this.

I'm just researching various running topics using LRC search, and I know it is bumping them up but just looking at specific questions and getting good feedback is all through them.

I am trusting my training but I also like seeing what others are doing. beltswithbelts? LOL interesting name.