Question for Coaches: How do you adjust volume/number of reps for artificially lower mileage athletes?

Zante wrote:

Do you assign the same volume/# of reps as everyone else, or do you reduce by that 15% difference, even if it's by one or two reps? Is a 10 MPW difference not enough to warrant that? Just let the day to day mileage take care of that?

Fixed

Depends on the workout. I usually have a minimum target for benefits and then I scale up as I see fit. Min for vVO2max is 3200m, min for tempo/threshold (85-88% vVO2max) is about 20min.

I think mottram used to do only 3mi of vVO2max/5kpace work when most elites might do 4mi. It usually takes less than the athlete thinks to elicit an adaptation response and the hardest part is getting them to realize this and not get overanxious about doing too little. Better to do less than what you can "handle" and get not get injured than to push the limits and have to take 1-2 months off every time an injury rolls around (and then takes longer to heal because you just had to cross train so you don't lose fitness).

Anyways, there's no magical % or #. Figure out what you think the absolute minimum you need for adaptation is and watch how you respond

What is your event? I look a minimums and maximums for different events but also account for mileage. You might have a low mileage guy or girl as well who may cross train for double days or have cross training days all together to keep that mileage low.

i might not do anything different. going by 20%, the 55 guy is at 11 intense miles per week, and the 65 guy is at 13.

bump the 55 guy to 13, and you are still under 25%, which I think is probably reasonable. of course, every athlete is different, and adjustments would be made accordingly.

for instance, last year, I had 2 kids who ran similar mileage, but one kid was an 800 to 5k guy while the other guy was more of a pure 800 guy. The true distance guy could handle more interval work. I might have one guy doing 5x1200 vs 5x1000 for the other guy.

if you or they are not handling what you think they should be able to handle (not hitting target times on reps) than you probably need to come down. if everything looks great, feels great, roll with it.

Lower mileage guys should do less volume yes. The differences come if you have a “fast twitch“ guy or a “slow twitch” guy. If you’re running 5k and most of the team is 5k-10k guys, and you have a couple 1500 guys that can handle a good 5k but not a 10k then the workout should be the same, if you’re just doing lower mileage because you can’t handle higher mileage than drop the volume on the workouts

i am referring to cross country training, which is why I had two athletes with very different event pedigrees still running somewhat similar volume.

There isn't a blanket answer that would be 100% correct, but generally you try to keep an eye on those on the team you think couldn't handle a longer workout and pull them when they've had enough. Don't just assume a kid can't finish a workout just because they're running 15 miles less a week. Most collegiate teams have athletes all over the place with miles and they are able to handle different levels of training.

And just because somebody can handle running 65 miles a week doesn't mean they're stronger than the 50 mile a week kid. Yes, that's how it should be in a vacuum, but everybody begins from a different starting point.

For a lower mileage guy, I'd say try to get them through the entire workout, and just make sure they are doing enough on easy days to recover well. For those lower mileage guys, the workouts are that much more important. Obviously, if you are doing some 8-10 mile tempo with the athlete they might be better-suited to go shorter, but for intervals and stuff with enough rest, let the kid get after it and watch for the right time to pull them.

Since you're referring to yourself, I'll just say try to get the workout in, and communicate well with the coach so that you are on the same page when enough gets to enough. Listen to your body, and take your easy days EASY enough to recover. Also, EASY doesn't mean less, but that might play a factor in it for you. Only you know how your body feels and only you can regulate how you survive through training.

citius5000 wrote:

What is your event? I look a minimums and maximums for different events but also account for mileage. You might have a low mileage guy or girl as well who may cross train for double days or have cross training days all together to keep that mileage low.

Primarily 1500, but I'm looking to race a track 5K in late May/early June if the circumstances allow.

I'm honored.

I was a lower mileage runner due to injuries, but I responded to high mileage very well from a fitness standpoint. Higher mileage just meant I was on borrowed time before the next injury would roll around.

Making no other assumptions than what's been said so far, I wouldn't make adjustments to workout volume for someone running 55 miles a week versus someone running 65. The difference isn't enough to warrant much change unless there was also a discrepancy in fitness.

Keep in mind, if you're intentionally scaling back mileage you're also removing a stimulus that should be helping drive fitness. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to add something else to make up for it, but most athletes aren't okay with accepting that they are limiting their potential. There are usually easier places to reduce mileage. The first thing to remove should usually be doubles; they essentially cut your recovery time in half and aren't needed when aiming for lower mileage. Reducing /removing the least essential run. For us, this might be a run the day after a workout. 8 miles the day after a workout isn't there to make us substantially more fit, it's there to maintain and recover and with just a small amount with the idea that enough of those runs over time might contribute to general fitness. Last to cut clean are probably cool-downs or potentially warm-ups. The reality is that a cool-down could be done on a bike, elliptical, while swimming, or even walking just as reasonably to accomplish the same goal (provided you aren't using it for weekly volume like we do).

Just about any program can strip out 10 miles by tackling one or more of those things.

You'll also hear some people saying, "you can do any volume as long as you run it slow enough." Not to piss of an entire peoples, but I hear that alongside a lot of Tinman fans and I can't say I agree with it. There's absolutely some truth to it, running fast requires more force to be put into the ground. Hit the ground hard and the ground hits back hard, but repeated stress is still rough on the body even at slow speeds.

Getting back to workouts. This is the area I would try to retain as much as possible alongside maybe a long run. These days are the biggest bang for your buck and can easily be achieved without the accompanying higher mileage as long as you're smart about the progression; especially if you have been able to handle those workouts before.

Mileage can take a pretty serious hit after you've gotten in shape. When you've hit the point where you can tempo well and handle long runs feeling strong you can back off of mileage a ton before you notice fitness deteriorating provided you have the right workouts and frequency going on. I would want to see a steady diet of tempo running to keep some of the higher quality endurance always at hand.

Just take an iron supplement and you'll be fine

A good question that you pose. I work with a variety of athletes and when they show up for sessions the volume of intensity has to be adjusted. This varies on the athlete and but also on watching the athlete during the session. I often pull an athlete out and say that is enough for today.

55 to 65 there is no real difference so I wouldn't worry. The art and science of coaching is something that takes a while but every session should be modified to the goals and the training of that athletes that show up.

Best of luck with your 1500m!

Thanks for the responses guys. There's a reason I directed it to the coaches, because I know there's lots of quality information floating out there amongst the trolls and such. Seems like I should retain volume and number of reps in workouts, or let my body tell me if I need to do less.

Since V brought up the issue of losing a driving factor of fitness, I'm wondering if maybe I should be rethinking the kind of work I do at this volume? I picked 55 because I've never had a problem maintaining consistency and volume with workouts at this level, but have stumbled into issues moving up even if I raced well there. Most of my training has been geared toward a 1500-5K type split, with the summer and fall months training mostly like a 5K guy and then throwing it into full-tilt 1500 work in late spring. I am considering though, if the volume is lower should I be trying to put the 15% "lost" stimulus into something else like 800-1500 training? I've considered this in the past because I've always wanted my 5K to be great, but it sucks, and I've run quick 2's, 3's and 4's in workouts, but never focused on 800 work. Could there be an opportunity in the lower volume, or is it just pushing unnecessary stress around?

I don't think you know what works for you yet. I mean that constructively. You're thinking about changing a lot of variables but haven't spent the time with the original one yet.

If 55 miles a week is what you feel will keep you healthy, make that change first. Stick with that being the wrinkle in the fabric until you've spent enough time there to know how your body is reacting. Unfortunately, volume errors are one of those things that can take a long time to figure out if it's successful or not. Fortunately, you seem to already have some idea that 65 is too much and that 55 has worked in the past.

After you've been at 55mpw with workouts relatively the same, you can make better decisions on the next step. Even answering the question, "how can I make one part of my training better?" is enough for most people to make a positive change in their training. Some people operate just fine at lower mileage despite it being "a step back."

As far as the 800m vs 5k stuff goes, that will take someone closer to you to decide. I've had a lot of coaches smarter than me advocate for "Aim to make them the best runner they can be, figure out the event they run later." It's a very counterintuitive approach from what we normally think of when we first decide on an event and then fit the athlete into a neat little box that specific race. Ultimately, each runner is going to respond to certain things really well. You do enough of those things and you'll let that individual reach their highest potential. From there it's just selecting the race that they've developed into.

I have a girl that can run an awesome 1500m, but with 1500m training she doesn't improve at all. But when we do a lot of more traditional 5k/10k work she runs insanely well in all 3 events. Don't get me wrong, she'll never be the best miler in the world, but I'd be willing to bet I could make her a better 1500m runner with 10k training than someone else could make her with their best 1500m training.

A bit of a tangent, but I hope that helps.

For me there is no exact answer here. So much depends on the athlete.

If I feel the athlete based on past experience is fit enough and can handle the same volume in a workout and be able to train well over the couple of days and benefit from the adaptation of doing the extra reps then yes. You can tell when your athletes are digging a hole they can’t get out of in training. You want to stay on the other side of that.

Also, there are many other factors. For example, if you specifically came to me and told me you have been eating garbage and getting 5 hours of sleep per night I probably would not have you do the workout at all regardless of your fitness level. So, it’s really individualized.

I coach a *very* elite high school girl who runs 5 days a week, about 35 miles a week. She is not injury prone, but runs so dang fast every day (but within a very appropriate heart range/perceived effort) ! She does a 70 minute long run with a progression in it or some fartlek (which is usually about 11.5-12 miles) and some sort of stamina work one day a week (CV, threshold, sustained tempo run) unless she has a race, in which case we make race day a workout day with sufficient mileage. It would be tempting to let her run more, but she runs her 'easy' days at about 6 minute pace so a 35 minute run is still almost 6 miles. Instead of running more mileage, she swims about an hour one day a week and does a spin class one day a week, on the days after her long run and her stamina workout, or after a race. I think keeping the important days solid (long run, stamina work) and the recovery days shorter or cross training is a pretty successful system if you need to reduce mileage for any reason. I use it with other kids who are injury prone on my team as well, and they continue to progress despite the lower weekly mileage. Had a kid a few years ago coming back from a metatarsal stress fracture run sub 9 (a big PR) for 3200 after several weeks of mixing pool workouts, ElliptiGo and very reduced mileage. He would ElliptiGo his track workout warm ups, do the workout, and ElliptiGo his cooldowns. He ElliptiGo'd his long run. I have to say I was a little shocked at how well he did.

Ok, I see your point, and yeah, I guess since the injury I've been paranoid about "getting back" when really all I wanna do is run consistently, lol. I'll heed the general tone of advice from here so far -- try to maintain solid workouts and keep an eye on how I respond. And I think I'll stick to what's been working and evaluate from there.

HSCoach, that's an interesting point you bring up about crosstraining and I've maintained some volume on my road bike that I've been doing over the summer to stay active. It'll probably go away once I'm running daily, but I can attest to the benefit.

I'm also curious, have you ever considered lowering her daily run intensity to get more volume in? It sounds like it's working, (35 MPW is still decent for a HS girl) and I think many high schoolers are better off getting a mix of physical activity in rather than specializing, but I'm curious if you ever made that suggestion and how it went over.

Oh, believe me, I have tried to get her to slow down. I've told her, "You can run 35 minutes or 5 miles...whichever comes first." She loves to run, so I thought maybe being able to do it a little longer each day would work, but alas, it did not. Have gone over HOW to run slowly and feel comfortable doing it. Have told her to watch video of elite Africans jogging, have told her how slowly other elites run on easy days, etc. Nothing works. I coach her remotely and have only gotten to work with her in person a couple of times which makes it harder to work on these things. It feels uncomfortable and 'weird' for her to run more slowly. Sometimes she will go about 6:30 pace but that's about as slow as she ever goes. Even on warm up jogs, she 'pops' right into that quick pace. I guess we will stick with what we are doing since she continues to improve and she is happy with what she is doing.

She is quite unique as an athlete- I've had some very good runners over the last several years, mostly boys, and none of my boys have ever regularly run that fast on their distance runs. Even the small number of sub 15 minute boys I had ran about 7 minute pace on easy days, occasionally significantly slower. I have another girl this year who is about 50 seconds to a minute slower than this first girl (second girl is a mid 17:xx girl) and she runs her easy days around 8 minute pace or a little bit quicker, which seems a lot more typical to me. I will mention that girl number 1 has a very low resting heart rate (in the 30s) and I wish we had a true max HR on her. Possibly will get some testing done on her this year to explore some of this.