Less stress. Faster pace. 10k in the am, 10k in the pm.
What say you lrc experts? Do we go metric?
Less stress. Faster pace. 10k in the am, 10k in the pm.
What say you lrc experts? Do we go metric?
If you do your training smart and sytematically 100km per week beats 100 mpw in effectivness.
km guy says: I run 5 min pace on my easy days
mpw guy says: I run 5 min pace on my easy days
km guy stays rested, recovered.
mpw guy is overtrained, burnt out.
160km is better
100k's is definitely easier, you can mix up the paces more often, 15k's a day - piece of piss. But as an older dude, going 160k's means doubles and a real commitment to hitting that number. I find unless if stacked a bunch of K's early in the week the back end becomes a mental battle. I like a middle ground, 130-140.
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
If you do your training smart and sytematically 100km per week beats 100 mpw in effectivness.
lol wut
Different things work for different people. Some will be able to maintain their training more consistently (fewer injury/illness breaks) if they stay around 100km/week. Others, possibly a significant minority, thrive on 100mi/week.
birdbeard wrote:
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
If you do your training smart and sytematically 100km per week beats 100 mpw in effectivness.
lol wut
Right?
100km/wk of structured, consistent training is better than 100mi/wk of erratic, “freeballed” inconsistent training.
All things constant greater volume of smart training is always better. But fatigue, injury proneness, responsibilities, etc. can are usually prohibitive of such training. I can’t imagine sub-elite and better athletes are putting in 100mpw in singles, for example. That likely means 3+days of doubles at least if one is putting in quality sessions and recovering properly.
Lots of people in one of our clubs do 80mpw in singles. But it’s pretty much all “trash” mileage from a competitive perspective, relatively speaking. They do trail races at like 9:00 pace. Zero speed work. No appreciable threshold work. Just volume.
No, 100km per week is for people who are “injury prone” and “do better” off lower mileage. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people are not talented enough to reach their potential off low mileage. If you want to get faster, run more.
It probably is better if you have a full time job, maybe a family, etc. Training load factors in to other stressors in your life. Like the other poster said, consistency is the key and the key to consistency is a reasonable volume that fits in with the rest of your life, not striving for some magic training number. I'd say for most non-full time runners, that volume is less than 100 per week.
birdbeard wrote:
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
If you do your training smart and sytematically 100km per week beats 100 mpw in effectivness.
lol wut
That guy's marathoners fall apart after 30k. Don't listen to him.
is km superior wrote:
10k in the am, 10k in the pm.
?? So you're training 5 days a week ?
UnREAL wrote:
is km superior wrote:
10k in the am, 10k in the pm.
?? So you're training 5 days a week ?
And why would you double and do two 6 mile runs instead of a single 12 mile run? I don't know how anyone would end up a better runner doing this plan than any sort of unstructured 100 mile week instead.
Yes! You can gain a lot from 5–6 workouts including 1 longer run, 15–20 x 400 m intervals, and a cruise 8 x 1000 m workout each week.
-- Less is more club, magic autumn approaching --
STRONK wrote:
Yes! You can gain a lot from 5–6 workouts including 1 longer run, 15–20 x 400 m intervals, and a cruise 8 x 1000 m workout each week.
-- Less is more club, magic autumn approaching --
Hi JS!
is km superior wrote:
Less stress. Faster pace. 10k in the am, 10k in the pm.
What say you lrc experts? Do we go metric?
The benefits of more mileage isn't debatable. It's whether or not you can handle that mileage while still hitting your workout times. There is a balance.
r6ue wrote:
STRONK wrote:
Yes! You can gain a lot from 5–6 workouts including 1 longer run, 15–20 x 400 m intervals, and a cruise 8 x 1000 m workout each week.
-- Less is more club, magic autumn approaching --
Hi JS!
Not JS, just a fan of low-mileage training.
This relationship holds true for other distances
STRONK wrote:
r6ue wrote:
Hi JS!
Not JS, just a fan of low-mileage training.
What success have you had in the marathon off low mileage?
Nevermind, I saw you ran 55 in the 400m and 4:09 in the 1500m but have never broken 16:00 in the 5k.
With that endurance drop off, I’m not suprised you run low volume 😂