Looking to shake things up and curious if anyone has experience with the 3 up 1 down approach and if they think it’s more beneficial than doing just consistent mileage. Thanks!
Looking to shake things up and curious if anyone has experience with the 3 up 1 down approach and if they think it’s more beneficial than doing just consistent mileage. Thanks!
mileage question wrote:
Looking to shake things up and curious if anyone has experience with the 3 up 1 down approach and if they think it’s more beneficial than doing just consistent mileage. Thanks!
I like the 110/110/110/70 idea better.
Yes. 3 up 1 down. Supercompensation. You need to rest and rebuild from stimulus.
mileage question wrote:
Looking to shake things up and curious if anyone has experience with the 3 up 1 down approach and if they think it’s more beneficial than doing just consistent mileage. Thanks!
Most distance runners who are/were any good seem to use cutback weeks.
I've been doing something like this for more than a year and have yet to need any kind of break and feel like I have consistently built fitness without any injuries.
My regular schedule is 50, 60, 65, 70. Rinse and repeat.
Leading up to Boston I did a few cycles of 55, 65, 70, 75 and then did a short set of specific training at 6 weeks 80+.
I'd highly recommend this kind of cycling. Injury free and keeps me fresh mentally. I know I get a "break" every 4th week and only have to "grind" for a couple of weeks.
I agree that 3 up 1 down is better than the same mileage every week. An exception would be if the mileage was the same every week, but 3 of the weeks had high intensity with speed work and the 1, was a rest from, or significant decrease in, the speed work. Either way, it's still one rest week and 3 up in intensity.