Importance of down/easy/low weeks

i would take every third week easy. Like 90-90-90-60(or something like that)

oops, make that every 4th week.

Question for SoupNazi: How does your piece of paper know in advance which week to take it easy?

SoupNazi wrote:

i would take every third week easy. Like 90-90-90-60(or something like that)

I do something similar but I do build-build-build-rest.

Example of a very conservative 3 month build cycle where the first 2 weeks are fairly generic, the third is hard enough that I'm feeling pretty beat, and the fourth week is a recovery week where I recharge physically and mentally. I'm no elite but this keeps me injury free and mentally fresh.

50-55-60-50

60-65-70-60

70-75-80-70

Malmo: what I said was just an example,not some strict schedule you have to stick by. Why don't you tell us how you would approach it?

Malmo just wants you to remember he's better than you.

malmo "has been" better than you are now.

I usually know when to take a day off. It usually happens that my legs start feeling a little too tired after a hard run so I'll substitute a recovery run instead of the next medium long run. If my legs don't come back after that day then the next one is a total day off. By that point, the weeks milage has dropped ~20% and its officially a recovery week. I would recommend against scheduling a recovery week and just take them when they happen (due to work, racing, family obligations, etc.).

Helcul

i think malmo has a definite point. look at the way shorter trained - no easy weeks, at least none planned on paper. even the other end of the spectrum, martin and coe, dont seem to advocate such a practice.

SoupNazi wrote:

Malmo: what I said was just an example,not some strict schedule you have to stick by. Why don't you tell us how you would approach it?

If your goal is to run 100mpw (or any other number) just get out there and do it. Quit playing games. Quit trying to fool yourself. If you're currently running 70 mpw you can surely jump to 100 with ease, in spite of what the mother hens are telling you. The human body has an amazing capacity to adapt. There is no injury troll out there waiting for you with a dy/dx injury stick.

The trouble with these contrived numerology schedules is that they are not based on experience - just someone with a pen and a paper.

The question I have with these prescribe numbers games is: do you still cut back when you're feeling great just because the paper says so? Do you keep plugging along when you feel like crap when you should cut back?

The only X-Y-Z mileage cycle that I ever seen that made any sense was Garry Bjorkland's 100-130-160 cycle. That should be self-evidant.

Nope, I'm telling you that you can better better than you are now. Much better, in fact, if you'd pull your head out of your ass.

No soup for you!

I think that's the problem Malmo. Most runners either have lost or never had that ability to feel if things are clicking or if things aren't. It's a problem with too much information. There's too much training information out there so runners have lost the ability to think. Runners will just do the workout or do the miles regardless of how they feel because it's on a piece of paper with the initials J.D. at the bottom.

Alan

Good stuff, pretty much what I expected to hear. I only take issue to Malmo's suggestion to jump from 70 to 100, which I have experience doing. It seems illogical when I ll be at 100 in a few weeks anyways. I get your point, but a 75 mile week can be just as hard as a 100 with a little nut busting intensity, not to mention high mileage isn't always the end all solution to distance running. Have fun with that. I'd also argue that runners have to think more, not less, with traing information more readily available. The more variety in training the more choices that must be made.

I totally agree with running how one feels and resting when you feel the need too. My only question is that is it better to increase at a gradual level, other than jumping in with both feet? In going from 70 straight to 100 mpw chances are that you would have to take an easier week then after it, because your body would "tell" you too. That way in the long run your average milage per week is lower than if you would gradually increase, say 70,80,90,100. I would think that with gradually increasing one could stay at higher mileage longer, thus keeping what I have always thought to be the most imortant factor, consistancy.

As to the wealth of knowledge available on these forums and other places about training philosphies, there is most certainly downsides to this. Everyone knows a runner who has had several different training approaches in short times, sticking with one until the next one comes along. This inconsistancy will not produce very good results.

I'd be willing to bet I have a lot more experience jumping up mileage than you do? Just a hunch. I'd also be willing to be that I know of hundreds more who have done the same thing with no problems. Ten percent rules were invented by people who have never run before. You'll be fine. I'll guarantee it.

You just keep your "deep thoughts" about that training information. For the rest, action is what matters.

Good question JT. The thing is, increasing from 70 to 100 IS gradual.

You're right about the dynamics of internet forums. Many here are victums of the programme du jour, the same way many housewives subscribe to the diet-of-the-month club. The only process that works for ALL runners is this: 1) master the basics, 2) find out what works for the biggest sample of the population and imitate. After that 3) find out for yourself what is best for you.

Too many athletes are willing to subscribe to every new "system" that comes along. Do you ever hear of anyone saying they are on the Jumbo Elliot programme? Arguably the best coach in NCAA history. Why not? It because Jumbo's system of 6 x 400 and/or 10 x 400 week after endless week doesn't fit into modern, "enlightened" training "systems". Under Jumbo's system runners not only ran faster, the ran fast when it counted. That, my friend, is the test of coaching.

Malmo,

You are wrong again. Easy/off weeks are crucial to reaching your ultimate potential. In fact, I not only recommend taking all of your weeks easy, but every individual running session easy as well. Taking a walk break for a set amount of time every mile or two (you can read more about this in my bestselling book) is a great way to achieve this!

My methods have been proven to work by thousands of elites (often breaking 3:30 and EVEN 3:00 for the full 26.2m marathon). So, while people like you are physically run down from all that training, have challenges in your interpersonal relationships, and are gasping and getting sick at the end of a marathon,the runners who subscribe to my program will be flying by and will have enjoyed the process.

Please visit my website at

www.JeffGalloway.com

.

Yours in running,

Jeff

Yeah, I've nicknamed it the training "stew", throw in everything and boil. Two weeks HADD, two weeks JK, Two weeks Lydiard, two weeks Coe, etc.....

I was helping out a high school runner this past Spring and rule #1 was: no internet running forums.

No disrespect to any coaches who post training advise on these boards because they are interesting reads, but it would take a lot more than an internet forum posting to have me drop everything and adopt a system.

It's amazing, the first advice I ever recieved about running was from my Father, and it was simply, "run how you feel, listen to your body". Pretty good advice from a 40 min. 10k runner.

I'm mistaken. How could I be so wrong? Oh, the humanity and all...